Why Do Intelligent Atheists Still Read The Bible Like Fundamentalists? | Benjamin L. Corey

Why Do Intelligent Atheists Still Read The Bible Like Fundamentalists? | Benjamin L. Corey


Why Do Intelligent Atheists Still Read The Bible Like Fundamentalists?
JULY 25, 2017 BY BENJAMIN L. COREY
844 COMMENTS






Before I begin, if you’re an atheist coming here looking for a fight, I’m the wrong guy. Yes, I’m a Christian (okay, the Religious Right would take issue with that claim, but whatever), but I have the utmost respect for my atheist friends and colleagues– especially the fruitful dialogue we have, and the many areas of common ground that can be discovered when we take the time to listen to one another.



One of those colleagues I respect is Hemant Mehta over at Friendly Atheist (and in further disclosure, Terry Firma at Friendly Atheist is one of my real-life best friends).

Hemant has given me some thoughtful and friendly push-back from time to time, and in this case, I need to do the same.

So here is the question I can’t figure out, and was reminded of when reading a piece Hemant wrote: Why do intelligent atheists often insist on reading the Bible like a fundamentalist– as if there’s only one way to understand and apply it to Christian living?

Case in point: Friendly Atheist today is poking a bit of fun at a Miss Teen USA contestant who happens to be a devout Christian. Their issue with her?

That she has a tattoo.

Hemant writes, “I just want to point out that, for all the comments about her “devout” faith and dedication to the Bible, she breaks a pretty famous biblical rule…” Furthermore, the title of the piece asserts that she “clearly hasn’t read the Bible.”



As a theological scholar and a Christian with a boatload of tattoos, I take real issue with Hemant’s hard-line take on this. It’s a classic case of when atheists insist on reading the Bible like fundamentalists. It is unenlightening and causes one to become judgmental of others, such as the judgment that she “clearly hasn’t read the Bible” or by putting “devout” in quotation marks as if her having a tattoo actually calls into question the sincerity of her faith.

It’s as if there’s only “one way” to read and interpret the Bible– and as the one they call Formerly Fundie, let’s just say I’ve seen this approach before.

So, let me break it down for you as to why this entire argument is deeply flawed– whether it’s a fundamentalist or an atheist making it:

First, this argument fails to take into account the historic context of these ancient Scriptures.

The area of Scripture in question is describing the birth and organization of a nation and people group that happened long, long ago. It is descriptive, instead of prescriptive. The Hebrew people arose as one culture among many others, and one of their cultural values was to live differently than the people groups around them. In the case of tattoos, the prohibition first discusses “cutting” your skin for the dead, and then lumps tattoos in with it– both were popular religious practices to honor the dead and to get the attention of the gods, particularly of the Canaanite people they were trying to distinguish themselves from.


Thus, when we see this prohibition of tattoos what we’re seeing is a description of an ancient people group establishing a new religion, and who wanted to make sure they lived and looked differently than the people groups around them. Had the Canaanites all worn funny yellow hats and 80’s style basketball shorts every Saturday, I’m sure they would have prohibited that, too. The only way the ancient Hebrew prohibition on tattoos (or on wearing mixed fibers) is relevant to the life of a modern Christian is only if one finds cultural anthropology interesting– that’s because it is descriptive of an ancient people, not prescriptive for Christians.

The second reason this argument fails, is that it operates on the assumption that in order to be a good Christian, one must follow ancient Jewish customs. Ironically, the Bible *actually* deals with this issue later (you have to read waaaaaay past Leviticus, though) when the Christian religion is born out of Judaism. In fact, the early Christians argued over this issue– but the position that won the day was that gentiles (that’s us) do not have to follow these ancient customs (shout-out to all the uncircumcised folks out there). In fact, there’s even a famous story in the New Testament where early Christians claim that God himself told St. Peter to no longer follow some of the ancient customs. Oh, and let’s not forget the inconvenient truth that the founder of Christianity (you-know-who) was actually executed, and that one of the reasons why the religious leaders colluded to see that happen was because he wouldn’t interpret the ancient customs the way that some Baptist churches, and now Friendly Atheist, say we should.



Long story short: the vast majority of Christians for the past 2,000 years have felt little compulsion to follow most of the ritualistic and cultural practices of our religious ancestors. Alyssa Williams is well in line with Christian tradition.

The Friendly Atheist article says that Alyssa Williams “clearly hasn’t read her Bible,” but the irony is this is a case of pointing one finger, only to have four pointing right back at you.

Because if you finish reading the Bible, it actually tells you that Christians are not under obligation to follow these ancient customs.

