“According to the Christian mythology, [Christ] died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the non-ideal people… If I were a Christian, nothing could make me more indignant than that: the notion of sacrificing the ideal to the non-ideal, or virtue to vice. And it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors.”
Ayn Rand
The comment above might be true if the sacrifice was the end of the story. Alas it is not; the redemption is. Christ did not sacrifice himself so that virtue my be subjugated to vice but so that vice could be defeated by virtue once and for all. And in the process, Christ is telling us how to supplant that vice. That is by sacrificing oneself rather than one’s adversary. Maybe I am missing something, but Rand appears to leave that part of the story out, and it is a rather important part of the narrative.
The more interesting question to me is if Christ’s sacrifice is the payment for our sins, doesn’t the resurrection rescind the payment, such that we are left where we started? How can the sacrifice be efficacious if it was a take back, though perhaps that is not exactly what it was?
You would be correct about it being a takeback if that was why Jesus died. But, He died to make dead people alive. Not to make bad people good.
Blessings:-}
From the perspective of logic, “why Jesus died” seems to be unrelated to whether or not the sacrifice was efficacious in light of the Resurrection. He died to free us from our sins and bring us to everlasting life. That is a different matter from the efficacy of the act. The economics seems to say that the payment was rescinded, but I do not think that is the whole picture. It just seemed a bit odd to me. Thanks for your blessings; always helpful!
I never knew Ayn Rand, so I can’t assess her sincerity…
But the statement did resonate some.
So, would Ayn Rand look at me and call me her inferior? Would your God think me unworthy and send me to your hell? There are those in my life I would take a bullet for. I’m no hero, but I do have a bottom line That’s my choice, that’s freedom. Neither God or Ms. Rand have a say in the matter.
If the purpose of Jesus’ death was to die to make bad people good, the statement would make sense. But, because His death was to deliver those who were held captive in death through the resurrection from the dead, into the kingdom of life, the kingdom of His dear Son, the sentiment has zero merit.
And is why all other religions fail to address the main issue. And Christianity is the stand alone path to eternal life. Because all the others ever deal with is ones behavior.
Blessings:-}
DANG, I had a huge sermon for y’all but the phone ate it.
The author has no clue about the forgiveness of sin. I mean we have to go through this life with EVIL tugging at us the whole time. GOD has never sinned, can’t even look at it, gonna tell us not to do it? We say you just don’t understand, you can’t. GOD says “I GIVE YOU MY SON”!!! He paid it all, went all the way, and showed us we can too. Just as flesh as we are, and still GOD. He felt everything we feel, and remained perfect.
As far as all of us being martyrs, three is much missing on this point. Jesus was travelingwith armed men. Peter whacked off an ear, and Jesus put it back on telling him “if you live by the sword you will die by the sword. Let’s not forget that a man that doesn’t care(protect) his family is worse than an infidel!! If a man doesn’t protect widows and orphans, their blood will be on his hands.
The Secretary General of the UN says every knee will bow and allegience will be sworn to Lucifer or they won’t join the New World Order. The enemy knows our GOD, and they know his SON s name too.