jump to navigation

Dying for a cause April 23, 2006

Posted by benj in Philosophy & Religion.
trackback

 

 

crucifixion

The crucifixion is among christianity’s most enduring scenes that manifests the unparalleled love that god has for his creation. As stated in the bible, the father was willing to sacrifice his only begotten son – Jesus Christ — to be savior of mankind. It was supposed to be the testament that would undeniably prove the covenant between god and man – something that should have erased any doubt about the sincerity and good heart of the Christian god. And for most of non-menorah lighting, non-ramadan fasting, non-chakra-opening folk, this single act of sacrifice wherein someone akin to the gods voluntarily submitted himself to earthly pain was more than enough to convince them that god is indeed good.

 

But when one really delves into the crooks of the circumstances surrounding the crucifixion, it becomes more apparent that it is not as black and white as the roman catholic church would like to paint it to be. Following the basic catholic tenet of the trinity (a long disputed concept that was eventually resolved in the Council of Nicea), the father and the son are two different personas, but in the end, catholicism still maintains a monotheistic preference due to the implications of the ten commandments. Due to this claim by the church, the only begotten son (jesus Christ) becomes a virtual equivalent of the creator – the father himself.

 

Ask yourself this: If you have two personas – one being the father and the other being the begotten son — and you decided to sacrifice one of your personas to be the savior of mankind, is there any sacrifice that ever took place? While the supposed end effect of absolution of sins is still the end result, the gravity of the sacrifice still remains in question. Considering that the father had the power to create and infinite number of equivalents of himself, is losing one (and eventually resurrecting it) that much a big loss?

 

If we go the Machiavellian route and justify the end being absolution against the seemingly deceptive and overrated ‘sacrifice’ by the father, we could still find major flaws in the logic used by the creator to engineer such a blood fest. The main idea behind the crucifixion was for the son of god to take the sins of mankind upon himself and absolve it himself on the cross. There’s a very heroic quality into the degree of sacrifice that the son did. It is not unlike the well celebrated and admired sacrifices done by war heroes, rescue workers and even the legendary young Dutch who died plugging the holes on the Lowland dikes with his little fingers. Needless to say, the willingness to give up one’s life to ensure the safety – or salvation — of others is moving in itself. So it doesn’t come as a surprise that the sacrifice that the son made sends people to tears in gratitude.

 

Of course, this only becomes poignant if it were clear that the son indeed saved man from a perceived enemy. Arguably, the enemy in question is sin itself. The creator himself detests sin, and while he may not have created sin (this contradicts the very essence being the creator of everything, though) he has indirectly created the concept himself. He imbued man with free will instead of giving man the inability to sin, disobey and harm others. Had he chose the latter option, would have been a much better place. The only trade off on that option would be that the world would be a less ‘exciting’ place. If you were a god who sits in his high perch every seeing everyone just loving each other and living in harmony, it would be indeed boring. That would have been the only trade off. The disadvantage of man not being able to have free will would be moot because if god had just not created the concept to begin with, man would have never known that such a state of existence exists. Had god not willed it, it would have never existed in any shape or form.

 

On the other hand, what is the trade off for ‘free will’? Easy, the good part for god is that since man is not inherently good to begin with and can be very impressionable to certain influences, man becomes more dependent on god to find the ‘right path’ to attain salvation. In short, for a lifetime’s worth of ‘free will’ you are wagering your soul for a one-way ticket to heaven or hell. It is quite a lot to ask for a ‘creation’ to be put under an immense stressor considering that he never wanted to exist to begin with.

 

In essence, the crucifixion was supposed to the act that would save mankind from sin and the fires of hell. Incidentally, the father is either directly or indirectly responsible for the creation of both of these perceived enemies. He could have willed to not make these things exist from the beginning of time OR to have simply willed them out of existence within a blink of eye from the beginning to the slice of time that we are existing now, but he chose and continues to keep those two factors to remain. It’s either of two things – the christian god is a sadistic, unmerciful being whose intentions are far removed from what is stated in the bible or the christian is simply an incompetent manager who couldn’t even save himself from being fired by Donald Trump if he were to join the TV show ‘Apprentice’.

