Tag Archives: Bible

Why I am an Atheist

Posted on by

In 1903, Kentucky-based newspaper “Blue-grass Blade” asked its readers to write in and contribute to a forthcoming feature named, “Why I am An Atheist.” Hundreds of letters soon arrived and many were subsequently reprinted in the paper; over a century later, in 2011, they were compiled to form the book, Letters from an Atheist Nation.

Below is just one of the letters. It was written by Minnie Parrish, a 23-year-old divorced mother of four who later went on to become the first female doctor to practice in North Texas.

Why am I an Atheist

 

Because it has dawned upon me that it is right to be so, and upon investigation I find no real evidence of the divine origin of the scriptures. And because I cannot, as a refined and respectable woman, take to my bosom as a daily guide a book of such low morals and degrading influences. Written by a lot of priests, I cannot accept a salvation that is based wholly upon the dreams of an ancient and superstitious people, with no proof save blind faith.

 

Everything that so many people think transpires from the supernatural, and many things that would really perplex the average mind, have a natural and material foundation in the workings of the human mind; that is, things that are not connected with our solar system.

 

It is ignorance of the scientific working of their own natures and mind that keep so much “mystery” in the air; and as long as there is a mystery afloat the people will ascribe it to the supernatural.

 

I am an Atheist because I know the Bible will not do to depend upon. I have tried it, and found it wanting.

 

In fact, I found in the scriptures the origin of woman’s slayer, and that it was one of God‘s main points to oppress women and keep them in the realms of ignorance.

 

I am in the ranks of Liberalism because of its elevating principles, its broad road to freedom of thought, speech, and investigation.

 

MINNIE O. PARRISH
23 years old
Leonard, Texas

ᔥ Letters of Note: Why I am an Atheist.

Arguing Equality Chapter 8: Gay Marriage & Religion

Posted on by

This is a nine-part installment designed to help everyone understand marriage equality.  For some, it will be an education, for others, it will be helpful when discussing the subject.  I have included links to each chapter at the end, as well as information about the author.

CHAPTER 8: 

RELIGION

 For many, this is the be all and end all of the debate. Countless books have been written on the subject, and scholars on both sides have wrestled with the subject. Ready? Here we go…

GAY MARRIAGE IS PROHIBITED BY MY RELIGION

The argument is simple, and doesn’t require a whole lot of explaining. It is the single most frequently cited rationale for opposing the legalization of gay marriage.35 For many if not most Americans, marriage is thought to be a religious institution inextricably linked with the Judeo-Christian moral ethic. Since the grand majority of Jewish and Christian sects oppose gay marriage, many contend that it should remain illegal period.

The very definition of democracy.

A) America is a Secular State

The problem with utilizing personal religious beliefs to oppose state sanctification of gay marriage is that legally speaking, religious and civil marriages are completely separate institutions. Though many faiths currently perform same-sex marriage “ceremonies,” these ceremonies have no legal recognition as civil marriages. A heterosexual couple similarly can have a religious marriage ceremony, but unless they file papers with the state that ceremony has no legal significance. Conversely, a couple does not need the blessing of a religious institution to marry – atheists and others who choose not to have a religious ceremony need only fill out a marriage license at City Hall to legally wed.

Just as the state does not dictate which ceremonies a religion can perform or recognize, religious sects should not be able to dictate who receives a civil marriage license. Even if most Americans have a profound religious objection to same-sex marriage, denying even one gay couple the right to wed on religious grounds is a gross violation of our country’s commitment to the separation of church and state.

Not convinced by argument A? How about the opposite end of the spectrum?

B) Freedom of Religion

On the other hand, if one fails to note a disjunction between the religious institution of marriage and its secular counterpart, arguing the alternative — that the religious and secular components of marriage are inherently and inextricably linked — proves equally effective on religious freedom grounds.

