 |
| Administrator |
 |
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:35 pm
Posts: 282
Location: Right Behind You.
|
The Wholly Sacrifarce of Geez... Us? Christ!
Christians love to reference how Jesus gave his life for us, for our sins, on the cross. That one act of unselfishness by the ‘Son of God’ many find inspiring in its altruism. Modern and ancient cultures similarly have always valued those who sacrifice for others. And the most a person could ever sacrifice for others is the supreme sacrifice, their own life. This virtue of sacrificing for others has always had a powerful force on humanity. Our biological instinct is always to survive, at any cost. But humanity, in being distinct from the rest of biology (a corollary of my essay, here, which differentiates matter from biology and biology from humanity), historically and cross-culturally has bestowed among the greatest of honours upon those who make the supreme sacrifice – their life.
I want to examine this concept of sacrifice and see if we can exploit from it some framework with which to examine this alleged sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
What types of sacrifice then are there that most people would classify as noble?
In our Western culture, it can be found to be considered noble as a general consensus that volunteers into the armed forces who both risk and die to preserve (assumed, but not by author) our way of life, our safety. To put oneself in danger, in harm’s way, even if preemptively, so that one’s peers may remain safe, is laudable. Most people would not argue this. So we have now one viable type of sacrifice which is considered noble in today’s society and ancient cultures: war.
Another type of sacrifice arguably esteemed among world cultures would be to put oneself in immediate danger to save someone else from death. Policing, fire-fighting and any heroic efforts where one risks their own safety to make someone else immediately safe would also fall into this sanctified sacrificial sequestration.
These types of sacrifices, which endanger the lives of the people who accomplish them to make others safe, have always been held in the highest regard among world cultures. The reason for this valuation is rather obvious with just a perfunctory inspection. People see others through their own personal perspective. We all value our own lives (negating suicidals). We can all understand our own impulse, our own compulsion to not die. We flinch from pain instinctively. We heighten our awareness when in danger so as to anticipate it, and avoid death. Our biology, all of biology rallies against death. For discernment and simplicity’s sake, let’s refer to this type of sacrifice as an Heroic Sacrifice (and capitalize it to make it look official).
Let’s examine now the converse of this sacrificing one’s life for others, i.e. sacrificing one’s life for no one or perhaps just oneself: suicide.
Suicide, by comparison to altruistic sacrifices, is seen by most people as cowardly, as a sacrifice of a life for nothing. Suicide leaves an indelible impression on families, miring them in the sorrow, guilt, anger and senselessness of the act, reverberating through generations. Only in some Asian cultures did suicide have any noble connotation and that only in the case of prior dishonour.
So we can be adequately assured that it is the notion of sacrificing for others that is the noble part of the sacrifice, not the sacrifice of the life itself. The death of the one sacrificing must have generated immediate or preemptive safety for others’ lives that were in danger, for the nobility to be accrued. The graver the danger and the more lives at stake, the more highly esteemed is the ‘hero’ taking the risk. Let’s also agree that it is clear that those who actually die are valued even higher than those who only risk their lives.
Now there is another, not indistinct, type of supreme sacrifice that a person can make, one which may well benefit other people. This type of sacrifice occurs where one would die on behalf of their beliefs: martyrdom. The valuation that society places on martyrs can approach that same level accorded to those who sacrifice for others’ immediate or preemptive safety, though it rarely does. That may seem like a bold assertion, claiming that sacrificing for one’s beliefs is not regarded as virtuous as sacrificing one’s life in the stead of others. One could argue that dying for ones beliefs is even harder lacking the immediacy of the danger and one could further support that by arguing that this martyr was also dying so that others may live well, or better. Calculating this valuation would be much more precarious and it is does seem to follow that when matters of belief/faith/principle are involved, the natural progression to the safety of others is obfuscated when paralleled to the earlier Heroic Sacrifice.