I love my atheist friends, and I respect my colleague Hemant. But as a Christian I’ll say this: we give you plenty of good and valid hypocritical reasons to make fun of us, but going after a teenager who seems like a good kid, simply because she’s a Christian with a tattoo, probably isn’t the most compelling argument you could make today.



Dr. Benjamin L. Corey is a public theologian and cultural anthropologist who is a two-time graduate of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary with graduate degrees in the fields of Theology and International Culture, and holds a doctorate in Intercultural Studies from Fuller Theological Seminary. He is also the author of the new book, Unafraid: Moving Beyond Fear-Based Faith, which is available wherever good books are sold. www.Unafraid-book.com.



Be sure to check out his new blog, right here, and follow on Facebook:

==

Donna Crumley Woker

They are literal thinkers and don't have much appreciation for metaphor and allegory! They are looking for words that can't possible be literally true for a thinking person, so they have to mock it, instead of trying to understand the meaning.

7

• Like
• Reply
• 1 d

• Ray Vela

  Donna Crumley Wokernot quite. I know metaphor and allegory. The ones trying to convert me take the bible literally. I simply point out the absurdity in that approach.

  

  2

  • Like
  • Reply
  • 21 h
  • Donna Crumley Woker

    Ray Vela Yes. I'm sorry that happens to you. It is truly absurd. So many believers, and nonbelievers, just don't understand, and don't really want to understand. The doubters and the ones who have deep questions, the ones who struggle, are the ones on the way to understanding the spiritual aspect of our human experience.

  
  

===

844 Comments
Formerly Fundie
Disqus' Privacy Policy


Sejin Pak

Favorite 14
TweetShare
Sort by Newest




Join the discussion…



























Jislaaik Rockadopolis • 2 years ago


It's a classic straw man fallacy. Fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible are easy to critique, morally and logically.

Really savvy atheists won't stoop that low. Instead, they lead with the personal psychological and ethical benefits they *personally* enjoy from their commitment to atheism.
1

•
Reply
•
Share ›











This comment was deleted.











Jislaaik Rockadopolis Guest • 6 months ago


Yep.That's why I'll never debate an atheist. First, I respect their courage of conviction. And secondly, they have reasoning and (theists lack of) evidence on their side


•
Reply
•
Share ›











Bob Shiloh • 2 years ago


Atheists don't believe in the Christian God so looking into the bible is typically only for a negative purposes as in the bible is a work of fiction, etc. However, the bible is far more complicated than that containing historical information that exists nowhere else. If we discount that information what replaces it?
1
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›











Netizen_James • 4 years ago


Not sure why this is making the fb rounds again, but there you go! Jesus was not the 'Founder' of Christianity, Saul of Tarsus was. Jesus never even heard the word 'Christ', more less used that word. And Jesus never said word one about abandoning The Law. To the contrary - "not one jot nor title", and all that. Is the Earth still here? (looks around) Yup. Thus not 'all' has been fulfilled, and thus The Law still applies - unless Jesus was misquoted.... Cherry picking the data to find the conclusion one wishes to reach doesn't tend to provide reasonable conclusions. The logicians tell us that if you assume contradictory postulates to be true, you can 'prove' anything you'd like. Thus it is with Biblical interpretation. Anyone can 'prove' anything they'd like by cherry-picking Bible quotes. (It was also Saul of Tarsus who spread the idea that adhering to Jewish traditions/laws like circumcision and avoiding pork/shellfish weren't necessary so as to be more able to market his new mystery religion to the Greeks and Romans who were his target audience.)
2
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›











Bob Shiloh Netizen_James • 2 years ago


If Paul was the 'Founder of Christianity' then why don't his Epistles state that?

1
•
Reply
•
Share ›











Marc Wagner Bob Shiloh • 2 years ago


Jesus' followers were Jews. Jesus did not want to be worshipped, he urged only that his listeners follow him.

Paul founded nothing, he wrote about Jesus and his teachings -- to Jews & Gentiles, & Romans, alike.

Constantine founded Christianity and "Romanized" it to meet his own needs -- starting with the Nicene Creed, Canon, and Doctrine, which lives on (in many forms) to this day.
2

•
Reply
•
Share ›











Netizen_James Marc Wagner • 2 years ago


Saul/Paul was the one who created the 'Christ' myth out of his epileptic hallucinations, and then tied it to the poor recently executed Jesus, inventing the whole 'resurrection' nonsense, and the rest of the 'miracles' out of whole cloth.

See https://www.amazon.com/Myth... for the evidence and argument that Paul invented Christianity. Constantine just took what Paul invented and ran with it.

Note carefully that the few bits of contemporary text that were not directly influenced by the Paulists were deemed 'blasphemous' and 'non-canonical'. (Like the 'Gospel of Peter') There's a reason for that.