 

The crucifixion is at best, a greatly orchestrated passion play with Judas Iscariot playing a big part in ensuring its execution (pun intended). Ironically, modern-day christians still detest him not knowing that the most grand of christ’s gestures would have never taken place without his betrayal. Clearly, christians want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to revel under the trappings of christ’s death, sacrifice and ressurection, but at the same breath, they also think that christ was killed under the wrong premises. And yes, christ allowed Judas to ‘betray’ him. Even if it was done indirectly, god was responsible for planning the possible outcomes of man’s actions – after all, he was the one who constructed the universal set of possibilities. Despite the fact that god didn’t physically wire mankind’s brain into doing specific actions, the mere stipulation that certain hurtful actions were present in the universal set can put much of the blame on him via command responsibility.

Advertisements

Comments»

1. rex aka joe_higashi - April 25, 2006

haba naman, try studying Calvinism vs. Arminianism, Protestant Theologies.

Most of what you said agrees with Calvinism. They believe in the “freewill” definition known as Compatibilism.

And all things have past is for His Glory. The clay doesn’t have a “say” on the matter if He’s gonna create vessels of wrath.

here:
Arminianism
http://www.fwponline.cc/arminiandex.html
http://www.eternalsecurity.us
http://www.eternal-debate.org

Calvinism

http://www.monergism.com
http://www.spurgeon.org/mainpage.htm

if youre more interested in RCC theology then search, Augustine, Thomism and Molinism.

2. st.anger - April 25, 2006

self righteous suicide.. hehe.

3. lateralus - April 25, 2006

sir rex, thanks for visiting my blog.

yeah, ive been exposed to calvinism – that’s the whole thing about the ‘elect’, right? i didnt expound my points to that level – the premeditated salvation for a limited number of people — because i didnt want to dwell on the question of numbers.

given all that, im leaning towards dystheism or maltheism if a god truly exists.

4. lateralus - April 25, 2006

st. anger: yeah i just realized that the song Chopsuey is actually more antichristian than i first perceived it to be. it is antichristian, but at the same time its used lines straight off the christian story itself. amazing.

5. rani - May 3, 2006

there’s nothing satanic in 11 satanic laws of the earth btw. i liked it. it made sense.

it’s good that you’ve put your thoughts into words and quite coherently and logically at that. Ah…talk about having the luxury of time to ponder on things that would make an average human being’s brain crack.

keep on writing it down…but watch out, dan brown (or any other author) might “copy” “paste” your opus.

6. lateralus - May 3, 2006

thank you rani, queen of heaven and earth (at ang pinakamagandang hayop sa balat ng lupa)… o ayan pwede na ba?

thanks for your nice words. summer brings out the philosopher in me – well, not really. im always thinking about these things, but i rarely write them down. hehe

7. patty/ciacia/trish - May 4, 2006

i’m totally roman catholic, but sometimes i don’t really understand certain beliefs of the christian world…

maybe you should write something about “salvation” para ma-enlighten ako… i have christian friends who tell me na “they want to save me” and i have to be baptised a christian and be a christian because only christians will be saved. and i’m like, “huh? i’m roman catholic, am not i a christian too?” but that’s not the point anyway, i mean so if you’re muslim you won’t be saved na? or ibang God na ba ung magsasave sayo? ugh. i’m so confused.

8. patty/ciacia/trish - May 4, 2006

oh, to begin with… why do we have to be saved? saved from what?

9. lateralus - May 4, 2006

patty/ ciacia/trish wrote:

i’m totally roman catholic, but sometimes i don’t really understand certain beliefs of the christian world…

maybe you should write something about “salvation” para ma-enlighten ako… i have christian friends who tell me na “they want to save me” and i have to be baptised a christian and be a christian because only christians will be saved. and i’m like, “huh? i’m roman catholic, am not i a christian too?” but that’s not the point anyway, i mean so if you’re muslim you won’t be saved na? or ibang God na ba ung magsasave sayo? ugh. i’m so confused.

The concept of christians getting salvation is deeply rooted in the last book of the bible – the Book of Revelations. In the End of Days, before the Tribulation (*shudder*), the heavens will open up and all of a sudden, the "Rapture" will happen – i.e. all the christians will be instantaneously lifted from earth to be with the father. In short the people who will suffer in the end will be the non-believers. 🙂 How comforting.

