A poster on another forum has an interesting idea. He suggests that in religion, the severity of the threat for non-belief (or non-compliance) is proportional to the amount of bullshit you’re being asked to swallow.
On the face of it, this seems intuitively true. Go to a UU church, and you’re asked to believe that there might or might not be, or have been, or will be, something that might, or might not be thought of by some people as God, and that it might or might not love us, or maybe it’s just a metaphor. Predictably, there’s no threat of punishment for not believing as they do. If you decide you’re not into it, you’re just asked to return the casserole dish from the last pot luck.
On the other hand, to be a Christian, you must believe (to one degree or another) that God magically created everything, and knew everything that was going to happen, and loved man so much that he created him horribly flawed, so he (Jesus, who is actually God, but not quite) had to sacrifice himself to himself so that he could forgive us for the way he made us. Oh, and also, all the animals of the world fit into a boat the size of a tennis court. And the world stopped rotating so that some Jews could kill some non-Jews one day. And there are talking snakes. And women should not speak in church. And God wants ten percent of all your money.
On the face of it, it’s pretty hard to swallow. But then, if we don’t believe, it’s TEN TRILLION YEARS OF BURNING TO DEATH WITHOUT DYING!!!!!
It also seems to me that the emphasis on hell seems proportional to the moderation of the denomination. Episcopalians rarely preach about hell. They also tend to support women’s choice, gay rights, and they don’t believe the world is six thousand years old, or that the stories in the Bible are literally true. Southern Baptists, on the other hand, seem to have a quota on threats of hell per sermon. And they are mostly Biblical literalists.
So, I haven’t given this idea too much thought, but it’s damn interesting. Any comments, readers?
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
Sounds about right. It’s quite funny really.
Posted by Athol Kay | November 29, 2009, 11:12 pmHa! That’s awesome. And completely true. It’s like an algebra problem to determine that x=bullshit.
Posted by Meg at Demanding Joy | November 30, 2009, 10:58 pmMay not be strictly precise, but a fair approximation given the data set. Budhism is it that’s big on the reincarnation bit? Get with the picture, boogy to some higher existence, don’t do well, go back a few spaces and try again. Seems to fit the model pretty closely too. I like it.
Posted by Ryan Wood | November 30, 2009, 11:13 pmWhat about Scientologists, though? It doesnt get a whole lot more bullshit than that, but their threats are nothing compared to the Christians or Muslims.
Posted by atrasicarius | November 30, 2009, 11:27 pmWell, scientologists don’t have any “official” threats of punishment like the Christians, but have you heard about how they basically take over towns, mafia style? (Google Scientology and Clearwater, Florida) From what I understand, they resort to genuine, real world threats to get their way.
Don’t get me wrong. I think you have a valid point. Maybe the degree of threat = degree of bullshit is just a general principle, not a hard and fast rule. But I think it would be a little disingenuous to suggest that everyone involved with Scientology is there of their completely free and uncoerced will.
Posted by hambydammit | December 1, 2009, 4:37 pmAtrasicarius, I would argue that the threats of Scientology is scarier as they as they involve real world punishment through humiliation and shame. With Christianity it’s just a mind fuck and if you’re sensible enough you can see passed the veil, but to opt out of Scientology once committed takes not only IQ points, but real courage and sometimes a competent lawyer.
This rule can even encompass other traditional beliefs like in Christmas with Santa knowing whether you’re naughty or nice. In America you get a lump of coal , but in other countries you can get Krampus.
Posted by Sharkbait | December 1, 2009, 10:55 pmABSENT ALL RELIGION AND THE FANATICAL FOLLOWERS THEREOF, WE WOULD STILL HAVE THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, AND NO BIN LADEN OR A CONTROVERSIAL PRESIDENT
Posted by HANK ALSTON | December 7, 2009, 1:54 am