Note carefully that there is ZERO non-Christian evidence that any of the miracles described in the gospels actually took place. Note carefully that the 'Testimonium Flavianum' - the part of Josephus' "The Antiquities of the Jews" that mentioned Jesus - is known to be a FORGERY which was inserted into the Josephus text LONG AFTER his death. And who is our best bet for who that forger was? None other than Church Father Bishop Eusebius - that self confessed 'liar for god'. (see http://www.jesusneverexiste... for more on that)

Jesus was a very wise radically revolutionary rabbi who taught people not to fear - which is why he was killed by the powers that be, who depend on fear to keep the 'hoi polloi' in line - still to this day.
1

•
Reply
•
Share ›











Marc Wagner Netizen_James • 2 years ago


"Jesus was a very wise radically revolutionary rabbi who taught people not to fear"

Isn't this the important part of what Christianity is all about? (Or was supposed to be about?)

Paul didn't have to be deceptive or malicious for any infirmity that he might have had to lead him to write about Jesus ... "a very wise radically revolutionary rabbi who taught people not to fear."

I care more about the message than about the "facts" surrounding it.


•
Reply
•
Share ›











Bob Shiloh Marc Wagner • 2 years ago


He had more to say on that subject.
Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Christianity started when Jesus began His ministry. It is true that Constantine took advantage of the movement. but it also true that Christianity lives on and will not be stopped.
Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
That is why the bible is the greatest selling book of all time. If it was from man it wild be long
forgotten.
1

•
Reply
•
Share ›











Netizen_James Bob Shiloh • 2 years ago


The Bible is no different from the Vedas. Every culture has their 'sacred text'. The Christian one is no more 'special' than any of the others.
1
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›











Bob Shiloh Netizen_James • 2 years ago


Come, come now. No different?
One person in a hundred thousand has even heard of the Vedas.
Everyone in the world knows of the Christian bible.
That's a gigantic difference.


•
Reply
•
Share ›











DogGone • 4 years ago


Atheists, like "Christians" vary widely in their attitudes toward the Bible , which is, like the King Arthur legend, the Iliad and the Odyssey, and Gilgamesh, a foundational work in the Western tradition. It is something every educated person should read and analyze because so many other works depend on references to it. Obviously, I read it as an anthology of traditional stories, poems, genealogies, proverbs, letters, and legends, but not all atheists agree with me, just as not all "Christians" agree with you. As atheists, we have encountered many (in fact an increasing number of) "Christians" who insist that every single word in the current edition of this tome was penned by the deity"himself" and thus should be taken literally. Now I don't agree with this, and you don't either, but these people also think they are "Christians" and represent themselves forcefully as such. In the name of words from this book they have launched into an unprecedented attack on the human rights of people who don't even belong to their group. If you wonder why I am putting "Christians" in quotation marks, it's because that word now covers as wide a spectrum of philosophy and belief as atheism. As far as people being judgmental about a teen contestant, I have to wonder why in 2018 we still have meat markets (aka beauty pageants) for young women. I think it's time for those tasteless sexist parades to die. Who watches them? This is not 1952.
2

•
Reply
•
Share ›











Michael Valentine • 4 years ago


The bible has many contradictory things in it. What we take out of it, atheist or fundamentalist, says more about us then the bible.
2

•
Reply
•
Share ›











Andrew Taylor • 4 years ago • edited


I don't think it's about they interpreting the bible literally, but rather, it's about holding people to the standards they profess. If they claim that the entirety of the bible is literally true and infallible, then they should be held to the standard. The only real problem I can see is if they hold all Christians to a standard, even progressives who don't maintain a literalist or inerrant view of scripture.

So, if we look at what her church believes (and it's fairly safe to assume that she holds these beliefs too, given she's reported to be involved in the student ministries team there, at least until she gives us a reason to believe otherwise), they do subscribe to a literalist view of scripture "Because it is inspired by God, it is truth without any mixture of error." http://www.wearecalvary.com.... I think given this context it's not unfair to hold her to her professed beliefs...
2

•
Reply
•
Share ›











James Foxvog Andrew Taylor • 4 years ago


No, the Bible can be true and infallible, but have different standards for different people at different times.

1
•
Reply
•
Share ›











JG, III • 4 years ago


Interestingly, I thought your article was right on point. Although, raised in Pentecostalism have grown spiritually to what I call a radically inclusive philosophy and in discussions with my Atheist friend who constantly reminds me that my interpretation of Scripture isn't a true interpretation. I call him the 1st. Atheist fundamentalist, sanctified and filled with the Holy anti-ghost and with fire. He still manages to be more fundamentalist than a fundamentalist Christian in his debates.


