Brainwashing: Could you be a victim?

RED
"Accounts from people 400 years ago don't really impress me. I mean people, a long time ago, though there were four elements. Big deal. Welcome to the 21st century."

They were four hundred years closer to the supposed events than we are.

Author	Comment
Unfallen Angel Lance Corporal Posts: 68 (9/9/02 7:05 am) Reply	Re: brainwashing I'm sorry, I fail to see the point RFC.
NUHERE First Sergeant Posts: 307 (9/9/02 3:23 pm) Reply	brainwashing Red: "The problem with Christianity is that none of it is provable. You lack historical evidence, you ask that one believe in the supernatural, angels , devils, everlasting life, in both heaven and hell all of which has no basis for evidence."Nu "Correction, YOU think we lack evidence because you've been looking exclusively at atheist propoganda, and when Nukes owns you with the facts you deny their validity" Atheist sites don't use propaganda Christianity does.Where is the evidence to believe what you have been told? Ask the questions why you should believe what you have been told and with an open mind is it convincing? Would the evidence be admissible in court. All atheists sites point out is the reasons that their are no reasons to accept what you believe in. Atheism isn't a belief system it is a lack of a belief system. "It is not ridiculous to ask this question. Who told you that you needed to be saved and why and from what?"NU "ou know full well what the term "saved" means and how and why Christians use it. You said you've read the Bible several times, so if this is true I refuse to answer such a basic question that someone with your qualifications should easily know the answer to." You have to accept the bible as true in order for you to believe this. If the bible is not true you don't need to be saved and can't be saved from something that does not exist. There is plenty of evidence in the bible that it is unreliable based on contradictions, errors, failed prophecies etc. I hope I don't have to point these all out again. "You are comparing apples and oranges again and at the same time changing the subject. Evolution is coming to a consensus based on known real evidence."Nu "orrection, I'm comparing my faith to your faith, but the difference is you think that your faith has been proven, when this is simply not the case. Sorry, but someone has to tell you the evolution is still a theory, and there are many elements which prevent it from being accepted as fact.' I keep telling you I have no faith. You do. You can't show me why. You claim evolution is a theory. At what point will you accept it as fact? The evidence points to evolution as real. Biology points to it as real. Chemistry points to evolution as real. When will God appear to tell us it is wrong. When will God finally reveal himself. Until God does something consistant and reveals himself evolution will always be front and center.
NUHERE First Sergeant Posts: 308 (9/9/02 3:26 pm) Reply	brainwashing Rocker; Who's side do you want to be on? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - Ambroise Bierce "I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose." - Clarence Darrow "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." - Richard Dawkins "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." - William Kingdon Clifford -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Faith in what? Stories or Christ? Both --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RedClaw Posts: 1431 (9/9/02 8:10 pm) Reply	Re: Brainwashing: Could you be a victim? "Atheist sites don't use propaganda Christianity does." That's a load of horse crap and I hope you recognize this. Every site that takes a viewpoint is biased to their particular viewpoint. Just because they agree with you does not make them free of bias, I mean give me a break! "Where is the evidence to believe what you have been told? Ask the questions why you should believe what you have been told and with an open mind is it convincing?" Historical doccuments, which whether or not YOU agree with them is not my concern. Frankly I couldn't care less about what your stance on Christianity is. To answer the second part, yes. "All atheists sites point out is the reasons that their are no reasons to accept what you believe in. Atheism isn't a belief system it is a lack of a belief system." All Christian sites point out is reasons that there are no reason to believe what atheists tell me, what's your point. You're darn right a company is going to advertise that their product is the best out there. "There is plenty of evidence in the bible that it is unreliable based on contradictions, errors, failed prophecies etc. I hope I don't have to point these all out again." You don't, because the contradictions and errors that people have pointed out in the past were proven baseless by a simple analysis of history. As for failed prophecies, according to who's interpetation? Yours? "I keep telling you I have no faith. You do. You can't show me why. You claim evolution is a theory. At what point will you accept it as fact? The evidence points to evolution as real. Biology points to it as real. Chemistry points to evolution as real. When will God appear to tell us it is wrong. When will God finally reveal himself. Until God does something consistant and reveals himself evolution will always be front and center." Everyone has faith. I don't care what your stance on religion is, everyone has faith in some way shape or form. The evidence does NOT point to it as being real. I have plenty of evidence that would tell me otherwise. When will I accept it as fact? Who's to say I havn't? Most of evolution I admit I believe in, but I don't believe it to be possible without God. Besides, your opinion doesn't reflect the world's, you'll learn that someday. "I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose." - Clarence Darrow <sarcasm> Uh-oh....Clarence Darrow doesn't think God is real.....dang, I guess He isn't than </sarcasm> RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me
