Here's an article written by a latent jew on his reading thru the old testament.

The author makes an interesting point:

"If God made me, He made me rational and quizzical. He has given me the tools to think about Him. So I must submit Him to rational and moral inquiry. And He fails that examination. Why would anyone want to be ruled by a God who's so unmerciful, unjust, unforgiving, and unloving?"

I'm not going into the details of the old testament here, but there's a thing that always bugged me about Catholicism, and that is the main reason why I began to doubt it all, and ultimately deflected from it.

I simply cannot exist without doubting stuff like that, cos if I didn't - whats the reason that keeps me from changing religions when I see fit, or when someone sweet-talks me into one?
The only real reason for being catholic in the first place was being born into it, and had I been born a couple hundred miles away, I'd have been something completely different.

Ultimately, the place where you were born has the biggest impact whether you "go to heaven" or suffer eternally.
Deflecting to another religion is highly discouraged in every religion. So what gives?

That is just about the stupidest thing about organized religions, and I simply cannot wrap my mind around it.

So here I am :)

Views: 62

Comment by Johnny on March 3, 2009 at 12:07pm
Comment by evoLverR on March 3, 2009 at 12:14pm
Nope :)
Comment by Johnny on March 3, 2009 at 1:08pm
I do think defecting might be more fitting; but when double-checking the definition, you're right that deflecting fits. Its your article, and since it wasn't a typo I won't argue further.
Comment by evoLverR on March 3, 2009 at 1:26pm
Hahaha, ok. But the point was to get you to comment on the Slate article :)
Comment by Johnny on March 3, 2009 at 3:14pm
Oops. OK, beat me back in line with the 'off-topic-stick.'

The article on Slate starts out sounding like it may go the way of many apologetic or bible-thumping articles; but it does not finish with the same tone. Even having read the whole article, I find a little contention with one of his early quotes: "The Bible is the first source of everything from the smallest plot twists to the most fundamental ideas about morality to our grandest notions of law and justice." The Bible is not the first source for these. Granted for centuries many have thought it to be the origin of morals and laws; but in today's wealth of available history and information can be found other documents and myths that show the Bible 'stole' much from other cultures.

One interesting comment he makes: "I don't, and can't, believe that Christ died for my sins. And even if he did, I still don't think that would wash away God's crimes in the Old Testament." This got me thinking of a play-on-interpretation: God didn't send Jesus to die for my sins, or our sins, or the world's sins. God sent Jesus to die in hopes that we would forgive him for his sins. -- Think about it... In that age, if you wanted forgiveness from your god, you sent a bull to the temple to be sacrificed to your god. Then God sent Jesus to us to be sacrificed so that we would forgive him. -- Ehhh, don't worry, I don't believe in either of them... But you could turn that into an interesting argument...

Overall an interesting article; even though he doesn't seem to have made it to complete non-belief yet, I think it illustrates the motto here on Think Atheist: "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service