•
Reply
•
Share ›











BrotherRog • 5 years ago


Yep. "Atheists and fundamentalists each tend to read the Bible in the same wooden, overly literalistic manner. The difference is that atheists reject what they read in that manner, while fundamentalists believe it."
Read more at "16 Ways progressive Christians interpret the Bible" http://www.patheos.com/blog...

Roger Wolsey, author, "Kissing Fish: christianity for people who don't like Christianity"
2
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›











Nobody • 5 years ago


Liberal Christians were much more active in the 1960s and 1970s, particularly the National Council of Churches with protests about various social issues.

One reason that I don't discuss liberal or progressive Christians very much is that I have very little idea of what they believe. I was raised in a Methodist Church, and I could not tell you then or now if they had any communal beliefs. The liturgy was pretty traditional, but clearly a lot of the adults didn't believe in miracles, or bible stories, or that Jesus was a savior. When I tried to talk to the youth minister, he always answered a question with a question -- to this day, I sympathize with the Athenians who executed Socrates. I talked to the main minister when I was old enough for him to bother with me, and asked what it meant to be a Methodist, but there was an embarrassed silence until I took pity on him and changed the subject. This was about 45 years ago, but I often talk with two people who have belonged to the church for decades, and are very active; neither of them have been able to think of anything either. Someone argued on the internet that the Methodist Church has the Book of Discipline, which spells out their beliefs. But as the first comment said, the bishops ignore the Book of Discipline so surely no-one expects anyone else to take it seriously.

Maybe progressive/liberal Christians need to make themselves more visible if they want people to take them more seriously.
1
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›











Bob Shiloh Nobody • 2 years ago


Think of it this way. There were the Catholics then after Luther there were Protestants. Then 300 years later there were Methodists. Today there are thousands of Protestant offshoots. Now there are Progressive Liberals. Each group has it's own variances from Catholicism. Who is right? Who is the true Christian? Each group does have one thing n common; they all believe they are the true church. We know one thing for certain; they all cannot be right.

Does each member have the responsibility to vet his organization - Yes!. Do many do this - No! But some decide to verify their beliefs and are shocked when they discover that their beliefs differ from the bible. When they inquire they get the same reaction that you did. That becomes the point of departure for many and then the search begins in earnest.


•
Reply
•
Share ›











Marc Wagner Nobody • 2 years ago


I agree with the last paragraph but traditional ministers will not bother their congregations about what Jesus taught or why it is important to our lives. The mystics, those with the most to offer the spiritual among us, don't generally have congregations, just followers (like Jesus did).


•
Reply
•
Share ›











johnonymous Nobody • 5 years ago • edited

One reason that I don't discuss liberal or progressive Christians very much is that I have very little idea of what they believe.



A prominent atheist once remarked that debating a progressive Christian is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. Which I think captures it perfectly; there's so much hand-waving going on that you can never get down to the actual subject, but instead waste your time on rhetorical games and unsuccessful attempts to define terms.

The fundamentalist, by contrast, is more than happy to state firm ideological commitments, and to vigorously defend them without resorting to obscurantism. But fundamentalists tend to be literalists, and so an atheist ends up debating on those terms (that is to say, the fundamentalist's, not the atheist's). Since the interesting, attention-grabbing squabbles are usually between fundamentalists and atheists, observers like Dr. Corey get the impression that atheists as a rule share the literalist views of their opponents.

That's my hypothesis, anyway, and I'm stickin' to it.
3

•
Reply
•
Share ›











DogGone johnonymous • 4 years ago


Well said!


•
Reply
•
Share ›











Nobody johnonymous • 5 years ago


>Frito Pendejo

I agree with you. I read a Progressive Christian book at the request of a friend, and it struck me how important the catchy phrase is to them. So many of the Progressive Christians speaking and writing are professional wordsmiths and so I think that they often focus on technique more than content or plausibility.

It reminds me of the artist Ad Reinhardt. He is most famous for his black paintings, that is, the surface is pretty much covered with black paint. Critics get all excited about the fact that the black is made up of individual black squares. I have never figured out, or had anyone explain, why that matters. It is all the same to me whether it is individual squares or he used a roller brush on the entire surface. But then I am focused on the painting as a whole, and they are more interested in technical details.