NUHERE Master Sergeant Posts: 388 (9/20/02 9:10 pm) Reply	Brainwashing Red Atheist sites don't use propaganda Christianity does."Nu "That's a load of horse crap and I hope you recognize this. Every site that takes a viewpoint is biased to their particular viewpoint. Just because they agree with you does not make them free of bias, I mean give me a break!" No its not. They simple point out that the evidence that Christians use to validate their viewpoint would not be acceptable in a court of law. It is simply third party info, or info by unknown persons, known forgeries etc etc. The claims made by Christians are simply not supported anywhere else outside of the bible. Considering we haven't a clue as to who or how many were involved in its writings this too is suspect. "Where is the evidence to believe what you have been told? Ask the questions why you should believe what you have been told and with an open mind is it convincing?"Nu "Historical doccuments, which whether or not YOU agree with them is not my concern. Frankly I couldn't care less about what your stance on Christianity is. To answer the second part, yes." The historical documents you refer to are not first person and prior to this the only thing that speaks is silence. "All atheists sites point out is the reasons that their are no reasons to accept what you believe in. Atheism isn't a belief system it is a lack of a belief system."NU "All Christian sites point out is reasons that there are no reason to believe what atheists tell me, what's your point. You're darn right a company is going to advertise that their product is the best out there." No they tell you to continue to believe what you have been told while at the same time using the known falsehoods and unreliable info that has been passed down. They have a need to continue to propogate the faith. Their is power, and salaries to be paid, buildings to upkeep etc. Their is a vested interest in continuing the sharade. "There is plenty of evidence in the bible that it is unreliable based on contradictions, errors, failed prophecies etc. I hope I don't have to point these all out again." "You don't, because the contradictions and errors that people have pointed out in the past were proven baseless by a simple analysis of history. As for failed prophecies, according to who's interpetation? Yours?" Sorry again but the contradictions and errors are not denied by any serious biblical scholar. As to the failed prophecies they are failed based on the bible itself not mine or anyone elses point of view. "I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose." - Clarence Darrow <sarcasm> Uh-oh....Clarence Darrow doesn't think God is real.....dang, I guess He isn't than </sarcasm> Do you believe in Mother Goose?
RedClaw Posts: 1512 (9/20/02 10:10 pm) Reply	Re: Brainwashing "They simple point out that the evidence that Christians use to validate their viewpoint would not be acceptable in a court of law." Pssh, give me a break. You're opinion is not what decides that. "The historical documents you refer to are not first person and prior to this the only thing that speaks is silence." Yup...... "No they tell you to continue to believe what you have been told while at the same time using the known falsehoods and unreliable info that has been passed down. They have a need to continue to propogate the faith. Their is power, and salaries to be paid, buildings to upkeep etc. Their is a vested interest in continuing the sharade." Uh-huh.... "Sorry again but the contradictions and errors are not denied by any serious biblical scholar. As to the failed prophecies they are failed based on the bible itself not mine or anyone elses point of view." Sure..... "Do you believe in Mother Goose?" Believe in her? Man, she lives next door!(joking obviously) Connecting Mother Goose to God is like connecting Charles Darwin to the Easter Bunny. RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me Edited by: RedClaw at: 9/20/02 10:10:42 pm
NUHERE Master Sergeant Posts: 394 (9/21/02 6:23 am) Reply	brainwashing Red "They simple point out that the evidence that Christians use to validate their viewpoint would not be acceptable in a court of law."Nu "Pssh, give me a break. You're opinion is not what decides that." It is not my opinion that decides this. Feel free to ask any attorney that would go to court. Ask him (her) how would the judge or jury look at evidence that was second hand, or unable to be validated, or was from someone who was on record for approving the use of lies to further the faith, or the identity of the persons making the claims could not verified. "The historical documents you refer to are not first person and prior to this the only thing that speaks is silence."nu "Yup......" Did you find any? "Connecting Mother Goose to God is like connecting Charles Darwin to the Easter Bunny. " Keep trying, no one disputes the life of Charles Darwin.
