Wednesday, October 05, 2011

The Sacrifice of Jesus as a Left Turn from Judaism

 
The scenario below illustrates why the execution of Jesus by the Romans is not quite the great sacrifice Christians say it is, and why Jewish believers see the whole fetishization of the sacrifice both strange and abhorrent:
There is a great empire ruled absolutely by a man named El. In this empire, every person has an obligation to pay a sum of $100 to the empire, and this sum must be paid at one time, in full, on the person's 30th birthday. If the sum is not paid at that time, the person will be sent permanently to jail for hard labor.

The people of the empire are very poor, and $100 dollars is more than most anyone is able to pay by themselves. You are one of the inhabitants of the empire, you are far short of the required $100, and your 30th birthday is fast approaching.

But then: the son of the king pays your full $100 for you. You don't know the son. You didn't ask him to make your payment, and you had no idea that he existed, let alone that he would make this payment on your behalf. In fact, you didn't even know it was permissible for someone to make your payment for you. Nevertheless, you are now square with the empire.

There is a catch, however. The son later says that he made your $100 dollar payment at the request of his father the king. Now the king and the son demand that you vote for the son to be prime minister in the upcoming election. Your vote is the price of the son's having paid your obligation. If you refuse to vote for him, then you will be sent permanently to jail for hard labor.

You discover that the son has paid the obligations of many others, too. All are imposed with the same condition. Cast your vote in favor of the son or go to jail. Everyone who learns that her or his obligation has been paid by the son must choose.

Representatives of the son come to your door frequently. They ask you whether you will vote for the son or not. So far you have delayed them, but you must make a decision soon.
This scenario captures what I think are essential difficulties with the doctrine of sacrifice that Jesus personifies for Christians.
  • Where does the obligation come from and on what authority?
  • How can it be that the son pays someone else's obligation without asking permission from that person?
  • By what right does the son coerce allegiance?
  • Isn't validation of the son, as opposed to straight gratitude for his having made a payment, superfluous? Why does he need to be recognized?

For someone from a Jewish background, like myself, it's hard to convey how strange the sacrifice of Jesus appears. To me, Christianity takes a complete left turn from Judaism and makes God a very different being than in Jewish doctrine.

More importantly, the sacrifice of Jesus is not really a sacrifice but a buy out. It kicks people from being ransomed to God to being ransomed to Jesus, and it does so without people's knowledge. In both the Jewish and Christian world orders, people are chattel. The only question is who you think is your master, El or his son.

18 comments:

  1. For an analogy emphasizing the absurdity of the Christian doctrine of vicarious atonement, I strongly recommend Non-Stamp Collector's video "How amazing is God's Forgiveness? Not very."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous11:21 AM

    "Where does the obligation come from and on what authority?"

    The authority comes from the relation of the creature with the Creator.
    It is not an obligaton, is the reparation of a bad behavior.

    "How can it be that the son pays someone else's obligation without asking permission from that person?"

    Why not?

    "By what right does the son coerce allegiance?"

    There is no coerce allegiance. Everyone is free to accept or not the payment.

    "Isn't validation of the son, as opposed to straight gratitude for his having made a payment, superfluous? Why does he need to be recognized?"

    He do not “need” to be recognized.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @MKR,

    Thanks. I always like NSC, but I had not seen that video before.

    @Anon.:

    Your comments don't clarify matters, I'm afraid. If I create a human being by bringing together an egg and a sperm in the laboratory and finding a way to gestate it for nine months, is that person then a lifelong subject to my restrictions and demands? If I build a sentient, self-sustaining robot, is it forever subject to my authority?

    You get in deep with the "reparation of bad behavior" quip. Theoretically, God could have created people so they could not do bad behavior at all. Also, do you not find it abhorrent to force future generations--forever--to make reparations for bad behavior that God Himself is partly to blame for?

    Next, it is immoral for someone else to accept the consequences meant for me, and especially so without my advance and explicit permission. In theory, Jesus had no right to "redeem" my "sins."

    You are dancing away from the exact definition of coercion. Jesus is cast as the Godfather with guns to our heads, making us an offer we can't refuse. Of course we can refuse, but then our brains will get splattered all over the table.

    Why do you accept as morally right for God and Jesus what you would find unacceptable in real life between real human beings?

    And that's the point. Obviously, there aren't gods or supernatural sons vicariously accepting the divinely mandated punishments meant for people. Yet the logic of the doctrine is so very whacked out...and some people seem to think it's just fine and dandy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous1:11 PM

    “If I create a human being by bringing together an egg and a sperm in the laboratory and finding a way to gestate it for nine months, is that person then a lifelong subject to my restrictions and demands?”