In short, it's driven by elitism. For some reason, these christians put a premium on which sect you belong to. Weird, eh? It is confusing, but imho, you'll take a lot more sanity home with you if you totally block out christian fundamentalist teachings. 🙂

sure, ill try write something along those lines.

10. John the Atheist - May 5, 2006

Nice blog. Sya nga pala, thanks for visiting my blog . On the issue of salvation, naku po, napakarami nyan! Roman Catholic believe on two major issue regarding salvation. Dati, they believe that outside the Roman catholic Church there is no salvation ( I don’t know if they still believe it?) also they believe that salvation is not only justified by faith. Most fundamentalist christians believe Saul of Tarsus (AKA Paul) when he preached to the world that just believe and you’ll be save.

But remember that all religion teaches salvation (in different issues) Like the Buddhist and the Hindu for example. Getting away with the wheels of Karma is considered salvation. Most religion know as “People of the Book” (Jews, Christian and Muslims) believe that salvation means not going to eternal damnation. Sa madaling salita, salvation is nothing more but a strategy used by used-car salesmen.

Until next time,
John the Atheist

11. lateralus - May 5, 2006

John the Atheist said:

Nice blog. Sya nga pala, thanks for visiting my blog . On the issue of salvation, naku po, napakarami nyan! Roman Catholic believe on two major issue regarding salvation. Dati, they believe that outside the Roman catholic Church there is no salvation ( I don’t know if they still believe it?) also they believe that salvation is not only justified by faith. Most fundamentalist christians believe Saul of Tarsus (AKA Paul) when he preached to the world that just believe and you’ll be saved.

That's the ultimate marketing maneuver. All they had to do was to prove that you owe someone something and because of that undebtedness, you are then obligated to do what that party wants – and should you not meet his will, it is in writing that he will reserve no mercy for you. Excellent. Emotional blackmail to a fault! hehe 🙂


But remember that all religion teaches salvation (in different issues) Like the Buddhist and the Hindu for example. Getting away with the wheels of Karma is considered salvation. Most religion know as “People of the Book” (Jews, Christian and Muslims) believe that salvation means not going to eternal damnation. Sa madaling salita, salvation is nothing more but a strategy used by used-car salesmen.

With Buddhism though, there is minimal indebtedness to Siddharta Gautama himself. Buddha just happened to be the first person to attain enlightment and show other people the Eight-Fold Path. In the end, one is not obligated to do good – it is a mere suggestion akin to a friend saying "Hey, this worked for me. Why don't you try it?"

Thank you John, I'll post your site as a link.

12. arvin - May 7, 2006

nominal chistian ako (ung sa pangalan lang daw), nde ako madalas magsimba, and I realy don’t practice my faith that much.. but I believe in God, though isang malaking concept lang Siya para sa inyo..
magkaibang concept daw ang reason and logic sa pananampalataya, tipong don’t find reason in everything and believe, eto raw ang faith, ‘blind acceptance’ – nalilito din ako habang tinuturo ito.

I respect everything that you wrote here, sometimes I get confused too… but still, I’ll stick with my own beliefs.

kahit ano pa man ‘yan I know that there is someone/ something far beyond us that is not even for the wisest man to comprehend.
– baka isunod mong itanong na pano ko nasabi eh wala ngang nakakaintindi? nde ko din alam, parang love, mahal mo lang.. though xempre nde valid na argumento ‘yan. hehe 😛 baka dahil nakalakihan ko lang… nde rin.. haay

*sumasakit ulo ko*

13. lateralus - May 7, 2006

eksakto! depende talaga sa tao. may mga tao na gustong maniwala pero walang kakahayan – masyadong matanong at matindi ang pagsaalang-alang sa tipo ng katotohanang kailangang nakikita at nararamdaman.

just stick to the thing that works for you.

i concede that christians enjoy benefits for being christians, but believing in god is not for me. i tried believing, but it felt like i was kidding myself

i think that’s the difference. i feel like im being really stupid and dumb if i believe in a god. i dont see an impetus to believe – none at all. you on the other hand, probably do it with less effort and is not bothered by the “im kidding” myself syndrome.

thanks.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: