Several days ago, I wrote an article about a Florida couple who used the Bible to justify a half-decade of sexual assault against an orphaned minor. I made a comment in the article about this incident showing how dangerous the Bible can be. In the wake of publication, my comment regarding Christian theology became the focal point of several defenses and criticisms.
I knew that was going to happen.
I understand how writing about religion and theology affects people. Some are perceptive and warm to the idea of ideological narrative while others are quick to deflate any opportunity to engage in an intellectual discourse on Christian theology. This is just the way we are and while Christian theology is a cornerstone of a large majority of the American public, dependence upon theology is not something uniquely American.
But why does there exist so much dependence on religion? Why does theology make up such a large portion of our individual and national identities?
I don’t keep my atheism a secret, nor do I silence myself when it comes to how I feel about religion — Christianity in particular. I think the idea of a supernatural being in complete control of the entirety of existence is silly. I think the cults of personality that believe in said supernatural being are fundamentally flawed and in some cases, virulently corrupt. I think that dependence upon religious platitudes speaks volumes as to how easily we can limit ourselves in not just intellectualism, but also in common sense and consistency.
For example, before I rejected the notion of a God, I was Roman Catholic. The most important ceremony within Mass is the eucharist — the body and blood of Jesus Christ. In Mass, the body of Christ is a cracker or a wafer of some kind and the blood is wine. The priest performs a blessing and as far as Catholic theology is concerned, the wafer is the literal body of Christ and the wine is the literal blood of Christ.
To a Catholic, this is normalcy. This mysticism is perfectly legitimate. But, if I were effectively do the same thing the priest does with a waffle and a glass of juice, “literally” turning them into the body of David Foster Wallace, I’d be labeled certifiably insane.
If I were an evangelical Christian and was attending a service, if the service made me feel uplifted and spiritually ascended, then God is “good.” He’s an “awesome God.” But when people are killed by the tens of thousands through no fault of their own, God is “mysterious” or if I were to jump on the same logic train as many Protestant figureheads, God is “punishing humanity for their sins.”
How can this God who is good and benevolent also be so quick to murder comprehensively? More importantly, if this God is one who is fatherly and protective over all of his creation, with everything being his creation, why isn’t the entirety of existence composed of Christians? Why are there Scientologists and Hindus and Buddhists and other non-Abrahamic religious people in the world? These people, again through no fault of their own, are damned, condemned to an eternity of torment and suffering because they do not believe in the Abrahamic God. In spite of Revelation, God willed billions to damnation through no fault of their own.
Essentially, God is cruel, which begs the question: Why do we worship a cruel God? Why has humanity become so morally dependent upon a compendium of ancient theology that is little more than half-folklore, half-accounts of someone who may not have actually existed?
But most importantly, why are we not thoroughly debating these fallacies and why is it so hard for a lot of us to see them as fallacious?
Featured image via WikiMedia
