I find the average atheist seems to be more familiar with the messages of the Bible than many of these people who claim to spend their Sundays studying it.
Teenage me went into reading the Bible expecting to learn more about my religion and become one of those well-versed scholars.
And then I kept reading, and the terrible truth eventually dawned on me. It really is just a bunch of silly stories from farmers thousands of years ago. It’s nearly impossible to actually read it and remain neutral about this; yet another one of life’s “emperors new clothes” situations.
The more I read the Bible (having read multiple versions) as a teen the more I realized that people who claim to walk as Christ did, in fact do not walk as Christ did. There are exceptions, such as the pastor who I met volunteering at a soup kitchen, but a vast majority only prove my point.
Christ walked among sinners, the down and destitute, tax collectors, sex workers and the “unclean”. The same people these self proclaimed men and women of Christ will rebuke and spit on.
I always think back to that scene from Castlevania between the Bishop and the Demon: “my life’s work is in his name!” “Your life’s work. Makes him puke.”
Yeah but some of the worst Christians are the ones who do walk with the wretches. They come in with their ideas of sin and salvation and don’t bother to notice when they’ve found pockets of paradise among the damned because they’re too busy trying to convert people away from the things they like
It really is just a bunch of silly stories from farmers thousands of years ago
Can you imagine how twisted the guy who wrote Revelations was? Why did he just make all that shit up? Why did he try to pass off his own shit as Yahweh’s shit? Since he knew that Revelations was his own made up bullshit, he must have known that the entire bible was made up bullshit too. Why did he think it was okay to be a gigantic liar and for him to contribute to the mountain of bullshit started by others?
If you’re actually curious about this, Elaine Pagels has a really great book about this. The book of Revelation was just a thinly-veiled series of jabs at specific people and the politics of the time.
Her interpretation is that it would have been blatantly obvious to John’s contemporaries, but it’s opaque to us now because we’re so far removed from that time period.
so something similar to Dante’s Inferno, which is basically a long shitpost about contemporary politics that over time diffused into religious culture?
A friend who grew up an atheist recently read the Bible as part of her reading a bunch of religious texts. Her take on revelations is that she’s had fever dreams like that.
Out of curiosity I went to one once, I am not Christian and I never believed in the Bible.
I don’t know if this how all churches do it but the one church I went to read the Bible in a manipulative way. Regardless of the book or its content, you cannot construct a narrative by selecting one or two verses from one book and another one or two verses from another book of the Bible. Sometimes the books aren’t even from the same testament.
Any book should be read in whole, and any verse has a context that explains it.
The same technique applied to anything be it a research paper or a comic will produce a false narrative.
Here’s a fun one: tell a conservative that rich people are doomed to go to hell. If they ask how you figure that, quote:
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God
Without fail their programming will kick in and you will get some lengthy blog post with stupid reasoning about how what Jesus was actually talking about was some rock formation and some other dumb shit. Meanwhile you can just read the verses before and after for context and it’s pretty damn clear what was meant: greed is a form of evil.
This is the difference between reading the Bible and having it explained to you.
Another fun one: tell them God prefers atheists to vague believers. Prepare for another programmed blog post about how Jesus was actually referring to the taste of the water at some town that completely ignores the context of the book itself.
I don’t know about other churches, but the Methodist Church I used to go to with my grandma never had a pastor out of the 2 I witnessed that did stuff like that. Maybe it depends on the region, but I’ve never heard of those type of manipulative strategies where I live, so I’d say I’m pretty lucky on that front. Closest I’ve probably heard of something like that in my area are the Mormons, but that’s a whole nother can of worms that I don’t wanna touch.
Regardless, that doesn’t sound right or like a very Christian thing to do. Even if the verses tell of similar things, context for those verses are real important, just like with any other readings (religious or otherwise).
I find the average atheist seems to be more familiar with the messages of the Bible than many of these people who claim to spend their Sundays studying it.
Teenage me went into reading the Bible expecting to learn more about my religion and become one of those well-versed scholars.
