Notice how attention may be cleverly diverted to Christ's teachings when the Christian servants feel that they have nothing better to live for -- which is, to repeat, not necessarily the case for Christian enjoyers, who already have what they want, and may not worry about the teachings or even read the Bible -- and the servants walk a narrow and anxious path, hoping for what the opposite sex never gave them.

The victims of Christ now beaten and subdued by the people who won't have sex with them, a trial of servitude begins in which the enjoyers control the servants like puppets on strings. They are told that they will be rewarded (eventually) if they do all the right things and play by the right rules.

The sadness of a Christian servant, according to my theory, is a complex of foolish behaviors associated with 'hope' that the enjoyers find amusing and attempt to justify on the grounds that the servant was either born with, or came to acquire, an undesirable trait, or that the servant somehow embodies a wish to bring pain and suffering upon the world (even though, ironically, he or she would be the one turned into a suffering servant).

With the conceptual description of Christianity as a tool of oppression now in hand, we may turn to investigate the teachings of Christ in more detail and examine the ways in which these teachings could, on the whole, be used for just such a purpose. We will find that they are eerily consistent with this possibility and I will discuss them within the framework of the theory.

Servant's Lesson 1: Be Sad

How easy it would be to tolerate Christianity, with all its lovingkindness and great artwork, if its servants weren't led into Hell on Earth. As I showed in the section 'The Requirement of Faith,' Jesus appears to threaten his followers for being happy. The teachings are cited again here for reference:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted ...
Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in Heaven ..." -Matthew 5:2-11

"But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.
Woe to you who are full now, for you shall be hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.
Woe to you, when all people speak well of you ..." -Luke 6:24-26

This is more than just a loving consolation. If we take the word of the Bible (and if God were real, what else would we go by?) then you must have at least one person who doesn't speak well of you, or else -- woe to you. And you cannot laugh or be full, or else, woe to you.

What is the purpose of these passages, according to my theory? To further deaden the drive toward personal fulfillment in the Christian servant, to make the servant sad and lethargic so that he or she will be more easily manipulated, controlled, dominated, and more dependent on Christianity in the hope of reward, all so that Christian enjoyers can have more to themselves.

Servant's Lesson 2: Don't Look At Women

To reiterate, sinning is left undefined in Christianity, except for a few cases: in the Ten Commandments and other miscellaneous laws. This is particularly true in the case of Lust, and it may be rightfully asked: How do you tell when someone commits this sin? In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus merely states:

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away ..." -Matthew 5:27-28

We may surmise that 'lust,' although undefined, specifically included the romantic interests of the rejected servant. Not knowing what lust is, a male servant would simply be left in fear of what might happen if he looked at a beautiful woman for too long, or became aroused while looking, or daydreamed about her, or masturbated that day, or showed any other interest in the woman, and may instead resolve simply not to look.

The conflict of natural urges and embarrassment at looking at women could provide the enjoyers with more servitude and foolish behavior from the servant, in addition to whittling away his energy and good spirits.

Servant's Lesson 3: Don't Be Nice In Public

A crucial concept in Christianity is that of 'guilt' or 'sinfulness.' The purpose of the concept of 'sin,' we may suspect, is to land those deemed genetically unfit into a naturally-felt vicious cycle of vengeful behavior, in which all suffering is blamed on the servant -- an act of 'framing' the servant against his or her will. The idea that the less attractive were somehow 'the enemy' was possibly needed to cover up the sadism inherent in the creation of suffering servants.

It could have been to reinforce this idea that Jesus forbade his followers to practice acts of kindness in public, where it could be clearly seen that -- like in any rational being, perhaps! -- pleasure is desired instead of pain:

"Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you." -Matthew 6:1-4

For what other reason could such an instruction be given? Unfortunately, Jesus doesn't tell us. He simply says, "God will reward you," and sweeps the argument of his divine plan under the rug.

Servant's Lesson 4: Let People Be Mean To You

Most probably know this teaching as "Turn the other cheek." Actually, Jesus goes even further and says, "Do not resist the one who is evil." This could have been taught to increase the fecundity of reward for the enjoyer by encouraging the servants to hand away all their possessions:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well." -Matthew 5:38-42

We are beginning to see how Christianity could have been intended to turn unattractive people into 'useful' people, not in a dignified way but in a way that is detrimental to their happiness. As with all teachings, you can question the intended message, but here Jesus states quite clearly "not to resist the one who is evil," a command with pretensions far more ominous than "Turn the other cheek."

It is not merely the antithesis of 'an eye for an eye,' even if placed in opposition to it. It is a whole new command. If a burglar breaks into my house and steals from my charity jar while I'm sleeping and I catch him in the act, should I not resist the one who is evil in this case? What if he chooses to spend my hard-earned charity money on a knife or a hand grenade? How much more valuable would it be if it went toward something the burglar might buy?

Servant's Lesson 5: Humble Yourself Like A Child

Now we come to another important passage of Christ's teachings:

"Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." -Matthew 18:3-4

"Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." -Mark 10:15, Luke 18:17

The effects of this teaching, according to my theory, are to heighten fear of and submission to authority and discourage intercourse. After all, children don't have sex, so what better way to humble yourself than through abstinence? This, again, would benefit the enjoyers, who would use the servants' abstinence to their advantage and keep more for themselves.

As a side note, one might ask, "What if all adults humbled themselves like children?" Who among adults would be left against whom to make an adequate comparison? Here we encounter another instance of vagueness in the Bible.

Servant's Lesson 6: Keep Your Mouth Shut

One of the last things that the savior of my theory would want is for someone like me to come and write a theory about him, and feeling defensive about his scheme, he would have taught his servants not merely to be careful about what they say but that "what comes out of the mouth defiles a person":

"Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person ... For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person." -Matthew 15:10-20

Servant's Lesson 7: Don't Make Promises

"Again, you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.' But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all ... Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil." -Matthew 5:33-37

I can already think of a few possible purposes of this teaching: to ruin the courage of a Christian servant in making accurate statements about the future, to suppress behavioral planning in order to confuse the follower even more, and to discourage thinking in terms of temporal law as instance of law of nature (here, obeying the promise). Without practice in making and keeping promises, servants might become reckless and less trustworthy, further adding to the amusement and proud feelings of superiority of the Christian enjoyers.

Servant's Lesson 8: Be A Slave

And obviously, they are told to be servants.

"If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all." -Mark 9:35

"But whoever would be first among you must be slave of all." -Mark 10:43-44

Before I continue to the final Servant's Lesson in the theory of Christian romantic oppression, I want to remark in passing that Jesus allegedly lived in the days of slavery. Over time, we may have genetically adapted to this lifestyle to a degree that we have learned to be good masters or slaves. Furthermore, it has only been one century since slavery was even abolished, and we are undoubtedly still in possession of the genes of former slavemasters. This could even account for a few of our subsisting cultural themes and prejudices. If we are fortunate, we may eventually overcome these prejudices in our path to enlightenment.

On such a path, we must at the same time acknowledge the apparent defects of Christ's teachings, such as its ultimate attempt to divide people into 'good' and 'bad' for the purpose of gruesome torture, which some criminals and even ordinary people might occasionally want to inflict, but which we are told God plans to. Another apparent defect in Christ's teachings is, as I have shown, the insistence on the sadness of the servant, and also on the servant's losing what he has, bringing us to our next lesson.

Servant's Lesson 9: Be A Loser

Throughout the Gospels, Jesus repeatedly states,

"Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." -Matthew 10:39

This passage is repeated so often that it could be said to constitute an important theme of Christianity: losing your life. And the promise is that by 'losing,' you will be rewarded.

"For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."
"For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it."
"Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will keep it."
"Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life."
"For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it." -Matthew, Mark, Luke, John (various chapters)

Unfortunately, it may be imagined that these teachings, like a few of the previous ones, serve primarily to deplete servants of their resources and cause them to become more docile to the enjoyers. One may rightly suspect, after having considered the modus operandi of the Christian enjoyer in my theory, that Christianity is an ultimate lie and a form of bullying. To further examine this possibility, we now turn to the subject of sinning.

