Sacrifice? What Sacrifice?

I hate to be the bearer of logic, but if you sacrifice something and get it back (especially under a better outcome only three short days later), then it wasn’t a sacrifice.

As you can always expect, when confronted with this logic your average religiously insecure Christian will have a hissy fit.

Insecurity is Risen!

Sacrifice by its very definition requires loss. So where is exactly is the loss? Seems to me that John 3:16 is sorely disingenuous. In the end this father lost nothing. NOTHING. In fact, both father and son realized a gain. And it was a BIG one.

Now this is typically where all the yummy cognitive dissonance, knee-jerking, and backpedaling begin as Christians attempt to redefine the word “sacrifice” as it pertains to god’s intent:

Jesus suffered! That was his sacrifice!

Um, no.

The pain, suffering, humiliation, loss of dignity, and the rest of what they typically vomit forth is ineffectual subterfuge. Sorry, but we’re sticking with John 3:16 as you love to shove it in everyone’s face at every opportunity. You’re not getting around the phrase “gave his only begotten son.” Now dig down deep and admit what this means because no one’s buying your bullshit.

Any suffering was an irrelevant (albeit unfortunate) means to an end. It was a fucking BLOOD SACRIFICE. What else would you expect? A wedgie? Or a good noogie perhaps?

And the “only begotten son” thing? Puh-lease. Could you possibly be more full of shit? First, god can have as many fucking sons as he fucking pleases. That he chose to have only one doesn’t give god whining rights after sending him to his death. Regardless, tell me, you disingenuous jackass, would your loss of a child be any LESS if you had a dozen others to spare? Again, puh-lease. “Only begotten” is meaningless and irrelevant.

The bottom line is that the value of sacrifice is found in one’s loss – irrespective of the means. All this notwithstanding, tell me, would god’s loss be any the less if the savior of man was, let’s say, poisoned and died quickly and with little pain? Again, would your loss of a child be any LESS if he died peacefully in his sleep? One last time, puh-lease.

Moreover, Jesus got what any lucid person would consider a first class upgrade. He took a three-day nap for our sins and then zipped on up to an ETERNITY of BLISS to RULE WITH HIS FATHER. Yup. That’s right. Not only did god take his son back, but the King of Kings came home to papa with a MUCH better deal than he had on the way out.

Yeah, sacrifice my ass.

If you give up something priceless and subsequently take it back, then it’s NOT a sacrifice. I’m sorry that you’re too much of an intellectually dishonest coward to concede this undeniable fact.

Truth in Numbers

Jesus spent 33 years on earth, had an unpleasant death (no more than this guy), and then got an eternity of the aforementioned.

Let’s do the math:

e – (~jl + ~6rsh + 3nd) = e (hb + d)

where:

e = eternity
jl = Jesus life (33 years)
rsh = really shitty hours *
nd = napping days
hb = heavenly bliss
d = daddy

* Mark 15:25/33 establish that it took 6 hours for Jesus to die on the cross.

It beggars belief that any sane person can see sacrifice in any of this. But in the end, it was actually a huge GAIN for father and son. But loss? Fuck no. Not even a little.

This is truth. Every time a Christian utters the words “Jesus is risen!” they negate the implied sacrifice.

More Lore to Bore

About 1.9 billion Muslims around the world believe that Jesus didn’t die on the cross, and the Holy Quran proves this to be true! His “executioners” just made it appear that way:

“And because of their saying (boasting), ‘We killed Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah,’ – but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it was made to appear to them so. But Allah raised him up (with his body and soul) unto Himself; and Allah is Ever All-Powerful, All-Wise.” (4:157-158)

Enjoy your Easter candy.
 

Feedback