RedClaw Posts: 1518 (9/21/02 8:58 am) Reply	Re: brainwashing "how would the judge or jury look at evidence that was second hand" Which is proven to you based on speculation... "or unable to be validated" By whom? "or was from someone who was on record for approving the use of lies to further the faith" Oh this is a new one.... "or the identity of the persons making the claims could not verified." Yup..... "Keep trying, no one disputes the life of Charles Darwin." And a lot of people also don't dispute that Jesus existed. Actually, you're the only one that I personally know who believes something that absurd. RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me
NUHERE Master Sergeant Posts: 398 (9/21/02 9:57 am) Reply	brainwashing Red "how would the judge or jury look at evidence that was second hand"nu "Which is proven to you based on speculation... We are not talking about me, we are talking about judge or jury. I say evidence that is second hand is worthless in court. "or unable to be validated"nu "By whom?" Any reliable historical event or person. Obviously there should be several independent, reliable, and CONSISTANT testimony. "or was from someone who was on record for approving the use of lies to further the faith"nu "Oh this is a new one...." You must have missed this one. This is in reference to Eusebius. He was for lack of a better term, "integrity challenged" "or the identity of the persons making the claims could not verified."nu "Yup....." Sorry, I don't think first names alone make the cut. "Keep trying, no one disputes the life of Charles Darwin." "And a lot of people also don't dispute that Jesus existed. Actually, you're the only one that I personally know who believes something that absurd." The ones that don' t dispute Darwin have real evidence to believe he existed. You think I am the only one calling into question the historicity of Jesus? You haven't been doing the research have you? Here is what other people have concluded , a long time ago. I. HERMANN SAMUEL REIMARUS (1694-176 . He wrote a 4,000 page manuscript titled "The Aims of Jesus and His Disciples." It was published posthumously by Gotthold Lessing in 1774. His major points were: a.We should draw an absolute distinction between all the writings of the disciples and apostles, and what Jesus might have said. b. We must assume that Jesus spoke as a Jew so that only Jewish meanings are appropriate. c. He performed no miracles. d. His notion of the Kingdom of God was the messianic expectation of Jews at the time. The question is, what was that expectation? II. KARL FRIEDRICH BAHRDT (1741-1792) wrote a fictitious life of Jesus in which Jesus was reared by the Essenes, studied Plato and Aristotle under Greek teachers. Jesus wept when he read the story of the death of Socrates. He performed no miracles, and in later life became a Brother of the First Order of the Essenes from whom he learned that, like Socrates, he must die. Luke and Nicodemus plotted how to bring this about. They rescued Jesus from the tomb and Luke's medicine brought Jesus to health. After a few physical appearances, mentioned in Scripture, Jesus retired to the Essene community where he died in old age. Such an account spoils the entire crucifixion story with its emphasis on Jesus sacrifice as well as any implications of an Easter resurrection. III. DAVID FRIEDRICH STRAUSS (1808-1874). In 1835 he published a two volume life of Jesus, revised in 1839, and again in 1864. He concluded that: a. None of the gospel writers was a witness of the events they discussed so that their words rested on mere hearsay. b. Every story prior to Jesus' baptism is a fabrication. c. The story of Jesus calling twelve disciples is not historical. d. None of the miracles happened. e. The gospel of John is a complete fabrication. But what, then, do we have left of the historical Jesus? IV. BRUNO BAUER (1809-1882) wrote a life of Jesus in which he concluded: a. Matthew and Luke copied from Mark and added nothing new to the story. Thus Jesus life rests on one person who was not a witness and, hence, must be considered to be unreliable. b. The gospel of John contains no historical material at all. c. The birth stories are literary inventions. d. The Jews did not expect a Messiah and Jesus did not claim to be one. This account leaves Christians with no Messiah and no message. Indeed it leaves us with no evidence for an