    Yes, to whom if not?

    “If I build a sentient, self-sustaining robot, is it forever subject to my authority?”

    Unless you let them free.

    “You get in deep with the "reparation of bad behavior" quip. Theoretically, God could have created people so they could not do bad behavior at all.”

    Off course, but He didn´t.

    “Also, do you not find it abhorrent to force future generations--forever--to make reparations for bad behavior that God Himself is partly to blame for?”

    God exis outside the time. For Him, the instants of the creation, Adam´s sin and death of Jesus are the same. So he created the man that He knew would have a bad behavior and fixed it.

    Next, it is immoral for someone else to accept the consequences meant for me, and especially so without my advance and explicit permission. In theory, Jesus had no right to "redeem" my "sins."

    Why? Everyone has the right to make a gift to you. You have the right to refuse it. That is how it works.

    “Of course we can refuse, but then our brains will get splattered all over the table.”

    No, you are not going to be with God, it is your choice.

    “Why do you accept as morally right for God and Jesus what you would find unacceptable in real life between real human beings?”

    I do not see nothing unacceptable.

    And that's the point. Obviously, there aren't gods or supernatural sons vicariously accepting the divinely mandated punishments meant for people. Yet the logic of the doctrine is so very whacked out...

    One thing is say there is no God, then the story of Jesus is illogic, other is say given God the Jesus story is illogic. The second one it is not true.

    ReplyDelete
  5. “If I create a human being by bringing together an egg and a sperm in the laboratory and finding a way to gestate it for nine months, is that person then a lifelong subject to my restrictions and demands?”

    Yes, to whom if not?


    Ha ha, that sounds just like "If I can't beat my own wife, whose wife can I beat?"

    Larry, you should set your blog to disallow anonymous comments. In this particular case, it is quite plain that the same person is posting anonymously in both cases, but in general commenters should be required to identify themselves somehow.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anon.,

    Seems to me your personal concept of God is quite different from what many Westerners mean.

    They often conceive of their god as being maximally good, and all-powerful, and all-knowing.

    You seem to accept God as a despot. I find your honesty refreshing, although I am not certain why anyone would want to worship such a being.

    To your responses:

    You say, "to whom if not?"

    I say: many humans more or less freely decide to make themselves subject to the laws of their homeland (or some other state), and to be personally accountable for their own behavior. Your model is called slavery.

    You say: "Unless you let them free."

    I say: You worship a god that apparently has not 'let us free.' This is a god, after all, with several conditions and commands. On the other hand, societies that develop their own statutes and laws without reference to your god seem to do just fine.

    You say: "but He didn´t."

    I say: But an all-good, all-benevolent creator god would be able to make free creatures that could only choose among morally good options. You've just argued all morality away because if god tells you to murder those little children over there, then that murder is good by definition--and so the word "good" has no meaning. Good is simply what your god says it is, whether you like it or not.

    You say: "God exis outside the time. For Him, the instants of the creation, Adam´s sin and death of Jesus are the same. So he created the man that He knew would have a bad behavior and fixed it."

    I say: He could have fixed it beforehand. He could have at least made his precious tree less accessible. He could have made his talking snake a little nicer or less sneaky. He could have reversed the effects of the tree of knowledge. He could have kicked out Adam and Eve and ended the punishment there. He could have made it so that the children of Adam and Eve were an innocent as the parents had been formerly. If you believe your theology and philosophy, your god had options. Why incarnating himself as a human--an idea, by the way, that cannot be more strange and foreign from a Jewish perspective--and getting himself murdered is supposed to be the great solution . . . well, I don't see the logic. It seems rather egocentric and melodramatic. Indeed, it seems like what it probably actually is: fictional.

    The Jesus story is completely illogical, from the idea that the god will have himself murdered for the punishment he himself imposes (and imposes rather unfairly) to the 1=3 of trinitarian gymnastics.

    Tell me, when you read the scenario I've written in the original post, do you honestly think the son is morally justified to demand your vote in exchange for his surprise gift? He cannot take the gift back: it's done. And now you either have to vote for him or face the punishment you originally had waiting for you? What if you don't think he's the best candidate? What if you just don't want to vote?

    Sorry, but I don't see the morality or the logic of Jesus. There's no good reason for why he is needed, not good reason for why he is executed, and no good reason for why every person afterwards must now worship him or burn.

    And don't water down the theology to transform hell into something other than punishment and lake of fire. I agree that the whole thing is made up, but I know the orthodoxy. The idea of the fire and brimstone hell is very important to Christianity. If you want to go against the orthodoxy, that's fine but then you better explain why your personal reading of Christianity trumps all others.