•
Reply
•
Share ›











Steven Waling Nobody • 4 years ago


As a progressive Christian (Quaker actually) I'd say the reason for being a bit jelly like (I'm English too. So you'll have to translate from proper English into American) is because we're not fixed in our thinking like fundamentalists. We change our minds, we don't think of the text as somehow pinned down like a dead butterfly in a cage. Some atheists seem to have the same way of thinking (fixed and immutable) as your average fundamentalist.
5

•
Reply
•
Share ›











DogGone Steven Waling • 4 years ago


Steven, you are hilarious, and you pinned down the point when you said "some atheists." All atheists do not believe in a "god." That's in the word. Apart from that, we differ on many points. We have no unifying philosophy. We have no teacher, charter, or text. We have no hierarchy to dictate our beliefs. Nor do we have beliefs to change. We are not a religion. Some atheists do try to get believers to step aside from religion. but many of us just want religious nutters to let us be.


•
Reply
•
Share ›











Steven Waling DogGone • 4 years ago


I missed this reply. "Some atheists" is right - but there are some who seem to troll progressive Christian pages just to provoke some kind of "they're really fundies under the skin" response. We liberal religious types are often working things out as we go along though; and we're quite ok with our own uncertainties, doubts and questions. Some atheists (again, not all) find that annoying. So be it.
2

•
Reply
•
Share ›











DogGone Steven Waling • 4 years ago • edited


Pax. I don't care what you believe. I just would appreciate it if your brethren would respect my right to privacy and self-determination, especially as a woman. I once stumbled into one of the other sections of Patheos before I understood how the site worked and commented. No problem. They blocked me, banned me, and deleted my comments unceremoniously.


•
Reply
•
Share ›











rrhersh • 5 years ago


I am very late to this discussion, but here goes. The image of Christianity in popular culture has, since about 1980 or so, been of a Fundamentalist. Compare this with, say, Reverend Sloan from Doonsbury. Our Atheist brethren have more often than not grown up thinking that Christian=Fundamentalist. And who has been at the forefront of this message? Fundamentalists, of course. They are only too happy to affirm, should the subject arise, that Liberal Christians aren't really Christians. Of course "conservative" Christianity often is anything but conservative, and "liberal" Christians' understanding of scripture is in many cases far more traditional, but the lived experience of the typical American runs the other way, hearing how "conservative" Christians are holding onto traditional religion while "liberal" Christians are making it as they go along. Most people, whether Christian, Atheist, or something else entirely, aren't students of history. Historical discussions don't resonate the way lived experience does.

The irony is that the modern Atheist firmly asserts that Fundamentalists have lied to them about everything except this. Who counts as a real Christian is the one topic where Fundamentalists are utterly reliable.
1

•
Reply
•
Share ›











DogGone rrhersh • 4 years ago


From the outside, the view is different. Christianity is utterly fragmented and each faction claims it is the true one. We atheists think it's kind of funny.


•
Reply
•
Share ›











Nobody • 5 years ago


I agree with part of what you are saying. I once addressed a comment to my fellow atheists, skeptics, etc., warning them that fundamentalists are not the only Christians, and that one day they are bound to challenge someone with their favorite fundie folly and find that the other person doesn't believe that either. I got no comments, so I doubt it did any good.

Atheists have often boasted that they understand more about religious people than non-Atheists understand about us, and I am dismayed when this isn't true.

On the other hand, I think that your counter-example is off-base. You can certainly take the Jewish laws as a description, but despite what you say, they are written prescriptively. I will leave you to argue with Orthodox Jews about that. I know someone who might qualify as a Progressive Christian, and he is also a New Testament studies Ph.D., who kept quoting Bible verses at me as statements with moral authority. I could generally quote back an opposing verse. Finally, I told him that the Bible is so cherry-picked-over by Christians of all stripes that I failed to see how it could quoted with any authority.
2

•
Reply
•
Share ›











Kirk Leavens • 5 years ago


Blocked! Bye, bye Duane!
1

•
Reply
•
Share ›











Duane Locsin • 5 years ago


Liberal Christians.

Do not fool your selves.

many Atheists may defend with you, agree with you and are on the same side of many social issues with, but are NOT on the same side when it comes to believing your Religion like you.
1

•
Reply
•
Share ›











Dr. Cat Duane Locsin • 5 years ago


Atheists aren't on the side of believing a religion? Well duh, didn't everybody know that? If they believed in a religion, they wouldn't be atheists, would they?
2

•
Reply
•
Share ›











peabody3000 Duane Locsin • 5 years ago


keep worshipping santa claus, you fukking dupe


•
Reply
•
Share ›











Bob Shoemaker peabody3000 • 5 years ago


Do you really have to stoop down in the cesspool with your immature gutter talk when a Christian points out your foolishness?


•
Reply
•
Share ›











Duane Locsin • 5 years ago


Fundamentalist Christians source and often espouse their morality from the BIBLE and the god portrayed in it!!

Where do Liberal Christians source their morality from?

I use secular reasons for my explanations, for better or worse.

This is more an exercise in trying to keep the Religion LOOK palatable to outsiders, when in reality it is a house of horrors.