historical person at all. V. ERNEST RENAN (1823-1892). His Life of Jesus appeared in 1863 and his life of Jesus followed the unhistorical gospel of John which prompted Albert Schweitzer to comment: "There is scarcely any other work on the subject which so abounds in lapses of bad taste . . . It is Christian art in the worst sense of the term . . . There is insincerity in the book from beginning to end." THE HISTORICAL JESUS CANNOT BE DISCOVERED I. HEINRICH JULIUS HOLTZMANN wrote The Synoptic Gospels in 1863 and concluded: "Is it possible to describe the historical figure of the one from whom Christianity derives its very name and existence in such a way as to satisfy all just claims of scrupulous historical critical investigation?" His answer was a resounding, "NO." II. MARTIN KAHLER. In 1896 he published "The So Called Historical Jesus" and "The Historic Biblical Christ." In it he concluded that a biography of Jesus was impossible. "I regard the entire Life of Jesus movement as a blind alley." III. ALBERT SCHWEITZER published his The Quest of the Historical Jesus in 1906 and concluded: a. The quest has been a dismal failure. b. There is no history of Jesus that can be discovered. c. He said about his own book: "In the last resort this book can only express the misgivings about the historical Jesus as depicted by modern theology. There is nothing more negative than the results of the critical study of the life of Jesus." Since Schweitzer believed that Jesus was an eschatologist, and hence his words if true would only be an interim ethic which had nothing to offer us, he abandoned a promising career in both theology and music, packed up and went to Africa as a medical missionary. THE CHRISTIAN MESSAGE DOES NOT REST ON AN HISTORICAL JESUS I. RUDOLF BULTMANN wrote Jesus and His Word in 1920 and concluded: a. The Christian proclamation (kerygma) will never be confirmed by historical investigation. b. Since the message is in the myth, the gospel of John is the preferred one. c. The historical quest is impossible, irrelevant, and illegitimate. "I do think that we can know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus." Bultmann thought that this was a happy conclusion. In his book The New Testament and Mythology Bultmann concluded: "The Christian life does not consist in developing the individual personality, in the improvement of society, or in making the world a better place. The Christian life means turning away from the world." II. DIETRICH BONHOEFFER. His book, Christ the Center, (1960) concluded that the attempt of liberal theology to distinguish the synoptic Jesus from the Pauline Christ is historically and dogmatically doomed to failure. If we did find an historical Jesus this would prove that the long history of Christian faith had been an illusion." III. KARL BARTH agreed with Bonhoeffer that there is nothing in historical investigation that could add anything to faith. At most, such analysis might tell us what others thought Jesus was like. RECENT LIVES OF JESUS 1. A.N. WILSON wrote Jesus: A Life (1992), one of the most recent efforts to discover the historical Jesus, and in it he concluded: a. The task of finding the historical Jesus is, strictly speaking, impossible. b. It is impossible to believe that a first century Jew would claim to be the Messiah, let alone the second person of the Trinity. c. Jesus enjoyed the company of women, and was probably married. d. It is unlikely that any Jew would have spoken the way Jesus is quoted to have spoken at the Last Supper, nor would a Jew even have gone to such a supper. e. We still do not know when, where, or by whom the gospels were written. f. Jesus had a reputation as a heavy drinker. g. There is no evidence that Jesus ever committed an act of civil disobedience. 2. The life of Jesus written in 1994 written by John Crossan concluded that Jesus was Jewish, a peasant, a cynic, a hippie among yuppies. Crossan dedicated his volume to the Jesus Seminar. 3. Colin Cross, Who Was Jesus? (New York: Atheneum, 1970) concluded that Jesus was a religious genius, an accomplished theologian, intelligent, and sophisticated. He notes that the first ten bishops of Jerusalem all claimed to be blood descendants of Jesus. 4.Desmond Stewart, The Foreigner (London: Hamish, 1981) concluded that Jesus was born and reared in Alexandria, Egypt and came later to Galilee as a foreigner. 