Yes slim that,s why I said Zizek,s Jesus.
God expresses his perplexity at his own creation
that,s why I said Zizek,s Jesus-------Ruby456
..........contemporary reinterpretation upon contemporary reinterpretation upon contemporary reinterpretation............ Jesus version 2017.1
some religious figures give and give and is prolly the reason they are inspiring for atheists too !!! or it may be that some problems recur more often than others. example fallout from wars then and now
I don't know. I think Jesus was just saying that being his follower was more important than anything else.
Exactly, more important than keeping your family safe, more important than raising children to live in the real world. They were under Roman occupation! Christians were ripped to pieces in the arena, burnt as human torches or crucified. How is that sane or aligning with objective reality? What was the point of that suffering?
what was the point of Socrates standing up for himself and dying as a result instead of fleeing with his family?
Zizek is saying that the subversion of family structure opens the way for egalitarian and non-hierarchical forms of relationship - SBF
I don't think Zizek said anything about a more egalitarian family structure - SBF
So he thinks that subverting the family structure is the road to a better world does he? Why do you think a person who thinks this way is worthy of attention?
The subversion of family structure is evil. It is a tool of every oppressive society that has ever existed including the Watchtower. If, as you assert, Zizek is saying that the subversion of the family is desirable then he is a dangerous fool.
I listened to the first video. It was agony.
He talks in more detail about the New Atheists in the full interview.
Maybe you think the two quotes from me are contradictory but I don't think so. Zizek seems to be saying that Jesus undermined the family to create a more egalitarian society, not that he made families more egalitarian.
Like I said above, undermining family can be a good or a bad thing, depending on context. And remembering that the idea of "family" is itself a fluid concept, meaning radically different things in 1) tribes 2) feudal societies 3) capitalist and 4) late capitalist societies, to name a few. There were ways in which capitalism undermined feudal conceptions of family which were both emancipatory and oppressive. Developments are rarely all good or bad. Hence the endless debates about the merits and demerits of the Thatcher revolution, or revolutionary Cuba, and so on.
So I don't subscribe to the idea that anything that undermines family is tyrannical. Sometimes that's true, of course. And sometimes family itself can be tyrannical. Reality is complicated and not easily, or wisely, reduced to fixed statements.
Zizek seems to be saying that Jesus undermined the family to create a more egalitarian society, not that he made families more egalitarian.
Yes I got that. I wasn't trying to highlight a contradiction. Jesus did advocate the subversion of family relationships. Not just dysfunctional ones or oppressive ones or abusive ones but all family relationships to be replaced with a pseudo-family under him.
This is a tool of all tyrants.
Jesus was a dangerous narcissist. Trying to spin his words into something less offensive is a dishonest venture.
Listening to Zizek was incredibly hard work - it wasn't worth effort.
If by egalitarian you are referring to the relationship between husband & wife where the husband treats the wife as his equal, I am for that.
But parents must have authority over their children so that relationship can't be egalitarian IMHO.
I find it very easy to listen to Zizek. He has ten interesting ideas a minute. His take on the book of Job has fascinated me for years. I like it. But he is no expert on the Bible or theology. Leolaia pointed out that he may have misunderstood Job, which is not his own reading, but based on Chesterton. Plus he apparently confuses Origen with Tertullian during the interview.