At present, the Unitarian/Universalist Church, the United Church of Christ, the Metropolitan Community Church, Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism all recognize same-sex marriage as an intricate part of their religion. If the religious and secular components of marriage are truly linked, then a strong case could be made that the government’s failure to sanction gay marriage is a violation of our constitution’s guarantee of freedom of religion. Moreover, the government, by not legalizing gay marriage, is valuing some religious ceremonies over others (for instance, a marriage ceremony performed by the Methodist Church rather than the United Church of Christ), an example of government favoritism clearly forbidden by the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

Below is a little history lesson. Christianity, historically, has valued neither procreation nor marriage all that much for most of its existence.

C) Marriage and Christianity

Finally, those who claim that marriage is a vital, fundamental and immutable facet of the Christian religion should be greeted with a healthy dose of historical skepticism. Despite its import in recent times, Christianity has been most notable for its insistence on the preferability of lifestyles other than family units – priestly celibacy, voluntary virginity (even for the married), and monastic community life. While it may seem like the biological family has always been the central unit of Christian life, this is simply not the case. As John Boswell noted above, Christianity was, for the most part, ambivalent about marriage for much of its history.

But even if in recent times marriage has come to play a vital role in the Christian religion, the idiosyncrasies and inconsistencies of the church’s position certainly work to undermine its credibility. Bishop John Shelby Spong of the Episcopal Church, for instance, notes that the church regularly blesses fox hunts, homes, and even warships: “The church has no problem blessing a vehicle whose sole function is to reign nothing but death and destruction, yet refuses to bless the union of two people who are in love.”

As an institution, Christianity remained overwhelmingly ambivalent about most forms of heterosexual marriage during the first millennium of its existence. This is hardly surprising for a religion whose founder was supposed to have had no biological father, whose parents were not married at the time of His conception, who was believed to have had no siblings, who Himself never married, and whose followers — in direct opposition to those of Judaism and most pagan religions — considered celibacy the most virtuous lifestyle. – John Boswell, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe

THE GOOD BOOK

LEVITICUS 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

When addressing homosexuality and religion, biblical arguments inevitably come into play. As Peter J. Gomes explains: “Nearly every such person who acknowledges an aversion to homosexuality does so on the basis of what he or she believes the Bible to say, and in their minds there is no doubt whatsoever about what the Bible says, and what the Bible means.” Of course, nothing could be further from the truth; what the Bible actually says and means about homosexuality is wildly disputed in both academic and religious circles. For a good read on the subject, I highly recommend my good friend Daniel Helminiak’s “What The Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, and John Boswell’s Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality.”

via Gay Marriage & Religion.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Seth Persily is a member of the Georgia Bar and a cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School. While at Harvard, Mr. Persily served as Publisher of the Harvard Law Record and co-President of the Lambda Law Association. Mr. Persily obtained his undergraduate degree from Duke University, where he served as President of the Duke Gay, Bisexual & Lesbian Association. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa, with a B.A. in Religion and a minor in Gay & Lesbian Studies.

Mr. Persily worked at the Atlanta law firm of Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan before opening his own practice, Persily & Associates, which concentrates on employment discrimination and real estate law. He serves on the Board of Directors for Georgia Equality as well as YouthPride.

Related articles

Jesus Wants You To Know

Posted on by

This message goes out to all the people using the Bible as a weapon against their own personal fears; to the all the people teaching their children to sings hateful song about things they are too young to understand; to all the evil priests that rape children and the cowardly priests that protect them, to all the under-educated mothers that home school their children to insure that they never get any smarter then them; to all the “christians” that picket military funerals for their own agenda; to all the people that quote words in a book as justification for not liking people as a way to not have to make their own decisions; and to all the thieves, liars, murderers, and bullies that use other people’s need of a higher power to advance their own personal greed.

You are not Christians, as you are not christ-like.  You are a bastardization, a mutation, a cultification.  A watered-down, highly edited, Cliff’s Notes, Game of Telephone, copy of a copy of a copy, of something that was probably pretty good.  Your hatred and buffet-style approach to the Bible only fuels your need for righteous judgement of others.  You are worse than someone that has no formed religious beliefs.

