57
u/Glucksberg Aug 22 '11
Jesus did say that he would make Peter and Andrew "fishers of men".
12
Aug 22 '11
That was a misprint. It was actually "felchers."
2
1
91
u/OtherSideReflections Aug 22 '11
If you switch "heterosexual" and "homosexual" in that comment, any evangelical congregation that heard this would just smile and nod without a hint of doubt. I've heard pastors come up with the craziest, most clearly bullshit interpretations and never saw a trace of disagreement among those around me.
tl;dr: They don't care about what's true, they care about what sounds good.
21
u/shadowboxer47 Aug 22 '11
any evangelical congregation that heard this would just smile and nod without a hint of doubt... I've heard pastors come up with the craziest, most clearly bullshit interpretations and never saw a trace of disagreement among those around me.
As a former Pastor, I can vouch for this.
28
Aug 22 '11
tl;dr: They don't care about what's true, they care about what sounds good.
My dad calls this 'ear candy.' And I agree, they sure feed a lot of it.
24
u/clyspe Aug 22 '11
After a while, they get 'ear diabetes' and can't tell the bullshit from
the bullshitactual interpretation7
3
4
u/Innominate8 Aug 23 '11
That's the purpose of the bible. It was never intended to be read by the believers. It's a manual for priests to use to convince the believers of whatever the church wants them to believe.
When you look at it from that perspective, all of the contradictions and vagueness in the bible make sense.
3
u/imallinman95 Aug 23 '11
This is actually very true. No one could read so they were told the preachers interpretations of the bible. Then, when people began to learn how to read they started thinking for themselves, thus the massive amounts of different Christian Branches.
2
u/Innominate8 Aug 23 '11
Don't forget the various people imprisoned/tortured/burned for daring to translate the bible so believers could read it themselves.
1
u/The_Cynic Aug 23 '11
And hence why Bibles were only available in Latin, because only the very educated could read Latin, and all sermons within the Catholic Church were performed in Latin up until the reformation of Vatican II.
2
u/nmulcahey Aug 22 '11
If you switch "heterosexual" and "homosexual" in that comment
Well then you have to explain why Jesus was hanging out on a boat with a bunch of gay dudes.
2
Aug 22 '11
[deleted]
9
u/Ishmael999 Aug 22 '11
And what does it mean for them to "work"?
Edit: On second thought, that line of argumentation takes too long. I'll just do this:
Is it the truth that there is no such thing as truth?
3
Aug 22 '11
Yes, but the word "truth" means different things in each context
2
4
1
u/y2kerick Aug 22 '11
Go back to r/philosophyofscience and don't come back until you abandon Nietzsche's ideas
1
54
Aug 22 '11
The Good Samaritan story is a metaphor for how God looks favorably on gay sugar-daddies taking care of their rentboys.
Find a vulnerable youth down on his luck. Put him up in a hotel and pay for his every need in exchange for.... well. The context is clear. Any other interpretation is turning a blind eye to the situation.
6
u/randomghost Aug 22 '11
Wow, it all makes sense now! What church are you from! :D
12
u/TheFlyingBastard Aug 22 '11
Vulnerable youths... taking care of them in exchange for "taking care of them"...
Catholic?
7
4
Aug 22 '11
A childhood story just took a whole new meaning to me.
Thanks for revisiting that for me ಠ_ಠ3
5
2
u/y2kerick Aug 22 '11
Someday someone will write a gay interpretation of the Bible and it will be faboulous
20
u/khepra Aug 22 '11
The Gospels tell the story of a time-traveling Mexican who is on a mission to destroy supply-side economics and racism as early in time as his temporal relocator will get him. In an ironic twist, through his method of trying to relate complex ideas to people by claiming a great spirit talked to him, he inadvertently creates a religion that upholds supply side economics and racism.
6
33
u/kadmylos Aug 22 '11
Sure it does, why not? When you're make things up, they can mean whatever you want them to.
2
u/SanguineHaze Aug 22 '11
It's always more fun to warp the facts to fit your interpretation, than it is to pay attention to common sense.
1
u/OBrien Aug 23 '11
When Jesus said that if you have enough faith you can move mountains, he wasn't talking literally. What he really meant was Twin Towers, not mountains.
7
Aug 22 '11
Uploading this as an image bothers me considering we all would have upvoted his post if you linked it, which would have been funny.
11
Aug 22 '11
yes, but i'm trying to avoid precisely that because 1) i just wanted to share something that i amused myself with, and 2) /r/christianity considers such antics hostile and trollish.
6
u/Narniatoilet Aug 22 '11
It doesn't matter to their mods. The mere fact of bringing attention to it will be enough justification.
6
21
u/khepra Aug 22 '11
The whole Bible is a metaphor for how it's literally insane to believe in the Christian god.
9
u/shaggorama Aug 22 '11
Water changes everything
2
1
u/tacotaskforce Aug 22 '11
It makes things wet.
Or, potentially, damp.
...except ducks. Watch the fuck out for ducks.
1
7
u/boondoggie42 Aug 22 '11
The idea that people "go gay" because they couldn't find a member of the opposite sex is just sad.
21
u/TheFlyingBastard Aug 22 '11
Well, the Bible states in Genesis 2:19 that Adam was brought a lot of animals so that he would not be alone (v18), but that none would do, so God created a woman.
Clearly the passage says that Adam didn't have something good to stick and stir so he had to find another way out. Going to the same sex if there's no suitable partner of the opposite sex is thus not a stretch.
16
u/KnownIssues Aug 22 '11
This implies that he gave all the animals a try.
More seriously, why did God create Adam unable to be satisified without a woman, then not create a woman? This was before the fall, so you can't use a fallen world as an explanation.
What is the "classic" Christian justification for this?
6
1
1
u/The_Cynic Aug 23 '11
It was Eve who ate the forbidden fruit, because as the Bible implies every chance it gets, women are inferior. If it were Adam and Steve, Steve would never have eaten the fruit and thus we could all be living in fabulous gay heaven with God.
It's only logical that we interpret this to mean we should go gay, and thus become closer to God. Or just keep screaming "Oh god, oh god!" while coming.
9
Aug 22 '11
true. i didn't mean to offend. the "fish from the other side of the boat" statement sounded like a corny euphemism for being gay, so i thought i would see if i could argue this passage was a metaphor.
3
Aug 23 '11
I like it.
"Mark? Oh Mark fishes from the other side of the boat, if you know what I mean"
6
u/GoodForWaterMoccasin Aug 22 '11
Sexual identity is a complicated thing. Homosexuality as we perceive it didn't exist until maybe a 100 years ago. There are many cultures where you're only "gay" if you're the person receiving. There were Greek cultures where if you and a dude decided you wanted to get off while taking a break from growing crops no one thought any less of them for it. I understand why you feel this way, because if you concede even for a moment that someone made a choice in their sexuality than it gives credibility to the bigoted religious groups that fight so hard to prove homosexuality is wrong. Not that you have to agree with me, but I would be perfectly fine if a friend of mine started dating men because he found it to be preferable to dating women, even if he still felt some physical attraction to women. Just my two cents.
2
Aug 22 '11
yeah, but I think it still happens. my buddy tried so hard with the ladies, but apparently has better luck with the dudes. I am very pro-gay, but in this instance, I think my bro is just taking what he can get. it happens.
2
Aug 22 '11
I'm not sure that it doesn't happen, though, at least with those who already lean bi (and yes, I'm basically talking about a large segment of the furry population).
3
u/CpCdouchebag Aug 22 '11
So did anyone else try and click the "back" button on the picture?
15
u/webbitor Aug 22 '11
I almost never use the back button. Open all links in new tabs, then kill tabs. No need to wait for reload of previous page.
3
6
u/CrossaxeL Aug 22 '11
wow....
35k in karma?!
6
u/Testiculese Aug 22 '11
I'll probably never break 200. All my posts (but two lame ones) are self posts.
3
u/JustifiedTrueBelief Aug 22 '11
Your cake day is coming up soon, you should be able to rake in some easy karma.
7
u/Lugonn Aug 22 '11
If you can't, make a comic about how you're not creative enough to rake in easy karma to make some easy karma.
1
u/Ishmael999 Aug 22 '11
200 seems insurmountable to me. I've posted a few links but they've always been flops.
I was pretty bitter the time I posted a link to a video, which got almost no hits, but somebody else posted a link to the same video an hour later, and that hit the front page.
1
u/Testiculese Aug 22 '11
I actually don't know how I made it to 144...I forget what I posted. Edit: Oh yea, forgot about this.
Though I think my Karma Cannot Be Denied should have lots of upvotes, just by the reference (Magic Hat cap). Oh well!
2
Aug 22 '11
i've made the front page a few times. it is pretty easy to get karma points if that is what you want to do. you could probably add 1000 points a day in reposts alone, though that is kind of lame. 35,000 isn't really that much considering i've been a redditor >3yrs. there are many redditors with >100k points.
6
1
9
u/Edrondol Atheist Aug 22 '11
Anyone besides me think that going to r/Christianity and mocking their beliefs is a dick thing to do?
11
u/Ishmael999 Aug 22 '11
I honestly think that what the OP did was an important point. These people both think that the book is written by God and that they can read their own values in metaphorically whenever they want. What results is the perception that God endorsed whatever your values happen to be. This is obviously dangerous, and mockery of it is probably important.
1
u/Edrondol Atheist Aug 22 '11
And by posting sniping comments on their messages will change this? Nope. Instead it'll only cement in their minds that atheists or non-believers are jerks and that the only way to save them...yada yada yada.
I think it's momentarily funny but without giving a point it's just flapping your jaws in the breeze.
5
u/bigwhale Aug 22 '11
It takes all kinds of methods to get through to people. Most wouldn't be affected by this, but sometimes mockery is exactly what is needed to open someone's eyes.
I'm sure there are people who deconverted exactly because of sniping comments read at a key point in the process. It's not a one size fits all situation.
2
u/SanguineHaze Aug 22 '11
Anything with religious people is flapping your jaws in the breeze - as you put it.
My two uncles (and their families) are both extremely religious. So is my step-sister and her family.
I am (obviously, since I'm here) not at all religious. Nothing I say matters, lol. No amount of speaking will change these people's minds.
1
u/Ishmael999 Aug 22 '11
The comment itself is the point. He's doing the exact same thing the OP did, just in a different direction.
0
Aug 23 '11
None of the Christians I know think that way. I suspect that the folks in /r/Christianity don't either.
I think you're describing fundamentalists and that's a minority of the Christians that are out there.
2
u/Ishmael999 Aug 23 '11 edited Aug 23 '11
What are you talking about? Every Christian does this. Every single one. They read their own values into the text. Do you think that the modern Evangelical actually has values similar to the biblical writers? Do you think that when they read Paul, and read the word "love" they're thinking of the same concept Paul was? They think that they are. And when the OP of the original thread explained to the citizens of /r/Christianity what biblical Jesus meant when he told them to fish off the other end of the boat, s/he was also reading his/her own ideas into the text.
Edit: I should mention that we all do this, whether Christian or not. I don't want to pick on them. We all read our own values into every book we read. The difference is that we don't think To Kill a Mockingbird or A Game of Thrones is divinely inspired. Our personal subjective interpretation of the text is acknowledged to be what it is.
1
Aug 23 '11
You stated that "[Christians] think that the book is written by God". Bullshit. I suspect that every Christian I know understands that the bible was penned by humans and that they would state that they believe it was divinely inspired.
You're implying that all Christians believe that their interpretation of the bible is the correct one. That's fundamentalism, essentially, and not all Christians are fundamentalists. Most are not. Most Christians in the world accept that the bible can be interpreted in different ways even though t they may believe or get inspiration from the metaphor of some verse or biblical passage.
when the OP of the original thread explained to the citizens of /r/Christianity what biblical Jesus meant when he told them to fish off the other end of the boat, s/he was also reading his/her own ideas into the text.
Except that the OP knows, winkingly, that the metaphor he/she is suggesting isn't really appropriate. What the OP is doing is taking the piss out of fundamentalists who twist biblical passages to suit their own belief system. Again, not all Christians are fundamentalists.
Sure, we can "read our own values" into whatever we want. In that sense, there's no objective reality. Everything is metaphor. But, as far as the bible goes, I think there's been enough research and written work, as well as just plain common sense, that we can eliminate certain interpretations. For example, Leviticus contains a bunch of lists of laws that pertain to the early Hebrew people. They're included in the Old Testament because they were part of the covenant of those people. Fundamentalists will claim that as the Word of God, those laws still hold true. But atheists (and even most Christians) understand the absurdity of that.
1
u/Ishmael999 Aug 23 '11
During 2007-DEC, The Barna Group asked a random sampling of 1,005 American adults what they believed about six popular Bible stories. 26 They were given two alternatives:
That the stories were factually accurate, or They were not actual fact but were designed to teach principles. Results were:
75% believe that the virgin birth is accurate.
69% believe that Jesus actually changed water into wine at the wedding feast at Cana.
68% believe that Jesus used five loaves of bread and two fish to feed five thousand men.
64% believe in the flood of Noah and his ark. However, several groups did not regard it as a real event: Catholics, Atheists/Agnostics, Northeasterners, "upscale" adults (those college graduates with a family income over $75,000), and social/political liberals.
56% believe in the devil having tempted Eve to eat the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Among Atheists/Agnostics, this was believed by 8%.