How the Less Attractive Are Made Out to Be 'Sinners' According to Theory

After a university lecture given by the famous theologian William Lane Craig, I told him, "I think it would be nice if Christians gave us an all-encompassing definition of 'sin' by which we could determine whether any given action was sinful." His immediate response was, "The list would be too long," which provoked laughter among the audience.

Indeed, according to my theory, the list would be too long, as the power of judgment on matters of what constitutes a 'sin' would be in the hands of the enjoyer, not the servant. The Christian enjoyer, having already found fulfillment in his or her life and perhaps being more physically attractive, would not feel as compelled to win the approval of his or her social group as the Christian servant through suffering servitude. The servant, therefore, would be the one among them who worried about 'sinning' the most, who sought continued status and approval in obeying the instruction of fellow Christians, like a weary horse being led by a carrot on a stick, hoping to receive a promised reward. The enjoyer, on the other hand, would get to 'play God' with the servants, scolding them, reprimanding them, deciding on a case-by-case basis which among them has made a transgression, even based on something as plain as their physical appearance.

Rather than being adequately defined, the concept of 'sin' is simply connected with the image of a snake, and various attitudes and feelings of the oppressed classes, such as Wrath, Envy, and 'Lust,' are deemed sinful. Even Pride is considered a sin. While the enjoyers have already found what they needed in life, and perhaps do not worry about sin as much, their sad servants (remember Luke 6:24) are unrewarded and even admonished for their acts of kindness, creating resentment and aggression, and are locked instead into an unbearably frustrating mode of life in which they are continually punished and made to appear 'evil,' and only for doing what comes natural to them as beings who need to be loved, for expressing resentment and calculating revenge against their oppressors -- in this way, they are 'framed,' and turned into sinners.

And that's just what they are not, for we often hear their kind sentiments on matters of love, their wish for good fortune for others in addition to themselves, their profoundly meaningful recognition, even amidst their rage and jealousy, that happiness is something to be sanctified and appreciated. And how might we solve the problem of their rebellion? By sending them to Hell?

Gruesome torture is something that these deprived souls could imagine inflicting on others, or even want to inflict at times, but they do not talk about it with the pride and confidence of a Christian who believes in Hell, in whom the infliction is not merely wanted but also planned. What is perhaps most unfair is that some people are more likely to sin than others, due to their genetics, upbringing, and life events. Would God play favorites in the game of who is rewarded and who is punished?

After answering a few objections, I will turn to the problems inherent in Christ's revelation and in the proof of God's existence, but I will first remark upon a recurring theme of the Gospels and what appears to be a scapegoating tactic, calling them Enjoyer's Lessons in my theory.

Enjoyer's Lesson 1: You Will Be Given What Others Lose

Now that we have considered how Jesus' 'good tidings' to the poor can be construed as lies and schemes of oppression, let us now turn our attention to a curious statement that appears five times in the Gospels:

"For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away." -Matthew 13:12

"For to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away." -Mark 4:25

"Take care then how you hear, for to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away." -Luke 8:18

"I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away." -Luke 19:26

"'For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'" -Matthew 25:29-30

The final excerpt is from the Parable of the Talents. "And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness": this bears a resemblance to Jesus' division of followers into 'good fish' and 'bad fish' in Matthew 13:47, which has undertones of genocide and Nazism. Is this Scrooge of a master in the Gospel of Matthew something you'd want to read about after a Christmas carol? I'm just trying to show you how bad it gets.

This, we might imagine, would have more relevance to enjoyers than servants, who would interpret it as a signal from Jesus that he is really on their side, so to speak, and not on the side of the poor and downtrodden.

Enjoyer's Lesson 2: Jesus Was Punished For Your Transgressions

Now we come to what is, in my opinion, one of the most dull-minded and sickening ideas in Christianity, that of the punishment for all our iniquities being laid on some man who died on a cross, that of Christ's 'taking the toll' for all our sins, even though he did not commit them. This could dangerously have the effect of warping Christians' attitude toward the concept of blame and encouraging them to commit the Scapegoat Fallacy.

An enjoyer might gleefully torment his servants while at the same time professing that Jesus Christ 'died for his sins,' so that he could sin and be forgiven, further trapping the servants into feeling that their vengeful actions would be rewarded -- so long as they believed in Christ.

