Christian Tracts

[wanderingthoughts]

(Most of you don't know me. I'm new, so hi!)

 

So I decided to flick through a Christian tract just to see how easily I could detect the bullshit, and I only had looked for a brief amount of time before I found this:

 

 

"...and the evidence shows that cultures that rely on these forms of communication can remember things very accurately indeed."

 

"The living eyewitnesses safeguarded the reliability of the oral traditions about Jesus."

Where's the source for that one? Quite clear to me that they haven't looked at any psychological evidence regarding the unreliability of human memory in studies conducted by researchers such as Elizabeth Loftus. But you know, why actually cite real research when you can make up shit and act like you know stuff? Sounds much more reasonable.

So now that they've established this load of crap as the basis for their argument, they blabber on for a few more hundred words.

 

"We don't know for sure who wrote them but they're EYEWITNESSES!!!"   Because of course, eyewitness testimony is RELIABLE, as we know.

 

 

"...we may as well throw it out as nonsense. But thankfully, that's not what happened."

 

Yay!! Praise Jeebus!!

 

Some more nonsense I mean, obvious facts.

 

 

 

 

I can't believe there was ever a time where I swallowed this kind of thing! It makes me a pissed off that a friend of mine owned this and if I handed this to a friend or family member, they would likely think it's a great argument. Why can't people see through it? 

[Roz]

WT welcome to Ex-C!

 

"We don't know for sure who wrote them but they're EYEWITNESSES!!!"   Because of course, eyewitness testimony is RELIABLE, as we know." -WT

 

I know, I believed it too.  I believed it hook line and sinker and I remember actually nodding my head from the piano bench when a pastor said this.  Feel free to relax, have a beer, and speak your mind here in Ex-C

[wanderingthoughts]

Thanks Roz, nice to meet you! Beer is not my drink of choice, but I will relax with some cider instead  

Haha! Yeah, it's quite bizarre to think about the extent to which you thought such ridiculous ideas. I'm glad we're beyond that now. 

[Castiel233]

Ah chick tracts. Bringing the word of the Lord to the the people......via very badly drawn cartoons and shitty arguments!!!!!!

[mwc]

     Why not accept the whole premise is true?  To paraphrase what I read, the eyewitnesses are reliable because they repeat the oral tradition over and over again to learn it.  It sort of makes sense.

 

     Now, I don't know what else the say but most xians, and pretty much the entire gospel story, say the disciples were basically morons that never knew from one moment to the next what was going on in their own lives.  They never really even figured it out until a resurrected god-man returns and spells it all out to them.

 

     So the point I'm getting to is when did they start repeating all this history?  What was actually in the gospel story?  Certainly they didn't sit around every day telling themselves the story of that day and what had come before back until the day jesus appeared (plus two different nativities just for fun)?  Did jesus tell them the story when he magically appeared to them and they forgot to include that part in the story itself?  Or did they suddenly decide they needed to recall a years worth of information on the spot once they knew it was important?  Obviously eleven guys (and maybe a few women if they included them) could remember it all correctly?  Maybe they could go around and conduct interviews like modern journalists?  Go talk to some of those ex-demon hosts or ex-lepers?  Get the town hall minutes.  All the usual things that we do now but only then just because it sounds good.  Compile the story and then start repeating it very accurately without actually writing it down until much later.

 

     This makes perfect sense.  I have no problem accepting that people back then had to use oral transmission and traditions to move information around.  It just makes no sense that anyone would remember a ton of information that they never thought that they would ever possibly need again in their lives.  This makes no sense at all.  And this is what we're to accept.  The disciples remembered seemingly useless information perfectly so that they could tell everyone what it was once it became important even though they could never know this was going to happen.

 

          mwc

[Thought2Much]

There's also the problem of the gospel writers being "eyewitnesses" to private conversations between Jesus and Pontius Pilate, or Jesus' private prayers, or Judas' dealings with those who paid him the silver, etc.

[Thought2Much]

And there's also the problem of why Jesus, who would supposedly know how important all this stuff that would happen would be, didn't bother to write one jot or one tittle down himself to make sure that the message went out clearly and precisely.

[wanderingthoughts]

Speaking of Christian tracts, have any of you, either in your past, or recently, seen any Chick Tracts? They are hokey, but at least entertaining....LOL.

I can't say I have, I'll have to check it out sometime! 

 

 

Thanks Roz, nice to meet you! Beer is not my drink of choice, but I will relax with some cider instead  

Haha! Yeah, it's quite bizarre to think about the extent to which you thought such ridiculous ideas. I'm glad we're beyond that now.

wanderingthoughts,

 

Welcome to the forums. It was nice meeting you on chat recently.

I appreciate that you bring some further psychological insights to the discussions. And I look forward to reading more of your comments.

 

It is indeed bizarre, in retrospect, to recall what we believed and to recognize now how ridiculous those beliefs were. I'm also glad we're beyond it. And I wonder that we might gain insight from our own experiences to help other people get beyond, too.

 

Human

 

Thanks again Human. Yes, that's definitely valuable.