A person who swims out to save someone from drowning, who in so doing saves a life but dies in the process, has a direct causal benefit: the other person gets to live. In contrast, a person who dies because they will not renounce their beliefs cannot be shown to have this direct causal benefit to others because ‘beliefs,’ especially religious ones, are never under wide consensus. People do not agree on what is the best way to preserve one another morally, which is what beliefs are really delineating: morals. There is wide agreement on what is an immediate threat to other people’s safety, though, in direct contrast. This is the basis of support for my claim that martyrdom on behalf of one’s beliefs alone cannot equal that of sacrificing one’s life for direct benefit or in the stead of another.
One could grow vehement with me and counter again that the valuation of a martyr who dies to uphold his beliefs is always helping many, though not all, even if only helping the many in some way less than the direct Heroic Sacrificer, but by comparison to arguably more people, which in some way may more equalize the valuations of such martyrs in comparison to their heroic comrades. Touché. I will allow this argument some clout for a few moments.
Let’s digress for a moment now from such subtleties.
Imagine yourself a scenario where you risk your own life in not compromising your beliefs.
Imagine further a situation where your persecution for those beliefs would knowingly lead to execution.
Now before you go imagining the intricacies and delicacies of your own death, imagine for a moment recanting those firmly held beliefs. Why? Consider this: one day’s recantation could lead to several thousand more days where you could influence, institute and/or proselytize your beliefs to or upon others, which is ostensibly your aim. Imagine the value of these myriad years of continued influence, after one day’s public recantation, in comparison to the value of you being executed and the notoriety your beliefs would get for that stunt. The comparative values of these two possible outcomes of persecution is innately subjective, but nonetheless it can be argued that the value of recantation in order to continue with years of continued sacrifice is at the very least comparable to, if not exceeding the value of being summarily executed for not recanting your beliefs.
When viewed in this light, martyrdom, i.e. specifically being executed on behalf of one’s beliefs, one’s morals, has parallels to suicide. Can you follow that logic? Or should I elaborate more enunciatively? I always aim for brevity but err on the side of verbosity, so as not to sacrifice clarity. How am I saying that martyrdom is like suicide then? The parallel is in the gnosis of death – they know ahead they are going to die. If one gives tacit approval in one’s own demise, even if ultimately by the hand of others, lacking a preponderance of justification for that demise, then that person is effectively committing suicide, the only difference being they are handing the weapon to someone else, whom they know will use it.
The Heroic Sacrificer is near certain to have helped someone in just their attempts alone, irregardless of the added benefit that their death, their sacrifice, is not certain, not premeditated, an agnosis of death. Rather than on the virtue scale as earlier, where Heroic Sacrifice was at opposite ends of the nobility/ignobility spectrum from Suicidal Sacrifice, in this case Martyric and Heroic Sacrifices are polar opposites within these limited criteria of certainty of benefit vs. certainty of demise:
The Martyric Sacrifice is always (near) certain of its own demise and never certain of the benefit to others of that demise.
The Heroic sacrifice is always (near) certain of its benefit to others and never certain of its own demise.
If I stand on a train track (expound publicly my unpopular beliefs) and I hear a train coming (meet with armed dissent), my only two options are to get off of that track (recant; cease expounding beliefs – so that I may do so further, later) or stay on the track (continue expounding despite the known mortal repercussions)… i.e. commit suicide.
The only point of contention when likening martyrdom to suicide would be the difference in value of the sacrifice. I have already scrutinized the value of Heroic Sacrifice vs. what I will now refer to as Martyric Sacrifice.
Martyric Sacrifice can possibly approach, but most likely rarely ever does attain the level of value in Heroic Sacrifice. For Heroic Sacrifice, there is a measurable, direct link between the lost and saved on the balance sheet in the economy of life. The correlative measurability of Martyric Sacrifice, in terms of who is saved and how much they are saved, is at best nebulous. The value of a Martyric Sacrifice may even be extrapolated down from the peak value at Heroic Sacrificial levels to the lowliest apathetic level I’ll refer to as the Suicidal Sacrifice, i.e. zero benefit (for others)*1.
Surely we can imagine someone dying for irrational beliefs, neither persuading nor helping anyone with their crazy convolutions. Benefiting no one, this scenario is ultimately suicide. Only the possibility of helping or saving others is generated by Martyric Sacrifice which is the primary distinguishing factor between Martyric and Suicidal Sacrifices.