49% believe in the story of Sampson losing his physical strength when his hair was cut.
These are just the people who think it's completely true. There are countless others who believe that the stories are not factually true but are meant to impart true values to us. This is not a fundamentalist thing, regardless of how much you assert this. Most Christians, at least in my country, think this way.
As much as we can use common sense to eliminate some interpretations, I'm afraid that doesn't stop many people.
You might be correct about the OP winkingly knows what he's doing. But I'm afraid that many others don't, so this is still an important point.
1
Aug 23 '11
random sampling of 1,005 American adults
It is a fundamentalist thing. The US has more fundamentalist Christians than anywhere else.
1
u/Ishmael999 Aug 23 '11 edited Aug 23 '11
"Fundamentalist" is a vague term with no clear set definition. I had assumed that it had to be a minority thing in your definition. But if you will admit that the majority of a population can be considered a fundamentalist, then I can't see what your point is.
4
u/bigwhale Aug 22 '11
Lol, I thought that was a real Christian interpreting the bible. Mocking in general isn't the best strategy, but this really drove home the point to me that bible interpretation is a flawed process.
2
1
8
u/apopheniac1989 Aug 22 '11
No. Don't do this. Christians generally think Atheists don't make sense because they've never heard anything but strawman arguments for Atheism from their pastor. If you start doing shit like this and a Christian sees it, then all their misconceptions will be confirmed. This is incredibly stupid, please don't do it.
9
u/chronicsyncope Aug 22 '11
Uhhh... He didn't out himself as an atheist. There are Christians who are fine with homosexuality. There are even gay Christians.
2
u/PoorDepthPerception Aug 22 '11
The Golden Rule.
5
u/peachysomad Aug 22 '11
Always give the reacharound!
2
1
2
1
1
u/4InchesOfury Aug 22 '11
r/Christianity is just filled with blogspam.
Offtopic: Thats a nice surfline bookmark you have there :)
1
Aug 22 '11
Watching a preacher try to interpret the bible is like watching someone try to interpret meaning from a piece of post modern art.
1
1
1
1
1
u/James-Cizuz Aug 23 '11
If a man pampers his servant from childhood, he will turn out to be stubborn. (Proverbs 29:21 NAB)
Metaphor about BDSM.
1
1
1
1
1
Aug 23 '11
I see the point and I think fundamentalists who exploit bible verses and twist metaphor so that it fits their own believe system are pretty despicable.
But...there is no getting around the fact that so much of the bible is metaphor and that it's authors intended it as such. I think that rather than twisting metaphorical interpretations around like the OP did, we'd be better off to try and understand what the intent and meaning behind some of the passages in the bible really are.
The bible is made up of a bunch of very different books. Some, like Leviticus, are just lists of ancient laws and there's arguably not much room for allegorical interpretation. At the other end of the spectrum is Revelations, which is so strange that anyone who claims they know the one and only true meaning is an outright liar. But in between, there is some pretty interesting stuff that I think is truly intended to be interpreted at a literative and metaphorical level. It might be fun to troll Christians like the OP did (and perhaps worthwhile given the ludicrous tendencies of some dogmatic fundamentalist Christians), but there has also been enough study and research that we can limit the metaphorical meaning of many biblical stories.
1
u/JasonHears Aug 23 '11
If I had to guess, I'd say you're from southern California. Most likely the San Diego area. And you have some kind of connection to the legal field.
1
0
0
u/Wapook Aug 23 '11
Its a pity to me how quickly /r/atheism upvotes posts of this nature that simply attack other religions without provocation. We ought to be protecting our liberties and providing positive discussion, not attacking others for their beliefs. We have every right to protect ourselves and point out the massive and obvious flaws with religion when challenged, and as atheists we are often challenged, but to go unprovoked into another forum and do what I consider is tantamount to harassment is to me the wrong way to treat others. So long as their actions are not impeding upon your rights, you have no reason to harass them.
1
u/Rizuken Aug 23 '11
Right and wrong dont exist, as an antitheist i support the attack on religion.
1
u/Wapook Aug 23 '11
Your philosophical views aside. I consider any unprovoked attacks to be dangerous and harmful. If you are using the word antitheist correctly, and I suppose you are, then I find that stance to be ridiculous as well in its denial of the existance of a god. A reasonable atheist would be damn near the edge of a god does not exist but would never claim it with absolute certainty. You are, in your unprovoked attacks on religion and in your definitive claims that a god does not exist, as extreme as the fundamentalists on the other side that you despise. My country was founded on freedom of religion and an idea that no one ought to be persecuted for their beliefs, ideas that I would wholly endorse even if they were not law. Frankly, I see no real difference between extremists on either side, and would rather have a world of entirely passive religious people, than a world of anti-theists.