 

     Why not accept the whole premise is true?  To paraphrase what I read, the eyewitnesses are reliable because they repeat the oral tradition over and over again to learn it.  It sort of makes sense.

 

     Now, I don't know what else the say but most xians, and pretty much the entire gospel story, say the disciples were basically morons that never knew from one moment to the next what was going on in their own lives.  They never really even figured it out until a resurrected god-man returns and spells it all out to them.

 

     So the point I'm getting to is when did they start repeating all this history?  What was actually in the gospel story?  Certainly they didn't sit around every day telling themselves the story of that day and what had come before back until the day jesus appeared (plus two different nativities just for fun)?  Did jesus tell them the story when he magically appeared to them and they forgot to include that part in the story itself?  Or did they suddenly decide they needed to recall a years worth of information on the spot once they knew it was important?  Obviously eleven guys (and maybe a few women if they included them) could remember it all correctly?  Maybe they could go around and conduct interviews like modern journalists?  Go talk to some of those ex-demon hosts or ex-lepers?  Get the town hall minutes.  All the usual things that we do now but only then just because it sounds good.  Compile the story and then start repeating it very accurately without actually writing it down until much later.

 

     This makes perfect sense.  I have no problem accepting that people back then had to use oral transmission and traditions to move information around.  It just makes no sense that anyone would remember a ton of information that they never thought that they would ever possibly need again in their lives.  This makes no sense at all.  And this is what we're to accept.  The disciples remembered seemingly useless information perfectly so that they could tell everyone what it was once it became important even though they could never know this was going to happen.

 

          mwc

I do think the oral tradition was valuable to transmit information at the time, most certainly. It does give us insight into what happened at the time. However, I think it is far too strong an assertion to make that the memory of humans back then was "very accurate" when there has been more research of late to suggest otherwise. Contrary to the tract, I still suspect there was some "Chinese Whispers" going on. But I do agree that it made little sense for the disciples to recall seemingly useless information.

[wanderingthoughts]

There's also the problem of the gospel writers being "eyewitnesses" to private conversations between Jesus and Pontius Pilate, or Jesus' private prayers, or Judas' dealings with those who paid him the silver, etc.

That's a really good point. I'd like to see the Christian explanation for that one. I suspect it would be along the lines of spiritual revelations, which are perhaps just as reliable evidence as the memory of eyewitnesses in the eyes of the Christian.

 

And there's also the problem of why Jesus, who would supposedly know how important all this stuff that would happen would be, didn't bother to write one jot or one tittle down himself to make sure that the message went out clearly and precisely.

Haha, you would think that he would. Perhaps the ministry life was too busy for him or something. I'd like to see the explanation for that one too! 

[Blood]

There was no oral tradition. The gospels are imaginative re-writes of the Septuagint. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Eye witnesses generally give their testimonies either while the events are taking place or immediately after the events.  They don't, as a rule, wait until decades after the events, as did the inventors of the christ myth.  As another general rule, eye witness accounts need to harmonize with one another if they are to be believed, rather than contradict one another, as did the inventors of the christ myth.

 

Welcome to the forums, and to the freedom of accepting reality, WT.

[Roz]

BO, I've read and handed out those chick tracts as well as denominational specific SDA tracts.

 

Some of those chick tracts shouldn't be given out to children, I was scared shitless as a 10yr. old reading some of those.

[Roz]

If you all want to experience a chick tract but with great atheist commentary, here's one with the TBR guys and Aron Ra reading an anti-evolution tract:

 

[wanderingthoughts]

 

 

Speaking of Christian tracts, have any of you, either in your past, or recently, seen any Chick Tracts? They are hokey, but at least entertaining....LOL.

I can't say I have, I'll have to check it out sometime!

 

http://www.chick.com/

 

I had a look through a few of them last night. They're horrifying! The scarier part was the testimonials on the site about how they'd led people to Christ. Got to love the fear they instill in people.  

 

Eye witnesses generally give their testimonies either while the events are taking place or immediately after the events.  They don't, as a rule, wait until decades after the events, as did the inventors of the christ myth.  As another general rule, eye witness accounts need to harmonize with one another if they are to be believed, rather than contradict one another, as did the inventors of the christ myth.

 

Welcome to the forums, and to the freedom of accepting reality, WT.

Thanks RP! Yes, that would definitely make more sense. I think that was one of the earliest things I realised with regard to the Christian story not making sense. Why would they choose to write it down all these years later? And of course, I never got a satisfactory answer. I love how the tract admits the time they were written and then addresses that with the idea that they must have done it carefully, so it legitimately counts as all being true. Yeah, that should win me over!

 

There was no oral tradition. The gospels are imaginative re-writes of the Septuagint. 

I'd like to hear more about this too.

[Blood]

 

Ah chick tracts. Bringing the word of the Lord to the the people......via very badly drawn cartoons and shitty arguments!!!!!!

I thought the art was actually impressive for what they were, sort of "B comics" art (analogous to B movies). LOL

 

 

The "good" artist in the Chick tracks is Fred Carter. The bad artist is Jack Chick.