Atheist United Church Minister got to keep her job

[Tinker Grey]

I'm curious. Does your denomination preach/teach the Bible? If so, how does an atheist preach/teach from a source that they themselves don't believe in?

I can draw life lessons from the tortoise and the hare without believing the story happened or that rabbits and turtles can talk.

I've seen plenty of atheists online comment on how valuable the Sermon on the Mount is.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Which has no correlation to either of the pseudosciences I provided (chiropractic and homeopathy)

Mainstream medicine having certain issues doesn't give some sort of intrinsic validation to alternatives by default.

Well, sure, when you snip one phrase out, it looks odd. No one said that the intrinsically self-serving motives of mainstream medicine necessarily validate the alternatives sought out.

But it sure encourages others to look for them.

Because while mainstream medicine does a couple things well - slice and dice when you need something removed or repaired, and provide drugs like antibiotics (which should be available OTC, but that's another issue), it (and its affiliates) do a whole lot of nasty stuff as well, in the name of pursuing profit and experimenting on vulnerable and unknowledgeable people. Like the aforementioned repackaging of fish oil into a pharmaceutical they can then control, and profit from immensely.

 

[Radagast]

the intrinsically self-serving motives of mainstream medicine

That's a smear on dedicated doctors and nurses that you should apologise for.

And how is that related to the OP, anyway?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I've seen plenty of atheists online comment on how valuable the Sermon on the Mount is.

That's quite weird. How can they value it? Have they read the thing?

It starts with the Beatitudes:

• Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. - but there is no Atheist heaven, only the earth.
• Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. - By whom? This is just a platitude then.
• Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. - How? By the strong giving up their power? Someone didn't read their Nietszche...
• Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. - By whom? Secular humanism with its relative morality? Haven't they heard of selfish genes and how we are all out for ourselves?
• Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. - By whom?
• Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. - No God for you, though.
• Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. - No Heaven again, just persecution down here, sorry.
• Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. - Not really applicable to the Atheists, except perhaps as the opposite number.

Next is the Salt of the Earth and Light of the World, or the fulfillment of OT law - hardly applicable if the beatitudes aren't.

Then it is don't get angry at others and reconcile easily - okay, that's fine. But wait, then we prohibit looking at others in lust, divorce, oaths or explain how to fast or pray - doesn't sound much like how Atheists want to behave.
There is also loving your enemies and pacific turning the other cheek, here. That is a hard thing to do, which even Christians have a hard time with.

Jesus then says we shouldn't worry because God looks after us, and not to store up material possessions here, but in Heaven - um, our hypothetical Atheist only has the here and now, and no God, so...

Then we have not judging others, which is sound advice, and ending with a slew of bits about false teachers and building wisely on bedrock.


So...the vast majority of the Sermon on the Mount is inimical to the Atheist. It is just wrenching from context and freely cherry-picking to try and claim the mantle thereof. This amounts to saying I like the bit about not judging other people, a little spot of pacifism and maybe think the Beatitudes sound nice (though platitudes). Really not a logical coherent position.

 

[Tinker Grey]

@Quid est Veritas?

Well,

• The sermon on the mount is more than the Beatitudes
• Nietszche is not an authority for atheists
• Atheists are not bound to agree with each other ... we have no dogma, no list of tenets. We merely agree that the evidence for gods is lacking.
• The atheists that find the SotM useful most likely find it valuable to state that "we should all be nice to each other"

 

[hedrick]

Most agnostics and atheists I know follow Jesus' behavioral principles better than a lot of Christians. Where they part of Jesus is that Jesus saw them as a reflection of God's love for us. Atheists do it because it's a good way to live. Not a bad justification, but not the same as Jesus'.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

@Quid est Veritas?

Well,

• The sermon on the mount is more than the Beatitudes

Which is why I referenced it in entirety above, just doing the beatitudes in depth for comedic effect.

• Nietszche is not an authority for atheists

Clearly not. If you aren't paying attention to one of the greatest moral philosophers, who announced God is Dead no less, then no wonder they aren't bothered by such things as logical consistency.

• Atheists are not bound to agree with each other ... we have no dogma, no list of tenets. We merely agree that the evidence for gods is lacking.

Not entirely true, since you are apparently agreeing on lack of evidence, which assumes a common paradigm or framework, likely with some agreed upon tenets and a priori positions like the validity of empiricism etc., but I digress. Not really in the mood to delve into this modern atheist sophistry, but we already established the lack of regard for soundness or coherence in this specific subgroup.

• The atheists that find the SotM useful most likely find it valuable to state that "we should all be nice to each other"

Yes, so a profound discourse is rendered facile. It is the equivalent of a business tycoon like Donald Trump calling Das Kapital valuable, since "we should all be fair". All in all, a generally farcical position.