It is easy to read Marlowe's Doctor Faustus as a simple, yet dramatic, morality play: Faustus trespasses in areas forbidden to man, sells his soul, and is ultimately damned. A clear lesson for Marlowe's Renaissance audience, yes? Perhaps not.
Marlowe himself has been accused of being an atheist, and if this is true, it casts a great deal of doubt on his ability to moralize from a Christian stance. Additionally, there are nagging inconsistencies within the text that might point to a more unconventional reading.
Faustus is not damned because he sells his soul; he sells his soul because he is damned, and this is the only avenue left open to him. The lines in the prologue of the play, "And melting heavens conspired his overthrow," suggest that God himself is aligned against Faustus. Is it not almost perverse to assume the guilt of a man whom God himself has damned?
Faustus is guilty of many sins, pride being the greatest, but perhaps it is his desire for knowledge and power beyond the scope of man that causes God to damn him. It is simply Faustus' audacity in daring to question his place in the universe which turns God aginst him.
What solace can anyone take in such an authoritarian, judgmental diety? In light of this admittedly extreme stance, what possible lesson does Marlowe intend for his audience? Is it anti-Christian? Marlowe is quite the radical.