The Christian God is an abusive parent

 



One of the things that I’ve realized, as I’ve tried to process the harm that my Evangelical upbringing caused me, is how similar it is to the harm that abusive, neglectful, or otherwise dysfunctional parents cause their children.

 

Consider the god of the Old Testament. By turns, he beats the hell out of his kids, and even kills them, for disobedience or questioning his authority; or leaves them to fend for themselves for years at a time. His rages are unpredictable, and he always blames his powerless victims for provoking his wrath. And then he turns around and tells them how much he loves them, and how he promises never to flood the earth again, and how he will take them back as long as they’re really sorry for making him mad. If Old Testament god was incarnate, he’d be exactly like an alcoholic father.

 

New Testament god looks at first to be an improvement, but is really not. If Old Testament god is a physically abusive/ neglectful father, New Testament god is the emotionally abusive mother who enables him. Makes impossible demands of her children, and then tells them they don’t love her enough when they fall short. Tells them she loves them, but threatens dire punishments if they don’t behave themselves. Always watching to make sure you’re behaving, and screams at you the second you even THINK about misbehaving. Always has to be in control of everything, and rages if anyone (other than the abusive husband) dares to make any decision she doesn’t agree with. Uses weaponized guilt and shame any time her kids are anything short of perfect - “How can you TREAT me this way, after all I’ve DONE for you, all I’ve SACRIFICED for you???” Never apologizes for her own shortcomings, EVER – whatever she did was perfectly justified by YOUR behavior. And while Old Testament god would lash out on impulse, or bail and ignore his children for ages, New Testament god will calculate and plan horrible punishments for whoever crosses her.

 

If you think I’m exaggerating, or at best describing a twisted version of Christianity that isn’t REALLY based on the Bible, consider these statements from the New Testament:

 

“All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god.” (I mean, how could we NOT? Kinda easier for an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, eternal being to be perfect than for us with our finite, barely sentient monkey brains).

 

“The wages of sin is death.” (Wages – meaning we deserve what we’re getting, based on how we’ve performed).

 

So… for the crime of not being able to meet the impossible standard of perfection, we deserve death. That is literally what the Bible says.

This is why halfway sane Christians don’t take the Bible literally. It’s why the Christians who DO take it literally are so merciless to themselves and everyone else in declaring their (and our) unworthiness and innate awfulness, and also why they’re the demographic most likely to hit their kids to force compliance. And it’s why the only truly sane option is to cut ourselves off from the abuser, work to heal from the trauma, and realize that we don’t HAVE to accept the abuse any more. Especially from a parent who was literally never there for us… because he never existed at all except in our minds.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Baby in the bathwater?

Image
A Christian minister asked a Christian president, who was elected by Christians for Christian reasons, to behave in accordance with Christian principles. And yet, the majority of the country's Christians are mad about it. And despite that, the rest of the nation's Christians continue to insist that there's a "real" Christianity that somehow the majority of Christians are failing to practice despite the fact that those Christians make their whole personality about how Christian they are. The decent humans that still adhere to Christianity - who are very much the minority of Christians - continue to believe that Christianity has an actual moral core and a message that can make its adherents behave in a more moral way. They continue to tell me that there's a baby I've thrown out with the bathwater by rejecting Christianity in its entirety.  And I get it. I used to think the same, for decades. I would "no true Scotsman" every Christian who behaved im...
Read more

On Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Evangelical Republicans, and Judas Iscariot

Earlier today, I posted this on Facebook: "Tonight, for Maundy Thursday, Christians all over the world will commemorate a time when an innocent man who had done nothing more than criticize people in power was imprisoned and ultimately executed without due process, due in large part to a mob of religious people demanding his destruction and claiming he was a danger to the rule of the emperor. And 80 percent of American Evangelicals will never, EVER realize that they are the Judas in this story." But on further reflection, I realized that this was unnecessarily harsh and insulting. ... ...to Judas. After all, Judas realized almost immediately that he had done something monstrous, something unforgiveable, and felt such remorse at the enormity of his betrayal that he could no longer live with himself. But Evangelical Republicans lack the moral clarity of JUDAS FUCKING ISCARIOT. No, they're something far worse. They're the crowd chanting "Crucify him!" and "...
Read more

A matter of principle

Ever since November of 2016, the question has haunted me: How did the conservative Evangelicals I grew up with so thoroughly lose their principles? And the correct answer is: They never had principles.  But for once, I don't intend that as an insult. I mean this as a distinction between two different ways of looking at morality. Evangelicals never had principles; they had RULES. Because that's how their churches train them to think. They (along with the Catholics, who have fallen into the same error) are religious fundamentalists. They don't treat morality as a set of flexible guidelines that can and should change over time; they treat morality as a set of rules that are "the same yesterday, today, and forever". If the Bible said it in 2000 BCE, then it's still binding 4 millennia later (except if there's another rule that negates it, such as the "no bacon" thing being negated by Peter's vision in Acts).  But there wasn't a "That wa...
Read more