We can now visualize a holey trinity on the spectrum of sacrifice (sic). At one extreme of nobility lies Heroic Sacrifice, where the value of the sacrifice is known or quantifiable. At the other extreme of this spectrum, devoid of all virtue, languishing in total dishonour lies the Suicidal Sacrifice. Bridging the chasm between these two extremes we have Martyric Sacrifice: (a visual aid may be helpful)
We imagined a scenario where a Martyric Sacrifice approached or equaled the lowest ranked value of Suicidal Sacrifice. We can also imagine a scenario where (e.g. Jesus Christ) someone whose Martyric Sacrificial value to others could be seen to be calculated very high, perhaps approaching Heroic levels, more by the sheer number of people moderately influenced (spiritually saved? perhaps…) rather than keep some few definitely physically safe (biologically saved) as with pure heroism.
So in synopsis of this opening analysis of sacrifice, I have made distinct, yet conjoined three types of sacrifice, and correlated these three types, Suicidal, Martyric and Heroic Sacrifice, with a value on the scale of virtue.
Now let’s further consider my earlier implied supposition: a person who recants his beliefs in order to be able to continue to propound them later is of more value than one who dies in spite of the impending doom, knowingly, banking on the added attachment of supreme self-sacrifice to help exclamate the message (their beliefs). The basis for this (my) assertion is the distinguishment that the one who recants has (on average) much of a lifetime left to further the cause of their beliefs, and perchance even attain some real Heroism, at some point. The one who submits to execution merely because of vocal utterances, abandoning any chance at furthering their cause, diminishing the likelihood that their words will continue to be interpreted with the initial, intended connotations, is a person who is much closer to a Suicidal Sacrifice than in any close proximity to an Heroic Sacrifice.
Now bringing into focus the sacrifice of Jesus Christ through the lens of what’s been distilled thus far, we have a sacrificial framework with which to analyze and valuate His sacrifice.
In summary, Martyric Sacrifices, in order to approach Heroic levels, need to actually help (save) someone or some multitudes, even if only moderately per capita. Is there any way to calculate who is actually ‘saved’ i.e. spiritually? Of course there isn’t. There isn’t even a consensus among mankind that people can in fact be ‘saved’ or even require it. There is a consensus on the value of Heroic Sacrifice, though.
There is a veritable litany of historical figures associated with martyrdom. The historicity of martyrdom can be traced back the Jews in the time of Maccabees, i.e. it predates Christianity by centuries (Asian cultures as well). Christians have no corner on the Martyrdom Market, as some of them would have us think.
Jesus Christ not only knew of his impending execution (irregardless of how he knew), he foretold of his doom to others. Unless it can be shown that this sacrifice of Jesus’, based on ideology, rooted deeply into field ascribed earlier as a Martyric, was a guarantor of definite, quantifiable benefit to a multitude, then his sacrifice would be reduced to the quality and notoriety that the numerous other historical martyrs have attained i.e. insignificance. He could have chosen to skirt the authorities and bide his time to ameliorate the impending fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE.
Surely he knew that was coming. 
Here’s a guy, Jesus, who is supposed to know pretty much everything (so say Christians). Can he not make the simple valuational analyses that I made here (simply) to differentiate the Sacrificial Trinity, and surmise the same obvious result: It is more effective to stay alive and continue to preach their message till their vocal cords are inflamed to silence than it is to die (stay on the tracks of approaching train) ending all further information/help from that source to others. Surely His value alive, i.e. performing miracles, healing, etc., would have been of inestimable continued value in convincing/showing/helping others as much as He could, for as long as He could.
Jesus chose a certain death with an uncertain benefit; a Martyric Sacrifice. The value of His sacrifice, at least on a human biological survival level, was minimal. On a spiritual level, we cannot deduce. It is beyond inspection; Who is saved and who is not saved, is an issue universally clouded from consensus, for Christians and non-Christians alike.
Only God knows who is chosen (Christian P.O.V.).
