THE most trusted news source IN america part TWO - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-05-2013, 04:38 PM   #76
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 03:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
I'm afraid a thread on the supernatural might make my head implode
Hahaha. I think Interference might explode.
__________________

__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2013, 04:41 PM   #77
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 10:15 AM
If you guys want to start one, it might be fun to tackle
__________________

__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2013, 12:11 AM   #78
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Winterfell
Posts: 3,825
Local Time: 11:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
But all of this is sort of irrelevant to my point. I'm not denying the existence of Jesus. I'm saying you need more than one source - a source with more than a sprinkling of the supernatural, no less - to build an actual picture of an actual person
Only non-believers need a source. Besides, what he said is more important then who he might have been.
__________________
Steved1998 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2013, 12:49 AM   #79
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 10:15 AM
I'm not sure what "only non-believers need a source" means. And the whole point of the discussion was about Historical Jesus, so who he might've been is exactly what we're talking about
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2013, 01:03 AM   #80
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Winterfell
Posts: 3,825
Local Time: 11:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
I'm not sure what "only non-believers need a source" means. And the whole point of the discussion was about Historical Jesus, so who he might've been is exactly what we're talking about
Only non-believers need a source as to his existence. There's nothing wrong with that.

He lived too long ago.. You'll never get an accurate picture of who he might have been or what he looked like. All descriptions of him were written after the fact so they'll be through someone else's eyes x2. Unfortunately there are no first hand accounts. Even the gospels were written down long after he was gone.. The closest you'll get is to the gospel of Thomas
__________________
Steved1998 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2013, 01:14 AM   #81
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 10:15 AM
Oh, ok. I getcha
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2013, 10:44 AM   #82
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 03:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steved1998 View Post
The closest you'll get is to the gospel of Thomas
Thomas is a problematic work at best -- its Gnosticism, while less developed than the other Gnostic fragments it was discovered amongst, is still very present. Aspects of it augment certain canonical statements -- which again implies an earlier work that set down Jesus' sayings -- but its legitimacy in terms of its theology as well as being a true source of Jesus' sayings has always been questioned, and it was clearly rejected by the church leaders of its day. Mark has always been dated much earlier.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2013, 03:14 PM   #83
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
iron yuppie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,438
Local Time: 09:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Scholars traditionally tend to date Mark as the earliest of the written gospels, somewhere in the 50s -- twenty years after Jesus' death. However, the strong similarities in content as well as consistencies between Mark, Luke, and Matthew (together referred to as the Synoptic Gospels) indicate a couple of things:

A) that the oral tradition was indeed alive and well;

B) that the three gospels used other material that predated them in terms of content. (Some scholars refer to this source as "Q.") Which means that the basic facts of Jesus' life were actually set down much earlier than the 50s -- perhaps almost concurrently with his life, if not within 5-10 years. Given that the first Council of Jerusalem took place in 49 -- where the Jewish and non-Jewish followers of Jesus first gathered to formally discuss their theology -- it's entirely likely that they used these written texts to form their theology. So the process of back-dating the Gospels actually underlines their accuracy.
I think that is a bit of an early date for Mark - most everything I have seen places it in the late 60s, with Matthew and Luke following in the 70s and 80s. Q as well is typically understood as a compendium of sayings rather than a biography type of document, and I think that interpretation is supported by the "evolution" if you will of the details of Jesus's life as the canonical gospels appear.

The prime example here is the lack of the infancy narrative in Mark. Surely the author of Mark would have included such an important part of Christian theology were the story available to him; most likely it developed some years after the text had been written and therefore appears in later gospels like Matthew and Luke. Meanwhile, the basic quotes like the parable of the mustard seed and "render to Caesar" appear almost verbatim across the gospels (and Thomas as well). Such sayings were probably the content of Q.

So in that sense I think Jive's point about the gospel authors constructing a biography for Jesus according to their own needs is basically correct. And that's not an indictment of the authors, as such a tactic was exceedingly common in ancient history and biography writing. Ancient authors are particularly fond of putting long speeches in the mouths of their heroes that likely were never actually delivered.
__________________
iron yuppie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2013, 07:35 AM   #84
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
I'm afraid a thread on the supernatural might make my head implode
Could be interesting though. Then again, I'm not sure what could come out of it, as the whole thing with the supernatural is that it is not or can not be proven. That's why it's supernatural I guess. Sure some 'magical' or 'mysterious' things have happened over the years, yet most can be explained by science now. And some can't, that's fine too. But we don't know if that is because they truly cannot be explained, or if we are too limited in our views and beliefs and science to understand these things at the moment.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraceRyan View Post
And if U2 EVER did Hawkmoon live....and the version from the Lovetown Tour, my uterus would leave my body and fling itself at Bono - for realz.
Don't worry baby, it's gonna be all right. Uncertainty can be a guiding light...
Galeongirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2013, 12:11 PM   #85
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 11:15 AM
FOX's archnemesis is about to be launched:

Quote:
The combination of Al Jazeera and America doesn't exactly sound like a match made in Heaven, or Jannah for that matter.
But that's not stopping the deep-pocketed media giant, funded by the government of Qatar, from spending hundreds of millions of dollars to once again try to build a presence in the United States.
On Tuesday, Al Jazeera launches Al Jazeera America, an ambitious news network that hopes to challenge CNN, Fox News and MSNBC on their own turf. It has opened 12 bureaus around the country and is hiring almost 1,000 people, including several big-name journalists, with promises of covering serious national news here and a goal of becoming part of the American landscape.
One thing that many of my journalism friends and I respect about Al Jazeera is that it does actual news reporting. You won't see fluff, celebrity gossip or cute puppy videos here.

Quote:
"A lot of the audience wants in-depth journalism," he said, adding that because its owner isn't concerned primarily with profits and losses, Al Jazeera America won't feel pressure to go after sensationalistic stories in the hopes of driving ratings. The channel will even carry 50% fewer commercials than other news channels.
That's music to the ears of the journalists Al Jazeera America has recruited.
"Our mandate is to look at untold stories and look deeper and in a more thoughtful way," said Chen, who will anchor "America Tonight," Al Jazeera America's flagship evening news magazine, which will feature stories as long as 12 minutes. "It's reporting that a lot of networks would like to do."
Former Al Jazeera English and ABC "Nightline" reporter Dave Marash thinks CNN and the other channels have dropped the ball on hard news, which could leave an opening for Al Jazeera America to woo some viewers, although it won't be easy.
"What they've got going for them is that for their kind of news, which I would call real news, there is virtually no competition," he said.
Al Jazeera America faces more than the usual new-kid challenges - latimes.com

That last part is very true, and it is ironic that the station that openly supported Bin Laden is filling the much needed niche for in-depth news for American TV. I doubt Al Jazeera will last long because it has such a poor reputation here, and some Americans don't have the minds for hard news or shows that don't have panelists discussing news events. The last part is sad, but the former is very true too.

We shall sit and watch, figuratively.
__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2013, 09:41 AM   #86
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 01:15 AM
Wait, what? They openly supported Bin Laden?
__________________
Kieran McConville is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2013, 11:01 AM   #87
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 11:15 AM
Well, al-Qaeda sent their videos with Bin Laden preaching terrorism and Al Jazeera aired them. They also casually aired videos of terrorists beheading Americans. So it really made it sound like they were the mouthpiece for Al Qaeda, just like FOX is the mouthpiece for the GOP. Granted, these days Al Jazeera gives a good angle on the problems in Egypt and Syria, and there aren't beheading videos being aired on that channel. But most Americans remember what that station aired even 10 years ago.

ETA: I'm researching more to back up my claims. While it is true that American cable stations did broadcast Bin Laden's videos, it is suspicious how Al Jazeera got those videos. Also many media analysts and former ABC News anchor Dave Marash, who was an anchor for Al Jazeera English for a short time, have said the station has an anti-Semitism slant.
__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2013, 02:00 AM   #88
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 01:15 AM
Ah, ok.
__________________
Kieran McConville is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2013, 11:59 AM   #89
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 11:15 AM
I hope this isn't true. If it is, it's pretty damn low of FOX:

Quote:
In a chapter focusing on how Fox utilized its notoriously ruthless public relations department in the mid-to-late 00's, Folkenflik reports that Fox's PR staffers would "post pro-Fox rants" in the comments sections of "negative and even neutral" blog posts written about the network. According to Folkenflik, the staffers used various tactics to cover their tracks, including setting up wireless broadband connections that "could not be traced back" to the network.
Fox News PR Used Fake Accounts To Push Back At Negative Commenters
__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2013, 12:13 PM   #90
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,673
Local Time: 09:15 AM
And the Pope is Catholic... say what?!

I don't think this really anything new. I'm sure most polarizing entities do this to an extent. But Fox was never really smart about it, it was pretty obvious they had their plants.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com