Seven Arguments for God's Existence Refuted

Now that I've described a sense in which the divine plan according to Christianity could go horribly wrong, not to mention the degree to which we could be patronized by Christ in Heaven if he were real, we now turn to the question of just how much importance we should place on these teachings as word of God. To answer this question, we must ask: does the Christian God even exist? Do we have anything to worry about if we don't follow the teachings in the Bible? Is the possibility of being punished reason enough to follow the doctrines in fear?

Standing Up to God

As I mentioned earlier, even if God did exist, there is a chance that he would be so sadistic a torturer of the less fortunate that we would all rebel against him, no matter what the cost. We could do this particularly if Jesus became overbearingly haughty and humorous toward certain groups of people, tried to reinforce us in a way that made us appear evil or foolish for the amusement of himself and others, or did anything to indicate that there was at least one conscious being -- even if only one -- who was suffering in torment in his or her private consciousness while all others enjoyed in ignorance. These possibilities could be found so insensibly cruel from the human point of view that, in acknowledging the reality of a victim's consciousness and the importance of his or her feelings, we would all just team up on him. This could be done even in spite of Jesus' attempted use of magic to sway us, and with courage, we might finally rescue the damned and stand up to the face of spoiled cruelty -- or at the very least, try.

Many arguments have been put forth to prove the Christian God's existence, and to this day I haven't found any that were satisfactory. Most rest on the fallacy of equivocation. Here, this amounts to defining 'God' in some broadly general way at first, to indicate goodness or a cause of existence, and then switching inadvertently to the far more detailed and presumptuous Christian conception of God as an anthropomorphic deity who gave us the Ten Commandments and seven deadly sins.

Refutation of the Argument from the Divine Authority of the Bible

The Argument from Divine Authority states that the Bible is true because God wrote it, and God would not deceive us. When asked how we know God wrote it, it is often replied, "Because it says so in the Bible." Well then, how do you know that that's true? "Because God wrote it."

I could similarly have argued that the moon was made of Swiss cheese. Why? Because it had cheese holes in it. But how did we know that they were cheese holes and not craters? Because the moon was made of Swiss cheese, and cheese doesn't have craters.

If you assert that the Bible is true because God wrote it, how could you not also have believed that the moon was made of cheese on the basis that it had cheese holes in it? Both arguments run in circles without explaining why either of their claims are true to begin with, a fallacy called Begging the Question.

Refutation of the Ontological Argument

The Ontological Argument goes something like this: Entities stand in order of greatness. Since they do, there is a maximally great being. Now, the property of existence surely adds to greatness. Further, if a maximally great being did not exist, then there would be an even greater being that possessed all the same properties including the property of existence, and therefore the nonexisting entity would not be maximally great. The maximally great being may be called 'God.' Since we have just shown that such a being must exist, God therefore exists.

There are a total of four flaws in this argument for the Christian. First, greatness hasn't been adequately defined. Second, greatness isn't shown to have the property of yielding a maximally great being, any more than greatness of finite numberhood is shown to yield a maximally great finite number. Third, the mere fact that existence adds to greatness would not prove that a maximally great being exists -- any more than that a sparkly aura adds to a woman's beauty would prove that the most beautiful woman on Earth had a sparkly aura. Fourth, even if God were defined as a maximally great being, it would not follow that this God is the Christian God. That would be a fallacy of equivocation, as explained above.

Refutation of the Cosmological Argument

The Cosmological Argument runs as follows: All events in the universe have preceding causes. A causal chain cannot be infinite in length backward in time. Therefore, there must be a first cause, a cause of everything, that we may call God.

For the Christian, there are three flaws in this argument, one of them the same fallacy of equivocation -- calling something 'God' and trying to get Jesus Christ out of it. Another mistake is to assume that a causal chain that is backwardly infinite is impossible. We do believe that the universe originated at a finite time in the past, but the point at which the universe came into existence, the Big Bang singularity, might not even exist as a point of spacetime. If you are sufficiently familiar with mathematics, then you will know the difference between a closed set, such as [0, ∞), containing 0, and an open set, such as (0, ∞), to which the 'first point' 0 does not belong. The universe, in this case, would be like an open set: the chain of causes and effects would be backwardly infinite, and a First Cause, or moment of creation, would not exist.

