The Gift That Keeps On Giving...

You hear the argument all the time: "I may not have proof, but I feel it in my heart," or "I may not know the fancy science talk, but I know in my heart what is right and true, praise Jesus!"

It's hard to argue against "feelings" and "personal experience" once you have pinned a fundie in the corner of logic and reason, isn't it? As soon as you have crucified (quite ironically) their faulty synapse connections, they whip out the good old stand-by: Personal feelings and experiences that no ruler can measure, no test tube can bottle, no scientist can scrutinize...

It all hinges not only on that intangible "faith" thing that so many seem to think is evidence of some kind, this faith is based on something likewise quite intangible and destructive--a death based on "love"--a love held by a god for his creation, so much so that he killed (or "sacrificed" if you abhor the term "killed" so much...) his kid just so everyone who gives god enough props will spend eternity praising him over and over and over (multiplied by eternity...)

And I feel this begs the question, was it truly a "sacrifice" if god knew his kid would "rise from the dead"?

The very first thing you learn in Sunday school, when the indoctrination begins, is that god knows everything! Absolutely nothing exists (or doesn't exist) that isn't neatly folded, stacked, labeled, and filed in that great white desk in the sky. Time, money, weather patterns, and the mating habits of the fruit fly in winter are all part-and-parcel of the Jeopardy! mind of god--so therefore, god knew (if non-urban Hebrew legends of old are to be believed) that Jesus would survive just fine from his ordeal on Earth (nothing a little god-counseling couldn't handle after ascension, anyway...) and therefore, since god wasn't really losing anything, how can this be considered a sacrifice? What has god truly "lost" in order to "pay" for the "wages" of our "sin"? What's the god-to-human blood ratio/cost?

If I were to hand my brother a $50 and say, "I was going to pay my electric bill with this, but I know you need it for groceries, so..." But if I knew I was also going to get a $50 from my husband, and that my brother had to pay my husband for the groceries he needed... You see? I haven't given up $50, my electricity, or my own comfort--in fact, not only have I not sacrificed anything, I've also "martyred" myself in front of my brother by making it seem as if I were sacrificing in order to manipulate him into thinking I am greater than I really am! Is there really any worse type of "sacrifice"? This indeed is the crux of the salvation message peddled on street corners in New York and preached from pulpits the world over--that somehow god has sacrificed something of such great value in order to pay for us, when really we weren't for sale, didn't need purchased, weren't in danger except from the hell the purchaser created, and the purchaser really didn't pay for anything anyway--he knew the boomerang effect of Jesus' life...

In a post from what seems eons ago (and still a pretty popular read if my site stats are anything to go by...), we discussed for quite some time how people "know" god and Jesus from experiences and personal feelings that aren't actually "knowing" (and how "knowing" is the antithesis of FAITH... and still is...), but one of the points brought up by Ergo (who continues to be a brilliant voice in the blogosphere in my opinion) was the following:

[W]hen two (or more) people love each other, they make absolutely NO sacrifices for each other. A morality that preaches sacrifice as a virtue and as a package-deal with love is an evil and harmful morality--it implicitly says that all that you love, all that you value, all that you desire, you must attain through suffering and pain and sacrifice.

Ah--the crux of the matter: Is "sacrifice" really a good measurement of the amount of love that went into an act? (Suppose, like, the death of a god?) Was it actually "love" from which this story is born? Or merely a poignant tale of the lengths intelligent beings will go to in order that they be held in high regard?

A "fact" that we also learned in indoctrination class (Err... Sunday School...) was that god is all-powerful. That is, he can do whatever the hell he wants whenever the hell he wants irregardless of scientific law, reasonable limits, or elephant migratory patterns. So not only did he know his kid would rise from the dead, he also could have produced a myriad of scenarios in which this "sacrifice" wouldn't have been called for! So now we are left wondering: if it wasn't truly sacrificial in the light of his foreknowledge of not losing his son, and if he could have produced any number of ways in which our "sin" could be redeemed without said "sacrifice," how is it again that this imaginary creature is supposed to be the creator of all and worthy of us denying ourselves for the "greater good"?

If there were such a creature about, one who created us in love and only wished for our continued happiness and a bountiful life, one would hope he/she/it would have the sense to actually use this foreknowledge with a dash of common sense (not to mention a pinch of decency) and create a world in which not only wouldn't he have had to "sacrifice" his kid, but avoided the whole Tree of Knowledge altogether...

It's hard to place any amount of faith, let alone love, in a being so lacking in basic common sense.

Knowing may be half the battle, but the other half is using that knowledge wisely and for bettering yourself as a person. It certainly isn't chalking up the rest to a whim and a prayer in the hope of a being that didn't even have the decency to apologize.

Believing in such a being requires more than faith--it takes a blind faith of tremendously naive proportions, and for what? To praise god for eternity...

Souls may have been paid for with his kid's blood, but the true cost is much, much higher. Can you guess what you've really paid for, buying into this "eternal life" scam?

Here's a clue: It isn't love...