No
It is a common assumption among many simple intellects that Jesus Christ sacrificed himself so that mankind could be “saved.” Ignoring for a moment the preposterousness of the Gospels as reliable historical accounts, let’s assume that Jesus existed, was the Son of God, and was crucified as a scapegoat for the alleged iniquity of humankind. Even when we grant all of this, we are left with a shamelessly authoritarian doctrine which describes not sacrifice, as Christians claim, but a despicable metaphysical servitude.
A “sacrifice” occurs when something valuable is given up for the sake of something else. As a corollary to this, the person performing the sacrifice does so selflessly in that he does not expect to be rewarded for his actions. One friend does not help another because she thinks it will increase the likelihood of him returning a similar favor in the future. A batter who drops down a sacrifice bunt to advance a runner does not figure his teammates “owe him one” for committing that act. A courageous soldier who uses his body to smother a live grenade to shield his buddies from the impending blast cannot possibly expect anything in return.
These are all examples of sacrifice, and to suggest that the beneficiaries of these magnanimous acts must somehow repay the favor debases the whole idea. Even in the case of friendship, which is in some sense predicated on the principle of reciprocity, friends do not keep a running tally between them of who is owed what from whom. An enduring friendship is founded on an intellectual or emotional affinity that each has for the other. In friendship, a favor is done not on pragmatic grounds or with future considerations in mind, but out of a sincere desire to see the other better off.
The crucifixion of Jesus is many things, but a sacrifice is not one of them. Recall this famous passage in John:
As well as this ominous advice in Ephesians:
2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
And in Galatians:
And then the somewhat contradictory line in James:
Thus, god sent his only son earthward to be sacrificed in rather brutal fashion, so that humans could have their sins forgiven and be given eternal life. It is one thing to make this ridiculous claim that one man sacrificed himself—or was sacrificed by god, which was (confusingly) actually god himself—to absolve the sum total of every human transgression in history. It is quite another to say that in exchange for this act, Jesus/god demands that we recognize this “sacrifice” and accept him as the lord and savior of humanity. If we do, we are “rewarded” with an afterlife of perpetual groveling at the feet of the deity. If we do not, we are punished with everlasting torment and suffering. It is said that god has given humans free will. Well, that is some choice. But at that point the crucifixion of Jesus ceases to be a sacrifice and becomes an unsolicited quid pro quo. This arrangement is not all that different from the “protection” offered by mafia thugs who lend their “services” to business owners in exchange for a cut of the profits. Protection from what? From the very people who are offering it. Jesus and his father are offering you protection from hell. Pay up or that is what you are in for.
Christ’s “sacrifice” does not seem so selfless and benevolent when we pause to consider what he asks in return. Indeed, that he asks for anything defeats the purpose of a sacrifice. As I noted previously, many Christians have even taken to calling themselves “slaves” to Jesus. Perhaps that is a minority opinion, but the consensus on the matter of vicarious redemption entails some level of devotion to Jesus for what any decent person should consider an unwelcome offer. In our everyday lives we understand the importance—indeed, the necessity—of taking responsibility for one’s actions. Christianity is immoral for two main reasons. First, it teaches humans that they are by nature bad because Adam and Eve ate from a forbidden tree. Second, it teaches that people can be absolved of their alleged wickedness and their responsibilities if they will only commit themselves to Jesus and thank him endlessly for his “giving his life” for them. Notice how Christianity makes people a slave to history as the bible reveals it. Did you ever eat from a tree that god told you not to eat of? Did you ask Jesus to die for you on the cross? Too bad. It’s a done deal. The mafia don has spoken.
The entire premise of Christianity is scandalous and bunk. If the crucifixion actually happened under the above conditions, it would not be a noble sacrifice as Christians claim, but an act of totalitarianism designed to enchain humanity to forever serve a master. In this way, Christianity is much worse than the slavery humans practiced for thousands of years. At least then you could die and get out of bondage.
- Max Canning
IF he actually existed it would have been more like suicide.
ReplyDeleteVery good column.
ReplyDeletemy mother used to say, "they don't make jews like jesus anymore"
ReplyDeleteI loved it. I had noticed before how the "sacrifice" (and one's acceptance of said sacrifice) amounts to little more than fire insurance being offered by the great cosmic arsonist. Best of all is your acknowledgement that Christianity is fundamentally immoral; I agree.
ReplyDelete1. sacrifice- a surrender of something of value as a means of gaining something more desirable or of preventing some evil
ReplyDelete-Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition
You see, the main flaw in your article is that it was doomed from the start by using an incorrect definition of the word "sacrifice". Second of all, you seem to be operating under the assumption that all Christians use the same interpretations of the Bible. That isn't the case, therefore you can't simply quote random verses without providing any sort of context and expect everyone to derive the same meaning as you did. I, for instance, don't believe in a literalist interpretation of scripture.
Nick, I would call your attack on my definition of “sacrifice” an instance of pedantry, but even that description would imply there is a grain of merit to your claim, which there is not.
ReplyDeleteThere are several related definitions of “sacrifice” one could use, but I believe I captured the essence of the word with the definition I invoked, as any consultation of Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, dictionary.com, and others will show. But more importantly, you merely claim that my definition is “incorrect” and say therefore the post is “doomed from the start,” but you never actually say how or why this is the case.
Second, the verses I quote are relevant, not “random.” My selections are out of context by definition because I cannot copy and paste the entire Bible into the post. As for my alleged “assumption that Christians use the same interpretations,” how so? You mean to tell me that Catholics, Baptists Lutherans, Methodists, Mormons, Congregationalists, et al. do not believe in the idea of vicarious redemption? This is the fundamental tenet of all Christian faiths and the focus of the article. It is certainly true that there are many interpretations of the Bible, but this fact, which you point out, doesn’t seem to bode too well for the clarity or veracity of the text.
You say you don’t believe in a literalist interpretation. But what does that even mean? Does it mean, for example, that you are willing to entertain that the whole Bible is actually a metaphoric enterprise? If that is the case, then I suppose you cannot take too seriously Jesus’ assertions about him being the son of god, or even the existence of Jesus itself. Or do you think just parts of the Bible are metaphor? In which case, the decisions you make about what is “real” and what is metaphor will ultimately be arbitrary.
Truth be told, it does not matter much to me how Christians of any sort interpret the Bible, because I, like everyone else, can read it myself and see that it is a book of fantastic claims for which there is no evidence.