On Jesus Christ's Alleged Sacrifice

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:

3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

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.

2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

And in Galatians:

2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.

And then the somewhat contradictory line in James:

2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

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