Biased Biographical Propaganda

[SallyF]

In my view, the "Gospels" have no input whatsoever from "God".

In my view, the "Gospels" are the biased biographical propaganda of a failed Jewish Messiah.

I note:

This article is concerned with bias and subjectivity in ethnographic research. Since the research in ethnography cannot eliminate biographical determinants, the makeup of the researcher is critical to the quality of the work done. Looking at a number of factors that determine bias, the article suggests ways to move this “bias in biography� toward a new era in anthropology and education. https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wile ... 1.04x0762h

And:

What is most obvious is that every biographer has an agenda of his own. A biographer’s take on the life he spotlights is necessarily biased by his own opinions. While this can add colour to the biography, it can sometimes be a really a fine line between fact and fiction- a line that the biographer should ideally not breach. https://www.thecuriousreader.in/feature ... pher-bias/

Are the "Gospels" biased biographical propaganda ...?

[SallyF]

I know there are not many Christians left fighting the good fight in this sub-forum, but I have noticed that a few folks have peeked at this thread.

I have read that His eye is on the sparrow, and I suspect He knows that certain of His foot soldiers and slaves have not donned the breastplate of righteousness and girded their loins and sold their clothes to buy swords to leap to His defence, right here …

And He may not be best pleased.

Or the silence here may reflect one of the reasons that there are few Christians left here, and that is that they too recognise that we are dealing with biased biographical propaganda, filled with impossible fable and fantasy, and it's quite indefensible.

[Goose]

Are the "Gospels" biased biographical propaganda ...?

I've been away for a while and this seems like a good place to jump in so I will bite.

In a word, yes. The Gospels are 1) biased 2) biographical and 3) at least in some sense a type of propaganda.

And I say that as a Christian.

There.

Now what of it?

[SallyF]

Are the "Gospels" biased biographical propaganda ...?

I've been away for a while and this seems like a good place to jump in so I will bite.

In a word, yes. The Gospels are 1) biased 2) biographical and 3) at least in some sense a type of propaganda.

And I say that as a Christian.

There.

Now what of it?

The "what of it" for ME alone is that it bolsters my suspicions as a child that my elders were brainwashing me with fairytales of angels and talking animals and Jesus coming down to Earth from up in Heaven for the specific purpose of dying for my sins, because I had been born a sinner.

Later in life I began to investigate the fairytales and found that Christianity looks to me to have been a fraud from the beginning.

Please flick through other threads here with me as author, to see what I mean.

If other folks recognise the "Gospels" as "biased biographical propaganda", what they do with THEIR "what of its" is entirely up to them.

I, and others like me, simply put forward such evidences and hypotheses as we have to demonstrate that Christianity is a fraud.

[CalvinsBulldog]

[Replying to post 4 by SallyF]

The "what of it" for ME alone is that it bolsters my suspicions as a child that my elders were brainwashing me with fairytales of angels and talking animals and Jesus coming down to Earth from up in Heaven for the specific purpose of dying for my sins, because I had been born a sinner.

What kind of interaction are you expecting? To be perfectly honest with you, I am not the least bit interested in your autobiography. I doubt many other Christians are either. Neither do I much care to discover that you were a very precocious and super-intelligent child who was able to disagree with the adults in your life. Maybe that means something to you, but it doesn't mean much to me.

The use of the word "fairytales" is just silly. Fairytales and the Christian writings are worlds apart in terms of purpose, message, transmission, and contestability - that should be obvious to even an informed sceptic. By lumping these text types together, you show that you have not even a passing interest of fairly dealing with the textual material.

What do you want to happen here? Do you want someone to try to debate your perception of the Christian writings? Not going to happen.

Later in life I began to investigate the fairytales and found that Christianity looks to me to have been a fraud from the beginning.

You're begging the question here. You haven't even begun to prove that the Christian writings are "fairytales", much less that it is a "fraud" (or even what you mean by "fraud" in this context). You should rather say that "I began to investigate the writings I concluded were fairytales". Either way, why should anyone really care about your autobiography? People are here to debate Christianity, not your perceptions of it.

BTW: plenty of other people have done the same investigating and arrived at the opposite conclusion.

Please flick through other threads here with me as author, to see what I mean.

Nope. I'm not that invested in your autobiography or your argument that I am going to spend a lot of time reading your past posts.

If other folks recognise the "Gospels" as "biased biographical propaganda", what they do with THEIR "what of its" is entirely up to them.

I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

I, and others like me, simply put forward such evidences and hypotheses as we have to demonstrate that Christianity is a fraud.

I'll bet you don't. If you did, you'd at least have made a passable effort to provide some evidence or something resembling a historical hypothesis in this thread. You haven't. At most, this thread contains a bit of your autobiography, your negative opinion of Christianity, and some stuff about the gospels being biased, as if this is a mortal blow to their authenticity. That's not scholarly or compelling.