Finally, Christianity -- not only in this argument but also in its very commandments -- tries to make use of an overly simplistic conception of cause and effect, in the form of "A causes B," something God would know better than to do, and that although colloquially used often is really an ambiguous concept. To recap from the section 'The Threat of Damnation,' the phrase "A causes B" could mean any number of things: that events of type A are always followed by events of type B (how do you know the types?), that the removal of event A (what does that mean, exactly?) would cause event B not to occur, simply that A and B both happened or that A didn't happen (the mathematical definition of implication), or perhaps the clearest and most intuitive definition of causality from the scientific point of view, that a fact B about the universe may be logically deduced from another fact A on the assumption that the laws of physics hold. The very last definition does not even require that A 'precede' B, and therefore invalidates the first assumption of the Cosmological Argument.

Refutation of the Argument from Design

The Argument from Design, sometimes called the Watchmaker Argument, attempts to infer from the beauty, design, order, and complexity of the world a deliberate designer. It goes something like this: if you were walking on a desert island and you found a watch in the sand, all its components in orderly geometric proportion and arranged nicely so that the watch ticks, would it be more likely to have been deliberately designed or to have appeared by chance? The answer is obvious: it is far more likely to have been designed by a designer. Therefore, because the universe reveals a marvelous order and complexity similar to or even superior to that of watches, it is far more likely to have a deliberate designer, whom we may call God. Again, a Christian might wrongly deduce that it would be the Christian God by the fallacy of equivocation, something we must be on our guard against with the word 'God' (particularly as it has been made a masculine word).

Besides the fallacy of equivocation noted above for Christians, this argument also rests on the fallacy of the undistributed middle: that if two things have one thing in common, they must have something else in common. From the fact that designed objects are orderly and the universe is orderly, we can no more infer that the universe is a designed object than we can infer from the fact that monkeys have opposable thumbs and William Lane Craig has an opposable thumb that William Lane Craig is a monkey.

There are, in fact, alternative explanations for the orderliness in the world. Philosophers are coming up with still newer explanations. It may be, for example, that only in a universe that possesses orderliness to a sufficient degree can we even become conscious at all -- and so naturally we find ourselves in one. In mathematics, we witness complex and elegant structures that arise from simple formulae such as those found in the laws of physics. To explain orderliness in the world, we need only explain those physical laws that gave rise to it, and for this we do not have to appeal to the Christian God.

Refutation of the Moral Argument

The Moral Argument states that without a god telling us what to do, there would be no basis for a system of ethics. But such systems have been invented before, and they are no more vague or problematic than those of the Bible. We have utilitarianism, in which we seek to maximize happiness for the greatest number of people, we have deontological ethics in which we conform our actions with principles of duty, we have virtue ethics, and we can devise any set of national laws we want to without the need for Christian dogma. Through a sanctity on happiness alone we can do so much more than if we followed lying doctrines of promised reward in return for suffering.

Albert Einstein wrote, "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." As explained earlier, Christianity per se could come to be replaced by more compassionate ideals.

Refutation of the Argument from Sign or Revelation

The biggest problem with revelation is perhaps that the likelihood of God's existence from the point of view of those whom the alleged prophet attempts to persuade is far lower than the likelihood of God's existence from his or her own point of view. Suppose one of our ancestors witnessed the resurrection of Christ with her own eyes. From her point of view, the likelihood of Christ's resurrection is very high, up to 99% depending on the surreality of the appearance of the resurrection and the consensus among her peers. Now, suppose we look in the Bible and see it written that Moses divided the waters before receiving the commandments on Mount Sinai. From our point of view, he might have, if only by a sliver of a chance, but the mere fact that we see it written on paper leaves open another possibility: that the writer lied, or was mistaken.

Not only are there problems inherent in trusting someone else's revelation, there are even problems in trusting what appear might be revelations to you. If something strikes you fearfully as a possible revelation from God, how should God expect you to interpret it? Would the signal be something that promoted compassion and enjoyment, or an obscene appeal to fear? How much respect should such signals foster in you for God?