    Or are you saying that we all get to make it up in the way we want?

    ReplyDelete
  7. All Christianity does is suggest that God possessed a human body. Yes it's different than jewish doctrine of incorporeality but it's not weird.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous8:39 AM

    You:“many humans more or less freely decide to make themselves subject to the laws of their homeland (or some other state), and to be personally accountable for their own behavior. Your model is called slavery. “

    We are talking about the relation between Creatore/creature, this examples of mans subjects to the laws or slavery do not fits. But no matter of that if a man subjects to the law of other mans, why you think illogic man subject to the “law” of the Creator.?

    You: “You worship a god that apparently has not 'let us free.'”

    Not from my words.

    You:“This is a god, after all, with several conditions and commands. On the other hand, societies that develop their own statutes and laws without reference to your god seem to do just fine.”

    And?

    You:“He could have fixed it beforehand.”

    Unless you mean beforehand in a completly different way, and my answer would be yes, no, because he dead all in the same instant.

    You:“He could have at least made his precious tree less accessible.”

    Yes, but it is inaccesible thee is no freedom to take his fruit.

    You:“He could have made his talking snake a little nicer or less sneaky.”

    Yes, would change something?

    You:“He could have reversed the effects of the tree of knowledge.”

    Do you mean do the tree of knowledge in a different way? Yes, change it afeter the fall because he already did everything else.

    You:“He could have kicked out Adam and Eve and ended the punishment there.”

    There is no punishment, dead and hell are the consecuences of the man choices.

    You:“He could have made it so that the children of Adam and Eve were an innocent as the parents had been formerly.”

    No the nature of humanity changed. He could have made a new humanity but wouldn´t be us.

    “If you believe your theology and philosophy, your god had options.”

    Off course

    “Why incarnating himself as a human--and getting himself murdered is supposed to be the great solution . . .

    Because is a God solution, and no human could immagine that solution.

    “an idea, by the way, that cannot be more strange and foreign from a Jewish perspective--,”

    That do not make the idea illogic, make the idea greater. How could a bunch of fishermans jewish come with this idea?

    “I don't see the logic. It seems rather egocentric and melodramatic. Indeed, it seems like what it probably actually is: fictional.”

    You can see is fictional, you can beleive it or not, but you cannot say is illogical. Illogical means contradictory against the rule of logics and that is demostrable by the reason. You have to show a contradiction all what you do is emotional and referential to what you thing it is right.

    “The Jesus story is completely illogical, from the idea that the god will have himself murdered for the punishment he himself imposes (and imposes rather unfairly) to the 1=3 of trinitarian gymnastics.”

    If you think that the story of Jesus says God dies are rigth to say it is not illogical, but seems to me you need to study the story os Jesus.

    “Tell me, when you read the scenario I've written in the original post, do you honestly think the son is morally justified to demand your vote in exchange for his surprise gift? He cannot take the gift back: it's done. And now you either have to vote for him or face the punishment you originally had waiting for you? What if you don't think he's the best candidate? What if you just don't want to vote?”

    The obligation to vote it is not for Jesus gift.
    As you ser alive, and will be for the eternity you, there, have not choice, you have to vote. There is no way to have the freedom of not to vote, the alternative is not to be and then your not free also. Really there is a third option, be by yourself, but it is not the case the been by himself is God. Yawe.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous8:40 AM

    You:“Sorry, but I don't see the morality or the logic of Jesus. There's no good reason for why he is needed, not good reason for why he is executed, and no good reason for why every person afterwards must now worship him or burn.”

    I understand you say “I do not see the reason” Who really know the reason? What you can not say that the story is illogical. You have to show the contradition. And for the morality, you have to explain what is moral for you and if it has to be moral for me too.

    You: “And don't water down the theology to transform hell into something other than punishment and lake of fire. I agree that the whole thing is made up, but I know the orthodoxy. The idea of the fire and brimstone hell is very important to Christianity. If you want to go against the orthodoxy, that's fine but then you better explain why your personal reading of Christianity trumps all others.” 


    Fiere or brimstome do not means that was created for punishment or hell is a punishment, fire and punishment are consequences of life without God. Original sin makes our body now feels hot, cold, pain, illness that will be our eternal condition in hell that is equivalent to fire and brimstone. It is not a punishment is the consequence of the fall.

    “Or are you saying that we all get to make it up in the way we want?”

    I´m old enough to had experiences with people that really wants to be in hell. So I do not believe people who says it is empty.

    ReplyDelete
  10. SJ,
    "All Christianity does is suggest that God possessed a human body."