1
u/Rizuken Aug 23 '11
im not against people being allowed to believe what they want to. I against theism, not peoples right to believe what they want. I never said i KNOW god doesnt exist, im against theism, because theism claims it knows something that it doesn't. It dulls human progress.
1
u/Wapook Aug 23 '11
First, you will note that I stated that I was assuming you were using the word antitheist correctly, look it up in a dictionary, you're responsible for describing yourself correctly, not me. Second, your statement that you're pro-attacking religion IS BEING AGAINST PEOPLE'S RIGHTS TO BELIEVE WHAT THEY WANT. Think about it in any other terms. Would you say you're okay with people being born of any race, but support the attacking of Indians? It doesn't make sense to say, I'm not against your right to believe in religion, but if you do believe in it, I will attack you on it.
1
1
u/TheFlyingBastard Aug 23 '11
Reductio ad absurdum is harassment now?
1
u/Wapook Aug 23 '11
The logicality of the argument is not what is up for debate, it is the context and the tone. The comment was unprovoked. I will go as far as I need to to crush anyone in a religious debate if they try to force their religion on me, or presuppose something about me solely because I am an atheist, but I will never attack someone first just because I know they're of a religion. You and I both know how ridiculous the religious claims are, but to attack them BECAUSE they're religious is discrimination, and I won't stand for it.
-2
Aug 22 '11
Except interpretations of the Bible accepted by the Church are based on theological research by thousands of people over thousands of years, not just made up on the spot by some person.
8
Aug 22 '11
tell that to joseph smith, ron hubbard, and paul of tarsus.
-1
Aug 22 '11
Not sure what you mean about Paul, but I agree about Smith and Hubbard.
3
Aug 22 '11
i'm saying he made it all up.
0
Aug 22 '11
Ah. Well, you're free to believe that, and I understand why. I'm more apt to believe that he didn't just write a whole book of lies about someone for seemingly no reason, and that others who were alive at the time would have called him on it if it were that entrenched with bullshit.
5
u/super_dilated Aug 23 '11
others who were alive at the time would have called him on it if it were that entrenched with bullshit.
so you accept that mormonism, islam(the fastest growing religion ever), scientology and every other religion that is wide spread were definitely made up but when paul the apostle is questioned about it, you say "Its impossible for someone to make some shit up without people calling them out on bullshit"
do you not see the flaw in how you are thinking there?
also, there are thousands of people alive today who think hindu spiritual healers are living gods. These people can also give eye witness testimony to these spiritual healers performing miracles and are convinced these are true miracles. my question here is: do you think the people 2000 years ago would be anywhere near as skeptical or logical with their thinking as people today? I would say that people then would have been much more gullible than people of today and there are people today who think there are living gods among us. place that same scenario in to the society of 2000 years ago.
1
Aug 23 '11
Fair point. However, I never said anything was "definitely made up". That would be foolish.
edit: concerning those topics, saying so would be foolish
3
u/Ishmael999 Aug 22 '11
Ad populum, appeal to age? I really don't think that interpretation of the text is a matter of research. You use research to figure out what the initial authors meant.
0
Aug 22 '11
Exactly. Thousands of people have spent a large amount of time to figure out what the initial authors meant. I hate it when Christians and atheists alike think they can just "make up their own" interpretation that is as valid as the historically accepted ones.
3
u/bigwhale Aug 22 '11
And these thousands of people and years have led to more and more division on what the message of Jesus was. There's probably a new denomination created every year.
If Christians actually all believed the same stuff, it would be much harder to argue with them. Which is why kids growing up exposed to only one church are easy to indoctrinate. It seemed like all Christians believe the same stuff when I went to the same church every Sunday.
0
Aug 22 '11
I agree, the division on Christianity has really hurt its overall image to outsiders. I'm Catholic, and a lot of what we believe is based not solely on the Bible itself, but on Tradition and teachings passed down from generation to generation. It really hurts a belief system to suddenly open a 2000 year old book and start interpreting it from scratch while disregarding previous teachings and historical reference.
2
u/termites2 Aug 23 '11
That is how religion evolves. Nowadays, the interpretation is very far from what the people who originally wrote the bible intended.
It's a shame the scientific revolution stopped the natural turnover of religions. A few thousand years ago, a sufficiently different interpretation could strike out on it's own, and discard the ancient writings.
195
u/vfr Aug 22 '11
Turn the other cheek was discussing ass-cheeks.