All texts are biased to one degree or another, and autobiographies are (by definition, for goodness sake!), not objective or the basis upon which to form a hypothesis. I have had personal experiences with the risen Christ and with the presence of God that makes me believe. But I have never put those experiences into evidence and demand that these should mean something to other people.

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 5 by CalvinsBulldog]

Are the "Gospels" biased biographical propaganda ...?

Both you and Member Goose agree that the "Gospels" are biased biographical propaganda.

Neither of you have demonstrated that your version of "God" had anything to do with so much as a word of them.

Neither of you have demonstrated that your experiences with the "Risen Christ", or whatever, have taken place anywhere other than inside your own heads.

I suggest that the magical things in the "Gospels" are as real as the magical things in fairy tales.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 4 by SallyF]

The "what of it" for ME alone is that it bolsters my suspicions as a child that my elders were brainwashing me with fairytales of angels and talking animals and Jesus coming down to Earth from up in Heaven for the specific purpose of dying for my sins, because I had been born a sinner.

What kind of interaction are you expecting? To be perfectly honest with you, I am not the least bit interested in your autobiography. I doubt many other Christians are either. Neither do I much care to discover that you were a very precocious and super-intelligent child who was able to disagree with the adults in your life. Maybe that means something to you, but it doesn't mean much to me.

It's always interesting to see a poster compose a paragraph to explain that they aren't interested in the very thing they devoted a paragraph to. For some reason, it's never convincing.


Tcg

[Zzyzx]

.

In a word, yes. The Gospels are 1) biased 2) biographical and 3) at least in some sense a type of propaganda.

Are bias and propaganda consistent with the Bible being 'the word of God' or 'inspired by God' or 'inerrant' or 'infallible' (or whatever is claimed)?

Would a 'perfect', 'omniscient' god be biased (an imperfection) or inspire bias in writers, or have need for / tolerance for / condone propaganda?

[CalvinsBulldog]

[Replying to post 6 by SallyF]

Both you and Member Goose agree that the "Gospels" are biased biographical propaganda.

No I don't.

I agree that the texts are biased - because all texts are biased - but I do not agree that they are propaganda. I regard that as a prejudicial and loaded term that you have introduced to delegitimise these texts as evidence, and therefore has little real meaning in this discussion. On the other hand, perhaps you could define what you mean by propaganda and how exactly your idea of propaganda is distinct from any persuasive text intended for a mass audience.

In other words, can you give me a definition of propaganda that would exclude the persuasive writings of Charles Darwin, the political writings of John Locke, the autobiography of Margaret Thatcher, and the volumes of Roman history by Edward Gibbon? All of these works are presenting a particular viewpoint combined with carefully selected evidence that is designed to be favourable to the view or author, (though none are usually considered propaganda).

In other words, what is the difference between a favourable biography, say, and propaganda in your opinion? If there is no serious difference, then the word "propaganda" functions like the word "cult". It's just a negative word with a highly fluid application that is determined by the writer according to his viewpoint.

Neither of you have demonstrated that your version of "God" had anything to do with so much as a word of them.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. But if you are reproaching me for not demonstrating something, in my case at least, it's because I have not tried to do so. I've only just arrived.

Neither of you have demonstrated that your experiences with the "Risen Christ", or whatever, have taken place anywhere other than inside your own heads.

This annoys me. If you're not going to read posts then I'm going to ignore you and start responding to other people who can at least drag their eyeballs over the text of someone else's post. I do not have the time or the patience for this kind of game.

I quite clearly said that I have had subjective, personal experiences with the Risen Christ but I do not tender this as evidence for others to accept. As I very clearly said, I do not present subjective experiences to others precisely because those experiences are subjective and I cannot objectively prove the experience to someone else. That does not, however, make the experience necessarily false.

I suggest that the magical things in the "Gospels" are as real as the magical things in fairy tales.

Ugh. This is painful.

You can suggest all you like; I can suggest things too. It means nothing without a passable effort to construct an argument. You can suggest until the cows come home and toss out words like "magic" left and centre, and pat yourself on the shoulder for kicking the teeth in of those gullible Christians. But anyone who knows the basics of logical argumentation and sound reasoning is reading this right now, and the enamel is peeling off their teeth. This is amateur hour stuff that wouldn't survive a tour around a first year philosophy students' barbecue.

[CalvinsBulldog]

[Replying to post 7 by Tcg]

It's always interesting to see a poster compose a paragraph to explain that they aren't interested in the very thing they devoted a paragraph to. For some reason, it's never convincing.

My paragraph was to head off any further discussion on those lines. I fail to see why you think this is so unconvincing. Do you really think I secretly harbour a passionate interest in SallyF's autobiography?

I can tell you that I don't, but of course my denial must mean that I do. Tarnation! Curses! I've been foiled again by clever mind-readers... shucks.