    Oh, is that all? An invisible yet living spirit assumes human form. That's not weird at all.

    Seriously, don't take offense. Quantum mechanics is weird, too.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous,

    I'm using the word "logic" in the colloquial sense, not in the philosophical sense. I'm not interested in formal proofs that Christianity makes for itself.

    The main ideas I've put forth in the original post concern:

    (a) The doctrine that says God has punished people in a way that carries through the generations. Call it a privation of Edenic paradise, if you like, but God comes across as unreasonable.
    (b) The doctrine that says people possess a sinful nature, or a capacity to disobey God. It seems like the only purpose of this doctrine is to justify God's punishment of people.
    (c) The idea that Jesus can assume responsibility for my obligations or reparations without my prior and explicit consent is absurd. If you commit a crime, I cannot step in without your knowledge and then go to jail for you. If I were to do that, I would be acting immorally because I would be depriving society of enforcing a punishment to which it had a legitimate right.
    (d) It's equally immoral to suggest that Jesus can attach consequences--after the fact--to his assumption of responsibility for my obligations or reparations. Jesus should have set the price of his death for us in advance.
    (e) From a Jewish perspective, the sacrifice of Jesus contradicts who God is and the way God operates. You may suggest that Judaism is somehow blind to the wisdom and beauty of what Jesus did, but the fact is that Christianity is based fundamentally on interpretation, on understanding things in a certain way. Judaism is similarly based on interpretation, and the point is that the ultimate view of both is not one of Christianity or Judaism being true but rather one of Christianity or Judaism being consonant with one's personal and cultural sensibilities.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You say: "Fiere or brimstome do not means that was created for punishment or hell is a punishment, fire and punishment are consequences of life without God. Original sin makes our body now feels hot, cold, pain, illness that will be our eternal condition in hell that is equivalent to fire and brimstone. It is not a punishment is the consequence of the fall."

    Ask yourself what you base these opinions on. What is your source of information on what a dead person experiences? How have you verified the probable truth of your understanding of what a dead person "in hell" experiences?

    I ask because it seems to me that you are making stuff up. You think there should be a hell but you recoil at the idea of eternal damnation and devils and demons.

    Have you seriously considered the idea that Christian doctrine is essentially made up? Have you ever really weighed the matter that maybe we are not born in "sin" but are rather products of our natural history?

    ReplyDelete
  13. If you leave your 3 year old son in the drivers seat of the family car, and tell him "don't touch the gear shifter" and he does (be it accidentally as he reaches for his juice, out of curiosity, because he doesn't know what he does, or simply because he want's to be like mom/dad) who's fault is it when the car rolls into the garage door? Do you blame your son for not knowing any better? Punish him for not understanding the consequences of a situation that is beyond both his experience and education? Do you damn him to hell for an eternity of torture because you were an inattentive parent? Or do you take responsibility for your own actions that led to their foreseeable mistake? Are you a proud parent/creator who strives for the best from yourself and your child/creation, or are you the eternal equivalent of an alcoholic trailer trash dead beat dad?

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I'm using the word "logic" in the colloquial sense, not in the philosophical sense. I'm not interested in formal proofs that Christianity makes for itself."

    Then you have to write:

    a) IMHO....
    b) IMHO....
    c) IMHO....
    d) IMHO....
    e) IMHO....

    Then everybody understand what you really mean.

    "Have you seriously considered the idea that Christian doctrine is essentially made up? Have you ever really weighed the matter that maybe we are not born in "sin" but are rather products of our natural history?"

    Yes off course.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Or do you take responsibility for your own actions that led to their foreseeable mistake?"

    Adam and Eve were not kids, they were responsible for what they were doing as my kids when grownup.

    " Are you a proud parent/creator who strives for the best from yourself and your child/creation, or are you the eternal equivalent of an alcoholic trailer trash dead beat dad?"

    The creator fixed it. Do not let the thing there.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Chesterton,

    You object to my offering an opinion?

    ReplyDelete
  17. "You object to my offering an opinion?"

    No, only not been clear that it is your opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "No, only not been clear that it is your opinion."

    Oh, come on. That's about the weakest statement I have hears in some time.

    I give a hypothetical scenario, then explain how it illustrates "what I think are essential difficulties with the doctrine of sacrifice that Jesus personifies for Christians," and you dare to say that I was making pronouncements rather than expressing my (not uninformed) opinion?

    Look, if you want to believe that you and everyone else is inherently vile, then that's fine. Have fun.

    But don't try and tell me that your made-up idea of sin applies for all humanity for all time. It's an insult to history and intelligence.

    ReplyDelete

Feel free to comment if you have something substantial and substantiated to say.