FWIS3

Perhaps this scholar was foolish to go on this network, but who would have expected such an insane interview?

Really horrible.

Wow.
This commenter sums up things nicely:
"You know, when I wrote my book about the making of "Godspell" as a film, all of a sudden I was getting contacted by people right and left in the media. Not FOX, thank God, but a lot of people. Who were suddenly asking me things like, "Where do you, as a Jewish gay person, come off writing about our Lord when He completely condemned your lifestyle in the Bible?" I simply replied, "First of all, no, He didn't. Second of all, He was Jewish. Third of all, it's not a lifestyle, because that means it's a choice, and it is NOT a choice. We're born this way. Finally, I wrote it from a perspective of film history, which is my chosen field. I never once mentioned your Lord, unless your Lord is Victor Garber. Who is also Jewish. And gay, as it happens. Next question?""

Actually this was a brilliant move by the guy, as it sounds like his book sales have skyrocketed since this clip went viral.

Frankly I think he sounds like a great balanced guy and I'm curious about reading this book myself now.

The man IS brilliant, the interview made Fox look exactly like what they are and it increased the sales of his book. Can't get any better than that.

80% of FOX viewers feel he didn't answer the simple direct question and instead bucked and weaved rather than say why a Muslim would write a book.
90% of FOX viewers wondered how a race that can't write American can possibly write a book.

I saw him on the Daily Show (it was before I heard about the Fox interview) and though it is not a topic I'm particularly interested in, it sounded like a pretty good book.

I would have kind of thought that the controversy for religious conservatives isn't the author's religion, but what I understand is the author's point: that Jesus was really a political revolutionary (and a threat to the Roman government) as much as anything else.

Swift wrote:I would have kind of thought that the controversy for religious conservatives isn't the author's religion, but what I understand is the author's point: that Jesus was really a political revolutionary (and a threat to the Roman government) as much as anything else.

IIRC Catholics don't seem to have any issues with the Romans considering Jesus a political threat.

Sigma_Orionis wrote:

Swift wrote:I would have kind of thought that the controversy for religious conservatives isn't the author's religion, but what I understand is the author's point: that Jesus was really a political revolutionary (and a threat to the Roman government) as much as anything else.

IIRC Catholics don't seem to have any issues with the Romans considering Jesus a political threat.

I don't get why anyone has an issue w that. Do they think that he was killed cause they didn't like the look of his face or something?

To be fair the Romans were onto something when you think of later Christian persecutions.