5. G.A. Wells, Did Jesus Exist? (Buffalo: Prometheus, 1975) concluded that Jesus never existed. He reasoned that if Jesus had been around a more detailed account of what he looked like would exist. The lack of any such details leaves us with two options: a) He did exist but made no significant impact. b) He did not exist but was invented like Osiris to explain Pauline religion. 6. Marcus Borg, of the Jesus Seminar, asserted that Jesus was probably a Marxist in that Jesus saw the structures of society, rather than personal sin, as the primary causes of the evils that exist. CONCLUSIONS The various pictures of Jesus from these efforts are rather pallid and cannot account for, let alone generate, the kind of commitments the long history of the Christian movement has exhibited. Once we remove the Sermon on the Mount and most of the beatitudes, what kind of a message is left? But the historical search does not end here. In addition to all these hypothetical conclusions about Jesus�who may have been an Essene, a recluse, a Greek philosopher, a married man with children, an Hillel Jew� there is more. We must conjure with the well-established fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters. The gospel of Pseudo Matthew names brothers: James, Joseph, Juda, and Simeon and two sisters. Origen stated that these came through Joseph and a wife in a prior marriage. One brother, James, was the head of the church in Jerusalem as testified in the book of Acts. An Egyptian book, History of Joseph, names the girls as Lysia and Lydia. The Egyptian book, History of Joseph the Carpenter, says that Mary reared James and that James was two years old when Mary gave birth to Jesus. But there is more. The Pistis (faith) Sophia (wisdom), a Gnostic writing, says that there was another baby in the manger who looked just like Jesus, and that the wise men saw him. What do we do with this claim that Jesus had a twin brother? Can you imagine the consternation of the wise men as to which baby was the object of their search and to whom to give their treasures? We have all been exposed to imaginative portraits of Jesus which vary with the ethnicity of the artist. A thirteenth century writer claimed to have a letter of a personage named Lentulus who saw Jesus and gave the following description. A man in stature middling tall, and comely, having a reverend countenance. . . having hair the hue of an unripe hazelnut and smooth almost down to his ears in curling locks somewhat darker and more shining waving over his shoulders; having a parting in the middle of the head according to the fashion of the Nazareans, a brow smooth, a face without a wrinkle or any blemish, with nose and mouth without fault, having a full beard of the color of his hair, not too long but a little forked at the chin, eyes gray, with hands and arms fair to look upon, in talk grave, reserved and modest. Scholars have given us more to wrestle with. A number of 19th century scholars concluded that a Jesus who would curse fig trees, claim to be the second person of the Trinity, the only begotten Son, let alone empowered to perform miracles, was psychologically sick. Albert Schweitzer wrote The Psychiatric Study of Jesus to refute these claims that Jesus was mentally unbalanced and that if he were alive today, he would be institutionalized. In the first three decades of the present (20th) century a number of scholars argued that historical evidence did not exist to prove that Jesus ever lived at all. Bruno Bauer leads us to this conclusion: not that Jesus never lived but that we have no evidence from scripture that he did live. Indeed, Bauer concluded that all the writings of Paul are also fictitious stories. The life of Jesus was a complete fabrication. These scholars included: J.M. Robertson, an English theologian, whose books, The Historical Jesus: A Survey of Positions (1916) and The Jesus problem: A Restatement of the Myth Theory (1917) argued that all the elements of Christianity can be derived from current mystery religions and were constructed from them. Jesus is, thus, a version of Osiris, Mithra, and Adonis created later for Christian use. No actual historical character, Jesus, ever lived. In his books Christ Myth (1924 and Legend of Peter (1924),Arthur Drew, a German Hegelian philosopher, argued that first century Christianity was a social ethical movement which needed no founder to explain its rise. Indeed, a