Okay, those weren’t his words as I recall them, but let me explain all this.
So as I’ve said before on this blog, my husband is an atheist. We both have YouTube running almost constantly on our TV (because we don’t have cable so we don’t have the Weather Channel [wah]). In my husband’s case, he watches a lot of videos of the Atheist Experience, where Matt Dillahunty and others talk to atheists, Christians who want to antagonize atheists, etc. And while it was playing on the TV the other day, I heard Matt say something close to this:
“If you’re a loving God, and you create flawed children, and you then punish your children for said flaws, you’re a pr!ck.”
And I found myself thinking, It’s hard to argue with that, really.
Now as it turns out, my own particular faith has like a dozen creation stories – I kid you not; actually I don’t know the exact number, it could be less or more – and it’s not completely clear to me whether the creators in any of those stories were acting from a loving capacity. I’m still a neophyte in certain areas of my religion, I’ll be honest.
But my faith is also not nearly as harsh on offenders as Christianity is. Having your heart get eaten by Ammut the Devourer is reserved for only the worst offenders. Most people can get by with a copy of the Book of the Dead buried with them (or having a priest say the words or something). The Book of the Dead is essentially a collection of spells that are all but guaranteed to assure the buyer (these were purchased) a golden ticket to the Field of Reeds. As long as you were buried with the spells or had someone say them, you were good, so to speak. It’s definitely not like Catholicism, with its limbo and hell and whatnot. There is no baptism in Kemeticism because you are not assumed to have been born in a state of sin. Creation is happening at every moment, which means you have a second chance at every moment – also a pagan thing, not just Kemetic. At any rate, it’s way different from the religion Matt was addressing.
Also, let me point out that, strictly speaking, Matt is not saying that the Christian God doesn’t exist. He’s saying that if He does exist and the aforementioned is true, then He’s a prick. But this information would make most people question their beliefs, right? Do you really want to believe in a prick? Some do, I’m sure, for many reasons which we will not get into here. Nevertheless, I had the urge to post my thoughts on this slightly paraphrased quote.
What do you think?