Atheists intelligent or not, will not rate these mental gymnastics a high score.


•
Reply
•
Share ›











Duane Locsin • 5 years ago


because there are fundamentalist Christians that read the bible like actual fundamentalists.

Let's not sweep these inconvenient Christians away, that I am confident wipe the floor of liberal Christians when it comes to understanding and knowing their Bibles!

Liberal Christians can fault their fundamentalist brethren's all they wan't, however they don't engage them enough on a theological level that's considered impressive, because they get and often source their moral judgments from the very same book Liberal Christians do, and if using more secular arguments and reasons is the preferred method to engage fundamentalist Christians, why continue to use the Bible as the guild to morality?


•
Reply
•
Share ›











Bob Shoemaker • 5 years ago • edited


The question is why do "progressive christians" read the bible like liberals....is the answer
1

•
Reply
•
Share ›











Gexxr • 5 years ago


Because that is the style of interpretation that is most vocally used in public policy debate on issues we disagree with them on.

We read it the way they do to point out their inconsistencies and hypocrisies on women's and LGBT rights as opposed to how they want their lives governed.

We do not have to underscore liberal readings of the Bible to vocally agree with liberal Christians.

And frankly, liberal Christians do the same when arguing with their conservative brethren. Only they don't get mad at themselves for doing so.
2

•
Reply
•
Share ›











John Greene • 5 years ago


I think it's because that's how people, as a rule, get knowledge.

They take the words of an authority as literal truth. They all do, atheists and theists alike. The only difference is choice of authority.

Which is probably much the same way that people in societies have been getting their knowledge since forever.

Maybe 0.0001% of the population gets their knowledge from firsthand experience. These are the artists, scientists, mystics and such.

The other 99.9999% gets their knowledge from authority, ie convention, teacher, guy on tv, etc. Directly or indirectly.

They basically live in a story.

Embedded in society like liver cells are embedded deep within your body. Only the skin cells touch reality.
1

•
Reply
•
Share ›











Rich Geiger • 5 years ago • edited


Then why do Christians insist on having the Ten Commandments thrust upon society? Why not the laws of Hammurabi? If y'all want us to follow your rules, then first you must follow your rules.
3

•
Reply
•
Share ›











James Foxvog Rich Geiger • 4 years ago


The more "liberal" Christians would prefer the Beatitudes over the Ten Commandments. We believe that Jesus' teaching is the center of our faith.
1

•
Reply
•
Share ›











Marc LaClear • 5 years ago


What is a "fundamentalist" then? Your interpretation is pretty "fundy" as far as I'm concerned.


•
Reply
•
Share ›











aL • 5 years ago


Neither Christians, Jews, nor Muslims can agree among themselves on what their holy books say, or the meaning they convey. Their disagreements result in dysfunctional acts that range from individual social isolation, to inter-religious squabbling, to "Holy" wars. Yet every group, and most sub groups insist that their interpretation is the one that is correct. Others claim to take a more laissez-faire attitude, avowing that other interpretations are OK (so long as its not this or that particular group's method). In the middle stands the whip lashed Atheist, called to account for his/her faulty views. I'd laugh at the absurdity, if history and current events didn't make clear how dangerous religions can be.
2
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›











Nixon is Lord aL • 5 years ago


After so many hundreds of years, if they can't agree on their own religions, it's a sure sign tha their religions are made up as they go along.
1

•
Reply
•
Share ›











Plutarch X • 5 years ago


But can Jesus and his mighty penis laser really stop Doktor Monstro and his Phuquebot Battalions when the Carnivortexicon opens?

1
•
Reply
•
Share ›











Leslie Smith • 5 years ago


Its amazing to me how religious people in general go into all sorts of verbal contortions to justify their beliefs. The modification of one's beliefs to fit a lifestyle or an attitude simply does not speak to the truth of why have a religion at all. It seems that there are as many religions as there are people. Christian apologist will never give an inch when it comes down to their cultish behavior. No god, never was, good grief get over it.
3
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›








−


old farmer • 5 years ago


I read the bible because it gives me insight into the historical foundations of Christianity and how Christians & Jews think. For example, Deuteronomy 20:17 "But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you, " Sure sounds like a prescription for genocide to me.
Sorry, I'm being facetious. When you say read the bible "like" fundamentalists do you mean, read the bible or do you mean "interpret the bible as fundamentalists do"? I read the bible because like it or not, I am still largely a product of a culture and society based on Judeo-Christian thinking and in order to gain insight into it and myself.
3

•
Reply
•
Share ›











peabody3000 • 5 years ago


well benjamin.. i think it boils down to this.. if any part of the bible is total bullshit, then every other part of the bible can be considered bullshit as well. if you can dismiss any part of it, it becomes dismissable in total
4

