Christians are portraying sacrifice as something good. Catholics used to refer to their "Mass" as a sacrifice, and Fundamentalists follow Paul, who based his theology on sacrifice.

It seems strange that Christians don't look for the truth in Christ's teaching. More basic is the self-evident truth from the laws of life which people observe day-in and day-out. Everything Christ taught is an explanation of the laws of life, which God demonstrated through material life. But the purpose of following Paul instead of Christ is to rationalize sin in contradiction to the laws of life and self-evident logic based upon the laws of life.

The purpose here, and throughout my web site, is to describe the logic of the lessons of life and show the contradictions to the truth in errors. Christ can be used as a reference for this purpose, because he had the same purpose plus the wisdom and power of God.

Sacrifice is portrayed as a good thing, because it solves problems. If there is a shortage of water, people should use less, so there is enough for others. That's sacrifice, and it's good. But it is self-sacrifice, not imposed sacrifice. If the local government imposed it, would it not be just as virtuous?

Governments have to do a lot of imposing. But the necessity of imposing is not a reference for virtue. All impositions have an element of injustice to them. They can be necessary to prevent a much larger injustice, but there is all the difference in the world between virtue and trading a small injustice for a larger one. If a trade-off is defined as virtue, then it should be increased in an unlimited way like all virtues. So small injustices cannot be defined as virtues.

Imposed sacrifice always has injustice with it and can never be defined as virtue. If it is necessary, the whole picture must be evaluated to determine if there is more gained or lost in the process. It is a messy bunch of compromises, not a correct moral philosophy.

What this means is that if Christ made a self-sacrifice by offering his body on the cross, it was virtue. [Notice that he did not offer his mind and soul; and he said "it is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is useless" (John 6:63).] But if someone else sacrificed him on the cross, they were perpetrating injustice. So which was it? It was Christ's virtue and someone else's sin.

But the theology of sacrifice portrays the sin as virtue. Paul claims that Christ was the sacrificial lamb slaughtered once and for all. Paul based his theology on ancient holocausts, which were an offshoot of the religion of the demons based on sacrifice. The demons required people to kill their kids or animals on an altar as a test of allegiance.

Even though the sacrificial ritual was abandoned by Paul's followers, the theology of sacrifice was promoted by claiming that it was the basis of Christianity. Paul elevated sacrifice to the highest of virtues. Was it self-sacrifice or imposed sacrifice? Paul was not aware of there being a difference, but imposing sacrifice is the consequence of such theology.

How often do you hear leaders telling people to sacrifice? Is it not self-sacrifice for the good of all? It is an attempt to diminish opposing influences, so power mongers can have a greater influence. It is not how problems are solved. Real solutions prevent problems and integrate thoroughly into complex realities. Sacrifice has no relation to complex realities. It is a mind-frame which promotes domination and control.

This subject is promoted through the lifeboat analogy. If there are ten people on a lifeboat, and only nine can survive, is it not a virtue to sacrifice one for the good of the other nine? Under such circumstances, noble persons sacrifice themselves. Rational persons know that their moral integrity is more relevant than their bag of meat. But what if the principle is elevated to the level of the mind and soul. Do you sacrifice your mind and soul for the good of others? Do you sacrifice the mind and soul of a few, so the rest can live? The theology of sacrifice indicates that you do just that. Three billion people are being shoved into the gutters for the good of the other three billion. Population controllers want to reduce the population of the planet to one tenth to save resources. It isn't just a different way to metabolize; it's a different moral standard.

If sacrificing Christ was good, then sacrificing three billion humans on planet earth is good. This is the prevailing ethic of domination and imperialism that goes with the wars. The necessity of sacrificing someone else is supposed to make it a virtue.

Sacrifice in Early Religion