Last week I tried a little experiment on the Friendly Christian site. I took a parable from the bible and put my atheist take on it. I don’t think there was much surprise that I got the same sort of idea about what was written as the Christian reader or the ex-Christian. It was the first time that I’d ever read it though. I usually gain a slightly different perspective when I give it a second reading.
This is my second interpretation of the Parable of the Guests.
Luke 14:7-15 (New King James Version)
7 So He told a parable to those who were invited, when He noted how they chose the best places, saying to them:
8 “When you are invited by anyone to a wedding feast, do not sit down in the best place, lest one more honorable than you be invited by him;
9 and he who invited you and him come and say to you, ‘Give place to this man,’ and then you begin with shame to take the lowest place.
10 But when you are invited, go and sit down in the lowest place, so that when he who invited you comes he may say to you, ‘Friend, go up higher.’ Then you will have glory in the presence of those who sit at the table with you.
11 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
12 Then He also said to him who invited Him, “When you give a dinner or a supper, do not ask your friends, your brothers, your relatives, nor rich neighbors, lest they also invite you back, and you be repaid. 13 But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind.
14 And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you; for you shall be repaid at the resurrection of the just.
15 Now when one of those who sat at the table with Him heard these things, he said to Him, “Blessed is he who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God!”
First some context. Jesus in this story is a guest at the home of one of the rulers of the Pharisees. He’s been invited to have dinner with some of the lawyers and Pharisees who we can all assume are important figures. I think a modern equivalent is a district attorney inviting lawyers and legal experts to his home. Of course the law and religion was much more integrated in biblical times so it doesn’t translate across that well. Extending the metaphor though the figure of Jesus could certainly take the place of a modern day social reformer or idiolistic law professor. Let me know if this seems like an unfair comparision.
Read the rest of this news item »
Today is the anniversary of Thomas Jefferson’s birth. Apparently he’s an important figure in American history, what with him being the third President of the United States and all. Given the significance of the day I thought that it was worth spending a few minutes talking about him. Please take into account that I’m not an American and American history and politics were never part of my childhood education. Any errors and omissions are a result of the dodgy websites where I’m getting my information. ;)
I’m going to concentrate on Jefferson’s famous religious opinions given that this site is dedicated to the dialog between atheists and theists. Raised in the Church of England (the name itself is conclusive proof that God is English, as if the sense of humour weren’t a big enough clue) he converted to the deist philosophy. He believed in one God, divine moral law and divine providence but not in supernatural revelation. He viewed Jesus as a great teacher but not as the incarnation of God or as a messiah. Perfectly reasonable beliefs if you ask me.
Jefferson’s conclusions about the Bible are noteworthy. He considered much of the new testament of the Bible to be lies. He described these as “so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture”. He described the “roguery of others of His disciples”, and called them a “band of dupes and impostors” describing Paul as the “first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus”, and wrote of “palpable interpolations and falsifications”. He also described the Book of Revelation to be “merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams”. While living in the White House, Jefferson began to make his own condensed version of the Gospels, omitting Jesus’ virgin birth, miracles, divinity, and resurrection, primarily leaving only Jesus’ moral philosophy, of which he approved. This compilation was published after his death and became known as the Jefferson Bible.
When I read that I just had to laugh. It’s a fine example of cherry picking and is about as close to atheism as you can get and still believe in God.
Read the rest of this news item »
In this article in Saturday 15th March’s Guardian newspaper John Gray compares the rise in vocal atheism to evangelical Christianity of the worst kind. While he has several points of value I can’t help feeling that the comparison is unfair.
Atheism is not an organisation or a philosophy, it has no core dogma or central body of literature to claim wisdom or worth. Atheism is, in simple terms, a lack of belief in gods. Actually there are two common definitions of atheism:
Read the rest of this news item »