•
Reply
•
Share ›






Load more comments


Subscribe
Add Disqus to your site
Do Not Sell My DataPowered by Disqus


===

목포사랑의교회 백동조 목사, 부교역자들 '가르마' 불량하다며 강단 불러내 공개 망신 < 교회 < 기사본문 - 뉴스앤조이

목포사랑의교회 백동조 목사, 부교역자들 '가르마' 불량하다며 강단 불러내 공개 망신 < 교회 < 기사본문 - 뉴스앤조이

백 목사가 "B 목사님도 가르마가 별로 안 좋다. 이거 수정해야 한다. 2 대 8로 하든지 3 대 7로 하든지"라고 말하자 교인들이 또 웃었다. 그러자 백 목사는 웃는 교인들에게 "아니에요"라면서 자신은 진지하다고 했다.

"헤어샵에 가서 9시 뉴스 앵커들의 헤어스타일로 만들어 달라고 해라. 다음 주일 낮에는 딱 섰을 때 '아 세련됐다, 멋지다' 이런 말이 나올 수 있도록 그렇게 하라. 가운데 가르마가 공인으로서는 적합하지 않다. 3대 7이나 2대 8로 딱 해서 아주 깔끔하게. 예배 집례하는 사회를 보는 목사님들은 모든 면에서 아주 정갈해야 한다. '이 교회 수준 있다' (소리가 나와야 한다) 설교 내용도 수준 있어야 되고 사회 보는 모든 목사님들의 매너도 굉장히 수준급이어야 한다."

처음에는 가볍게 농담하는 줄 알고 웃던 A·B 목사와 교인들도, 백 목사가 정색하며 말하자 당황해했다. A·B 목사는 얼굴에서 웃음기가 싹 빠진 채로 두 손을 가지런히 앞에 모으고 "죄송합니다", "시정하겠습니다"라고 크게 대답했다.

백동조 목사는 교인들에게 "기분이 나쁘냐"고 묻더니, 이 목사들의 단어 선택에도 문제가 있다고 말했다. 기도할 때 '흠향'이라는 단어를 쓴 게 잘못됐다는 것이다. 백 목사는 "지난주 B 목사가 기도하면서 '흠향해 달라'고 기도하길래 그 단어는 안 쓰는 게 좋을 것이라고 했다. 기독교에서 흠향이라는 단어는 적합하지 않은 단어다. 그냥 '우리의 찬양을 받아주시옵소서'나 '기도를 받아주시옵소서'(라고 하면 되는데) 마치 향을 피우는 듯한 뉘앙스는 안 좋다. 그래서 그 단어를 쓰지 말라고 했는데 혼자만 딱 먹어(무시해) 버렸다. 오늘 여기(A 목사)가 또 썼잖아. 내가 흠향이라는 단어는 안 쓰는 게 좋겠다 그러면, 목사님은 즉각 전달을 해야 한다"고 말했다.

백 목사는 "내가 설교 전에 꼭 당신 나오라고 해서 이렇게 짜증스러운 광고 좀 안 하게 좀 (하라)"고 말했다. 긴장한 기색이 역력한 부교역자들은 "알겠습니다", "죄송합니다"를 크게 외친 후 강대상에서 내려갔다.

그런데 백 목사가 문제 삼은 '흠향歆饗'이라는 단어는 정작 제사 때 쓰는 향과는 거리가 멀다. 흠향의 사전적 의미는 "신명神明이 제물을 받아서 먹음"으로 제사와 관련된 어휘이지만, 향기 향香이 아니라 '향연' 또는 '향응'에 쓰는 '잔치할 향饗'을 쓴다.

신구약을 통틀어 개역개정 성서에서 이 단어가 유일하게 등장하는 레위기 26장 31절을 보면 "내가 너희의 성읍을 황폐하게 하고 너희의 성소들을 황량하게 할 것이요 너희의 향기로운 냄새를 내가 흠향하지 아니하고"로 돼 있어 '향기 향' 자로 오인할 소지가 있지만, 다른 번역본에는 흠향이 "기쁘게 받지 않을 것이다"(새번역), "제사를 받지 않을 것이다"(현대인의성경) 등으로 표현돼 있다. 영어 성서 NIV 역시 "I will take no delight in the pleasing"으로 되어 있어, 이 단어가 '기쁘게 받다'라는 의미로 쓰인 것임을 알 수 있다.

＜뉴스앤조이＞는 백동조 목사 입장을 듣기 위해 14일 전화를 걸었지만, 그는 받지 않았다. 문자메시지로 부교역자의 머리 스타일을 교인들 앞에서 공개적으로 질책한 게 부적절하다고 생각하지 않느냐고 물었지만, 답은 돌아오지 않았다.