As an example, let's use one of my encounters that I mentioned at the very beginning of the essay. Beginning in the Fall of 2004, at age 21, following a phase of my life in which I read philosophy textbooks while experimenting with drugs, I made a decision to discontinue all drug use and begin a lifestyle I called 'Trying,' in which I professed belief in God and made an effort to remain active and work continuously all day. One day, I actually said "I'm trying" to one of my coworkers, and I was discharged. On the walk home that day, I passed by a van with a few African-Americans and as if by striking coincidence, the following rap lyrics were playing:

Stop tryin', nigga!
Stop tryin', nigga!
Stop tryin', nigga!
. . .

This experience with the rap song Stop Tryin' by Pastor Troy is perhaps the single most profound coincidence I've ever encountered in my life until now. At the time I heard it, I had wondered whether it was Satan or God, but now I have come to acknowledge that there are many other possibilities, each based on different collections of evidence. A devout religious person could mistakenly infer that this was a signal from God. To this claim, however, I pose the following objections: Is "Stop tryin', nigga" the kind of thing God would say to a human being? How much respect would we give to a God who signaled us in such a rude and vulgar manner?

Another might also mistakenly infer that it was a sign from Satan. Both inferences are instances of the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It seems far more likely to me that this event was set up to sway us into believing Satan existed by Christians themselves. Finally, even if it were Satan, the doctrines of Christianity as investigated here might turn out to be so miserable and full of defects that we should not even buy into them as 'good' alternatives. In that case, for all we know, God might even be Satan.

What if the signal were sent by God? In that case, "Stop tryin', nigga" could mean any number of things to me: stop trying and use drugs again, stop trying to use drugs, stop other people's trying, stop trying so hard, or stop trying altogether. God wouldn't have even made it clear. One possibility that strikes me the most is that God thought it would be too dangerous to allow me into Heaven with my profound sympathy for the less attractive, so he began digging up excuses to send me to Hell, one of which he hoped would be my violent rage and act of murder after the most obnoxious insult to my dignity and intelligence was uttered to me in three words. (Nice try, God.)

Besides being a signal from God, there are many other possible explanations: it could have been set up by terrorists, cartoonists, the CIA, concerned neighborhood acquaintences, quantum laws of physics, an altered path through spacetime caused by drug use, religious people, bullies, or anti-drug campaigners who were defensive that I actually kicked my habit.

In light of these objections, we must constantly be on our guard before concluding that something we experience is a 'signal from God.' We must ask ourselves if such 'signals' are, if sent by God, conveyed in a manner that was respectful and adequate to our intellectual capacities -- in our attempts to clearly discern the intent of the signal, and of its being sent by God as opposed to having some other scientific explanation. Above all, we do not have to feel pressured to accept something as revelation if it was not revealed in a clear, polite, and easy-to-understand format.

Refutation of Pascal's Wager

This argument is perhaps a favorite of religious people. It runs like this: if you devote your life to Christianity and God doesn't exist, you've lost nothing. On the other hand, if you never follow Christianity and God does exist, you go to Hell. Therefore, it is wiser to simply profess belief in God and follow the doctrines of Christ.

The first and major objection to this argument is that the premise that one loses nothing by following Christianity is unsupported. In fact, according to my theory, much is lost for the Christian servant. He or she must follow teachings that threaten punishment for certain lively activities, lull followers into submission at the expense of their own fulfillment, and, in the present day, condemn certain actions and societal laws that could otherwise prove beneficial. For someone who already enjoys life, professing belief in God might mean nothing, but for someone in a great deal of suffering, it would mean the forbiddance of something like voluntary euthanasia or stem cell research. Thus, we see that there might be a lot to lose in following Christianity.

The second objection is that a God who would send you to Hell only because you didn't believe in him might not even be worthy of worship in our eyes, as explained above. The third objection is that one must take into account not only the severity of the outcomes but also their likelihood upon any decision. If Hell were to be excruciating, one could still reject Christian ideals on the grounds that Hell would have an almost zero chance of existing. The final objection I present here is that no degree of reward expectation could possibly inspire blind faith in someone who genuinely seeks truth for its own sake.

Comment on Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals

Friedrich Nietzsche, the famous philosopher who proclaimed "God is dead" and inspired the Nazi movement, likened Christianity to what he called slave morality. In slave morality, we are told, precisely what is good according to master morality is deemed 'evil,' while that considered 'bad' by master morality is deemed 'good.' Nietzsche also wrote at length about the hostility of the sick toward the healthy, which he called ressentiment, and how they should be segregated to protect the healthy.

In this essay, I have shown that Christianity does indeed encourage its followers to embrace an ideal in which wealth, power, and material possession are shunned in favor of submission and servitude. However, I have also hypothesized that Christianity functions not as a retaliation to the higher classes, but a tool of the higher classes to trick the poor and undesirable into thinking they will receive a tremendous personal reward if they work for them with all their might. In this sense, Christianity may have been invented by the masters, not the slaves.

I know that Nietzsche writes with grandiose eloquence and verbosity, and that his constant ridicule of the 'physiologically deformed' may serve as a temptation to bullies who read his writings. However, I do not believe that hostility of the sick toward the healthy, or of lower classes toward higher classes, is always due to illness or social status alone. In fact, such hostility may be partly due to the way the sick are treated to begin with! If they are victimized by the healthy, then of course they will be hostile, but if they are treated in a dignified and fair manner, their hostility may disappear. It would be a mistake to reverse cause and effect and claim that the sick ought to be punished as a result of their reaction to the punishment.

This applies not just to the sick, but to everyone perceived less physically attractive or desirable. The conditions of our society may end up more favorable if, instead of calling them 'dorks,' 'losers,' 'nerds,' 'freaks,' and 'queers,' we continually alert ourselves to the reality of their consciousness, which is no mere organ of the body but a genuine feeling of being someone and only someone, of being alive and sensible, and if we treat them with sympathy to this obvious and important fact in our pursuit of happiness.

I also want to add that while a good deal of Nietzsche's philosophy rests on a distinction between the strong and the weak, we must not infer from the principles of Darwinism that nature automatically favors strong individuals. To understand evolution, we must look at the survival of not just individuals but also groups of individuals. Not only are there evolutionary advantages of being small, but we must also be careful not to let ourselves be swayed by traditional ball sport and its cultural memes into believing that strong people are somehow more entitled to the spoils of victory, or must necessarily be victorious over weaker people. Just as small insects can team up on and defeat a large predator, the majority of the weakest can suppress an uprising attempt to create ideals in which the weak suffer by the minority of the strongest.

Conclusion

I have here outlined a theory of Christianity as a tool of manipulation, a trick to get people to do what you want them to do, a lie that has persisted over centuries and that, if nothing else, was intended to patronize those who did not find fulfillment. I have divided Christians into 'enjoyers' and 'servants' in this regard. I have compared the servitude of an oppressed follower of Christianity to an animal charade performed desperately in hope of reward, explained how the encouragement to remain sad, according to the theory, worsens the servant's condition and makes him or her more dependent on the Christian lie, challenged the notion of 'hypocrisy,' and exposed the vagueness in the concept of 'sin.' I have refuted seven arguments for God's existence. Although some of the kindest people I've met were Christians, I hope that Christianity as a religion will one day be replaced by more truth-affirming ideals.

I understand, first of all, that attractive people would like to feel secure from impatience and hostility of people they perceive less attractive, and that they would consider it a serious insult if I tried to take away their fun. It is not my intention to demand physical services to the less attractive, however painful it may be to be without them, to attack everything that Christianity has created so far, to destroy the good works of great artists and musicians, to tear down sweet carols, to steal Christmas, or to deprive the more attractive and fulfilled from the intense pleasures that are possible with life on Earth. However, I would like to see lies put to an end, taboos lifted on certain means of avoiding pain, such as voluntary suicide, and more respect given to people who were left in the cold, dark loneliness of romantic rejection. Even as a nonbeliever, I have given Christianity and its ideals thoughtful consideration, and I hope that Christians will return the favor.

Thank you for reading.


Send me mail

Back to My Essays

View my Guestbook