If there is a god, I don’t know who or how he chooses (non-Christian P.O.V.).
There is consensus then that there is no certainty even in salvation, even. God is the ultimate and only Judge. We (Christians) are too biased to evaluate our own merit. We hope and pray he lets us into Heaven. But no one knows for sure who is and isn’t getting in, and we all can agree to that. This despite His voluminous “message(s)” i.e. the Noahdic Laws, then updated with more refined Mosaic Laws, then further transmuted into a “new” Testament, a gospel (literally: Good News!), a new message from God, purportedly wiping out most of the old Laws. From how fickle a God would we yet cower?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God to Noah: Here are some Laws. Live by them and I’ll let you in my cool Afterlife Club.
Noah to God: Hey thanks.
(time passes; God is dissatisfied with original Laws, and decides to complicate them)
God to Moses: Here are some more Laws. Live by them and I’ll let you in my cool Afterlife Club.
Moses to God: Hey thanks.
(more time passes; God decides that His creation is too base, too insipient to follow the new complicated Laws. He decides that he ought to just lift all these cumbersome Laws <so>, retract, rescind or revoke the lot of them in fact, with one crucial new mandatory requirement (Law) for this special club: one must only believe in Him!)
How inept or incapable such an entity must be to create people who can easily decide by consensus many things they know innately, such as Heroic Sacrifice being noble, yet these same people cannot, upon being exposed to His “word” for millennia, come to any consensus on His official intention? There is still no assured path to Heaven, not even for a Christian. Even the Jehovah’s Witnesses who believe in the biblical rendering of 144,000 saved, know that their own membership exceeds that number! Despite all their life modifications and sacrifice even they are not assured a place in their Heaven.
God to Himself: Still thinking. Hmm.
How can I get it through their thick skulls that I have this really cool Afterlife Club and that all they need to do to join is believe it’s there!?
I tried making them live by some simple rules and told Noah. Damn them, they couldn’t even maintain that! Ironically (sadistically?)
I then toughened up and complicated that list of Laws and explained it all to Moses. I was kinda pissed off, yeah. I wanted my club to be more elite, more exclusive. The real cream of the crop. Sadly, my cool club sat fucking empty!
I suppose I can do anything I want and I could just implant the message in their heads that my Afterlife Club is open for business, in the same way I implanted the notion that Heroic Sacrifice was valuable… they all bought that one. Nah. I can’t make it too easy! Then I will lose out on the elitist, exclusivity factor. I can’t just let EVERYONE in!
Hmmm. I could make an appearance… a show of power, of authority! YES! That should convince them. At least the ones present. The rest will just have to take their word for it, throughout millennia.
How can I show myself in a decidedly impressive fashion?
A monumental apparition that speaks thunderously, authoritatively, with finality to all creation at once! Nah. My creations don’t need to be spoon-fed! I can be more subtle. Make a game out of it, perhaps. I will lift all them earlier silly Laws that I made up, so long as they believe in Me.
That would really make me happy, knowing that my creation knows that they know me, and that I created them.
Surely they would bow down and worship me then. I really value that too – being worshipped. Mmmmm.
Yeah. I’ll forgive them of their sins against the Laws I made up earlier, if they honestly feel bad (and I’ll know J) if only they also believe in Me.
Self knows they cannot stop fucking sinning.
So I either scrap creation, ‘cause they just can’t follow simple arbitrary rules of my game, or I give some of them a chance.
No fucking way I’m letting all of them in!
How though, can I impress upon them? I know! I’ll impregnate one of the virgin females (mmm) with my very own seed! Surely they will believe my own Son! *tries not to peek into future that I already created and know about* Yeah. That’s the plan. I’ll give him some special powers so He will appear as a magician of sorts.
A Holy Freak Show. Haha.
Then, of course they will want to kill him. I’ll not only allow that, I’ll use that as the absolvement factor for all them sins they cannot stop doing! *curses Adam & Eve under his breath (my first big fuck-up)*
I’ll send my son to the slaughter, to give them an ‘out.’ ‘Cause it’s so damned lonely up here.