long standing feature of the Semitic world was belief in an annual sacrifice of a "Son of the Father"�Barabbas, originally called Jesus Barabbas. This may account for the myth that an historical person, Jesus, actually lived. In all these arguments the claim is less that it could be proved that Jesus did not live as that no evidence beyond scripture exists to prove that he did exist. These arguments were carefully researched and the conclusion denied by Shirley Jackson Case (1912 and 192 , The Historicity of Jesus. Evangelical Christians are perhaps well advised to steer clear of this search because their beliefs do not depend on any historical facts. Indeed, it is perhaps relevant that the current quests are led by more or less secular scholars, and not by believers. This is a topic where, for believers, ignorance is more blissful than knowledge. The Jesus Seminar warned that we not portray a Jesus in accordance with our desires. I think they are quite mistaken. If God was wise enough to make us compatible with his desires, we would be making a needless mistake by not returning the compliment. BIBLIOGRAPHY Barth, Karl, The Word of God and the Word of Man (New York: Harper, 1957). Bultmann, Rudolf, Jesus and the Word (New York: Scribner's, 1960). Theology of the New Testament (New York: Scribner's, 1955) Case, Shirley Jackson, The Historicity of Jesus (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 192 . Cross, Colin, Who Was Jesus? (New York: Atheneum, 1970). Crossan, John Dominic, Jesus, A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: Harper, 1994). Funk, The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? Harnack, Adolf von, What Is Christianity? (New York: Harper, 1957). James, Montague Rhodes, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975). Kahler, Martin, The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historian (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964). Robinson, James M., A New Quest of the Historical Jesus (London: SCM Press, nd). Schweitzer, Albert, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (New York: Macmillan, 1950). Stewart, Desmond, The Foreigner: A Search for the First Century Jesus (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1981). Strauss, David, The Life of Jesus (London: 1846) This was translated into English by George Eliot. Trotter, Thomas, ed., Jesus and the Historian (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 196 . Wells, G. A., Did Jesus Exist? (Buffalo: Prometheus, 1975). Zahrnt, Heinz, The HistoricaL Jesus (New York: Harper, 1963).
RedClaw Posts: 1523 (9/21/02 2:15 pm) Reply	Re: brainwashing "We are not talking about me, we are talking about judge or jury. I say evidence that is second hand is worthless in court." And you claim for "second hand evidence" is speculation at best. "Any reliable historical event or person. Obviously there should be several independent, reliable, and CONSISTANT testimony." Sure.... "You think I am the only one calling into question the historicity of Jesus?" No, but you're the only one that I can say I personally know... "You haven't been doing the research have you?" I have no need to. "Here is what other people have concluded , a long time ago." Accounts from people 400 years ago don't really impress me. I mean people, a long time ago, though there were four elements. Big deal. Welcome to the 21st century. What exactly do you do for a living Nuhere? You have plenty of notes trying to disprove Christianity. I mean is that all you do? Is that your life's mission? Or do you just know of a website that spits these little studies out for you? RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me Edited by: RedClaw at: 9/21/02 2:16:40 pm
NUHERE Master Sergeant Posts: 399 (9/21/02 3:04 pm) Reply	brainwashing RED "Accounts from people 400 years ago don't really impress me. I mean people, a long time ago, though there were four elements. Big deal. Welcome to the 21st century." They were four hundred years closer to the supposed events than we are.
RedClaw Posts: 1524 (9/21/02 11:46 pm) Reply	Re: brainwashing Yeah, and they also don't have access to the evidence we have 400 years later... RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me

The Faithful Knights of Christ > Christian Discussion > Brainwashing: Could you be a victim?
Page 1 2	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>