목포사랑의교회는 출석 교인 2000명이 넘는, 목포 지역에서 제일 큰 교회다. 사랑의교회 옥한흠 목사에게 영향을 받아 1985년 목포에 사랑의교회를 개척한 백동조 목사는 총신대에서 설교학 박사 학위를 취득하고 설교학을 가르치는 등 대한예수교장로회 합동(배광식 총회장)에서 설교학 전문가로 알려져 있다.

[출처: 뉴스앤조이] 목포사랑의교회 백동조 목사, 부교역자들 '가르마' 불량하다며 강단 불러내 공개 망신

===

Sung Deuk Oak

Favourites  · 1125S63 Maponrhcht amtg 25154:54  · 

[단어공부] 흠향하다 (레위기 26장 31절)

받을 흠 歆, 잔치할 향 饗

흠향은 "기쁘게 (제사를) 받다"(새번역), "제사를 받다"(현대인의성경)의 뜻. 영어로는 "take in the pleasing"(NIV)으로 번역.

따라서 향기로운 향을 흠향함 = 제사의 향기로운 향을 기쁘게 받음.

흠향을 향기를 받음으로 해석하면 안 된다.

[적용]

1. 역시 목사는 한자 공부를 해야 돼!

2. 역시 레위기가 중요해!

3. 역시 부목사는 담임 목사를 잘 만나야 해.

4. 역시 담임목사님의 말은 절반의 진실: 담임목사나 교인들이 모르는 어려운 단어 사용하지 말고 그냥 '우리의 찬양을 받아주시옵소서'나 '기도를 받아주시옵소서'하면 됨.

5. 역시 '공인'인 부목사 가르마는 지역의 투표 지지율을 따라가야 해! 서울과 경기에서는 5:5로. 전라도는 좌8: 우2, 경상도는 좌3: 우7.

하나님은 우리의 머리카락을 세시나 담임목사는 부목사의 가르마 비율을 보고 계심.

6. 앞으로는 부목사 가르마만 보면 어디서 목회하는지 알 수 있겠음. ㅎ

142142

19 comments

4 shares

Like

Comment

Share

19 comments

Most relevant



Active

Write a comment…

Helping Hand partners with NARI - Australian Ageing Agenda

Helping Hand partners with NARI - Australian Ageing Agenda

by Australian Ageing Agenda January 29, 2020POSTED INDEMENTIAEXPANSIONS, MERGERS, ACQUISITIONSNOTICEBOARDRESEARCHSOCIAL & WELLBEING
Helping Hand partners with NARI

Professor Briony Dow and Chris Stewart

South Australian aged care provider Helping Hand Aged Care has partnered with the National Ageing Research Institute to help drive improvements in aged care services.

Helping Hand has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with NARI to undertake ongoing aged care research and immedetiately joined two NARI underway.

They include Befriendas, which involves training volunteers who visit aged care residents weekly in a bid to help reduce symptoms of depression and anxiety and decrease loneliness and social isolation.Megan Corlis

Helping Hand executive manager of research and development Megan Corlis said the partnership would be invaluable in shaping Helping Hand’s service delivery.

“We aim to use the NARI toolkit to attract more volunteers to our organisation and increase social connectedness within our care homes,” Ms Corlis said.

A great sense of community often develops when someone moves into an aged care home, but like all relationships and experiences it can take time, she said.

“These research projects are designed to have a positive impact on supporting the development of that community when new residents move in.

“The goal is that we will embed research outcomes into our everyday practices,” Ms Corlis said.

Helping Hand has also joined the Pitch program, which involves developing and evaluating a co-designed and dementia-specific program for home care that aims to support people to stay at home longer by increasing staff understanding.

NARI director Professor Briony Dow said having partners such as Helping Hand enabled the institute to work closely with older people and their carers and understand what is important to them and what works.

“The benefit of working with an aged care organisation is that where we find something that is going to help, we can actually roll that out into care homes and services and be confident that it will make a positive difference,” Professor Dow said.

“Staff and volunteers will participate in training so the research will endure beyond the projects. It will have a lasting impact on residents and home care clients.”

The partnership comes in between the royal commission’s interim’s report released last October and its final report due in November this year.

Helping Hand CEO Chris Stewart said the organisation was committed to transparency and to responding to issues that have emerged from the royal commission, said

“We have already implemented a range of policy and system changes and this research partnership will further strengthen our capacity to respond to change and take a leading role in a transforming sector,” Mr Stewart said.

Results from the projects are expected to be available at the end of the year.