“I never said that.  I don’t know those people.” – Jesus

Dr. Joel Hoffman: Five Ways Your Bible Translation Distorts the Original Meaning of the Text

Posted on by

Dr. Joel Hoffman: Five Ways Your Bible Translation Distorts the Original Meaning of the Text.

From the Ten Commandments to the Psalms to the Gospels, English translations of the Bible distort the original meaning of the text: The Ten Commandments don’t forbid coveting. Psalm 23 is not primarily about sheep or a shepherd. And God didn’t give his only begotten son because he loved the world so much.

The problems stem from flawed translation techniques that haven’t been updated in hundreds of years.

In particular, there are three common ways of determining what the ancient words of the Bible mean: etymology, internal structure, and cognates. But they don’t work very well.

Two other factors further degrade modern translations: a general desire not to change historical translations and a misunderstanding of how to translate metaphors like “God’s hand” (God doesn’t literally have a hand) or “the Lord is my shepherd.”

These five issues have conspired to create English translations that conceal what the Bible originally meant.

Familiar, modern languages like English or Spanish illustrate what goes wrong.

The English words “ballot” and “bullet” share an ancient source, but they mean completely different things. Likewise, “grammar” and “glamour” used to be the same word, but most students don’t find grammar to be glamorous. These pairs are examples of how etymology is misleading.

Knowing what an office is does not shed light on what an officer does, even though “officer” has the word “office” in it, just as sweetbread is not sweet and it’s not bread. These words demonstrate the danger of relying on internal structure — roots, prefixes, suffixes and so forth — to discern a word’s meaning. (Also, a “strip mall” isn’t what some people might suspect.)

There’s a word “demand” in French and it confuses English speakers because it means “to ask,” not “to demand.” In Spanish, “embarazada,” does not mean “embarrassed” but rather “pregnant.” These kinds of related words (known as cognates) are common in various languages. It stands to reason that if the words are related they ought to mean the same thing, but it’s not true. Cognates, like etymology and internal structure, are unreliable.

Proverbs 28:21 in the 400-year-old classic English translation known as the King James Version (KJV) cautions, oddly, that “to have respect of persons is not good.” But 400 years ago, “respect” meant “to be partial,” and the point was to avoid favoritism. Additionally, the KJV’s “turtle” whose voice is heard in the beautiful imagery of Song of Solomon is a bird. These examples demonstrate a fourth problem plaguing modern translations: the power of history.

In part because of the generally conservative nature of religion — “out with the old, in with the new” is not a particularly welcome sentiment at most seminaries — these and other familiar but outdated translations often stick with us and continue to influence Bible translators. (One especially grievous case is the well known but widely misunderstood phrase “God so loved the world” in John 3:16. The meaning of “so” here has changed.)

Shakespeare writes that “Juliet is the sun.” But even though melanoma comes from exposure to the sun, Shakespeare didn’t mean that Juliet is that girl who causes skin cancer. Obviously, he meant that she has some very specific and culturally defined qualities of the sun, such as beauty. This represents perhaps the trickiest flaw in modern translations: missing the important parts of metaphor and other symbolic language.

Unfortunately, etymology, internal structure, and cognates are the three pillars of Bible translation. And with them, the power of history and a focus on the wrong parts of metaphor degrade all English Bibles even more.

So your Bible translation contains flaws as bad as: mixing up “ballot” and “bullet” (etymology), thinking that all officers work in offices (internal structure), mixing up requests and demands (cognates), thinking that turtles fly (history), and thinking that romance must involve cancer (metaphor).

Fortunately, more modern and reliable translation practices are available, though they haven’t made their way into published Bible translations yet. Still, more than at any other time since the Bible was composed, we are better equipped now to understand the ancient words of Scripture.