And then I kept reading, and the terrible truth eventually dawned on me. It really is just a bunch of silly stories from farmers thousands of years ago. It’s nearly impossible to actually read it and remain neutral about this; yet another one of life’s “emperors new clothes” situations.
The more I read the Bible (having read multiple versions) as a teen the more I realized that people who claim to walk as Christ did, in fact do not walk as Christ did. There are exceptions, such as the pastor who I met volunteering at a soup kitchen, but a vast majority only prove my point.
Christ walked among sinners, the down and destitute, tax collectors, sex workers and the “unclean”. The same people these self proclaimed men and women of Christ will rebuke and spit on.
I always think back to that scene from Castlevania between the Bishop and the Demon: “my life’s work is in his name!” “Your life’s work. Makes him puke.”
Yeah but some of the worst Christians are the ones who do walk with the wretches. They come in with their ideas of sin and salvation and don’t bother to notice when they’ve found pockets of paradise among the damned because they’re too busy trying to convert people away from the things they like
Can you imagine how twisted the guy who wrote Revelations was? Why did he just make all that shit up? Why did he try to pass off his own shit as Yahweh’s shit? Since he knew that Revelations was his own made up bullshit, he must have known that the entire bible was made up bullshit too. Why did he think it was okay to be a gigantic liar and for him to contribute to the mountain of bullshit started by others?
If you’re actually curious about this, Elaine Pagels has a really great book about this. The book of Revelation was just a thinly-veiled series of jabs at specific people and the politics of the time.
Her interpretation is that it would have been blatantly obvious to John’s contemporaries, but it’s opaque to us now because we’re so far removed from that time period.
huh. Interesting.
so something similar to Dante’s Inferno, which is basically a long shitpost about contemporary politics that over time diffused into religious culture?
Yup. It’s a big fat rant propaganda against nero. And it worked - our perception of nero has been viewed through that lens for centuries
He went in for the 2000 year old schizopost.
A friend who grew up an atheist recently read the Bible as part of her reading a bunch of religious texts. Her take on revelations is that she’s had fever dreams like that.
Money
Out of curiosity I went to one once, I am not Christian and I never believed in the Bible.
I don’t know if this how all churches do it but the one church I went to read the Bible in a manipulative way. Regardless of the book or its content, you cannot construct a narrative by selecting one or two verses from one book and another one or two verses from another book of the Bible. Sometimes the books aren’t even from the same testament.
Any book should be read in whole, and any verse has a context that explains it.
The same technique applied to anything be it a research paper or a comic will produce a false narrative.
Here’s a fun one: tell a conservative that rich people are doomed to go to hell. If they ask how you figure that, quote:
Without fail their programming will kick in and you will get some lengthy blog post with stupid reasoning about how what Jesus was actually talking about was some rock formation and some other dumb shit. Meanwhile you can just read the verses before and after for context and it’s pretty damn clear what was meant: greed is a form of evil.
This is the difference between reading the Bible and having it explained to you.
Another fun one: tell them God prefers atheists to vague believers. Prepare for another programmed blog post about how Jesus was actually referring to the taste of the water at some town that completely ignores the context of the book itself.
The point is that whatever verses are picked out agrees with what the pulpit wants to believe. It makes their hate righteous.
I don’t know about other churches, but the Methodist Church I used to go to with my grandma never had a pastor out of the 2 I witnessed that did stuff like that. Maybe it depends on the region, but I’ve never heard of those type of manipulative strategies where I live, so I’d say I’m pretty lucky on that front. Closest I’ve probably heard of something like that in my area are the Mormons, but that’s a whole nother can of worms that I don’t wanna touch.
Regardless, that doesn’t sound right or like a very Christian thing to do. Even if the verses tell of similar things, context for those verses are real important, just like with any other readings (religious or otherwise).
It’s also a thing based on denomination. Quakers are unlikely to pull that shit, meanwhile baptists are infamous for it.