My Son’s blood (lol) will collectively take care of all them pesky sins en masse.
And considering that I pervade and make up the consistency of the entirety of my Creation, my Son will obviously be privy to the knowledge of my Afterlife Club on Eternity Street.
And all them bastards that cannot even so much as believe in me, well they can all go to that Hell place I continue to allow to exist, just for the purpose of eternally torturing my own creation who could not or would not just fucking believe in me! What audacity they have down there.
Further to that, I’ll inspire some of my Son’s buddies to write some great shit about Him and Me and our plans for recruitment.
That should seal the deal.
The smartest ones will surely gravitate to these materials first.
LMAO@self!
Seriously though, the weakest, most obsequious, fear-driven, cowering sycophants will be the first in line for my new club. And servile attitudes of my Creation to me I really like.
And in all honesty, I can see way down the road anyways, and most of these bastards just don’t make it in, despite how easy I made it for them. I can smell their souls roasting in Hell, in simultaneity, as all temporal things are to Me. ROFL.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the Laws are uplifted with this New (Pauline) Covenant, absolving one of any sin, so long as there is remorse and belief in Him. God proffers his own Son’s life as some sort of morbid, guilt-effecting payment for all the sins they were originally saddled with never being able to overcome in the first place! By God Himself!
This God is fickle, ambiguous, ambivalent and/or impetuous. Would any of us parents out there sacrifice their child for anyone else to live? I highly doubt it. Only qualified parents need bother objecting on this point, if they be so bold.
God cannot even effect an Heroic Sacrifice, one that is accepted universally by consensus; instead he opts for his message to be delivered through the less effective validity delivery service: the shady Martyric Sacrifice.
Let’s include Trinitarians on this discussion, for one final, extra laugh. The ‘holy’ Trinity is like any 3 in 1 Swiss Army Knife: A blade, scissors and corkscrew. Three shades of the same ‘tool’ (pun intended).
So the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one and the same entity, by their estimations. Three facets of the same entity is this trinity, they say.
This would result in God not actually sending his Son “down” there (here) at all, and that He came Himself, just in the ‘venue’ of His own Son, living vicariously through His Son, as so many fathers are apt do. His reasoning for all these vacillations must be extremely convoluted, at best. Or perhaps he stands outside all reasoning – i.e. he is unreasonable!
My final point , the one I have been coalescing with these relevant digressions, is that God, if He is Christian is fickle, ambiguous, ambivalent, impetuous AND irrationally convoluted, based merely on His constant tampering with His Laws.
And considering all of this differentiation and categorization of what “sacrifice” really means, how inept must this God be to not be able to clearly communicate his message to His own damned Creation?!
And how gullible does He expect the most discerning and analytical of his ‘flock’ to be in order that they will believe an ancient story of fantastic happenings and His Son’s Sacrifarce, written down after the fact?
And just how gullible does He expect us in order that we would believe this nonsense that a God (Jesus, in this case) actually has the ability “suffer” at the hands of His own Creation or even experience suffering in any tangible way whatsoever? Even if bound by the flesh temporarily, He knew his glorious Fate: Back with Himself up in Heaven.
Add possible schizophrenia to the Christian God’s list of attributes then too, before we leave this topic in collective disgust.
On an Heroic Sacrificial level, Jesus’ sacrifice does not measure up to the average enlisted serviceman/woman.
On a Martyric Sacrificial level, He took the easy way out by not avoiding prosecution to live to further exacerbate the ills as He saw them.
On the Suicidal Sacrificial level, He sent down Jesus (Himself) to be killed by Creation (Himself), in order that Creation (Himself) would learn to realize (Know Himself) who they were (Himself!) So He kills Himself (Jesus) in order to preserve Creation (Himself) from being killed by Himself!
And on the purely logical and rational level, He did not “sacrifice” anything, because He, this ostensible Christian God, is eternal, making an absolute farce out of the entire attempt to pass this episode off as a noble sacrifice.
© 2007 Knot4Prophet.com All Rights Reserved. (October 2006)
_________________ 
|
|
