Vista’s Security Hobbled By Microsoft’s Own Insecure Past

There’s one question I’ve never heard asked as part of an inquiry into
Christianity: Why was Jesus’ so-called “sacrifice” considered to be so
significant?

Let’s examine some details of the narrative:

1. He came here to die, and knew it was going to happen

2. He knew it wouldn’t be permanent

3. He isn’t dead

That last one is important.

Simple question: why are we calling it a “sacrifice” if he isn’t dead?

We have someone who’s literally a god, who knows he came here to die on the
cross (but only for three days) after which he’d be immortal for all
eternity. The average fireman risks themselves more on every shift.

Ah, but perhaps you’re thinking that he was separated from God at the time,
and that he was just a man, and that he felt pain and fear and
disconnection. That would make more sense if he wasn’t actually God himself.
All the trinity hand-waving in the world doesn’t square that circle.

He knew he was going to live forever. He knew “dying” wasn’t death at all,
since he’s actually the creator of the universe and could simply regenerate
himself, make 1,000 more universes if he wanted to, have 1,000 more sons if
he wanted to, etc. Every. Single. Obstacle…was self-imposed.

Explain that to me. Who gave who? God is God. Jesus is God. They’re all part
of the trinity, right? So how does one part of the trinity sacrifice another
part of it–except not–because neither part actually died.

Then explain how an omnipotent entity cannot simply create 10,000 more sons,
or suns, or multiverses. He can change light to dark, change Coke to Pepsi,
destroy the totality of existence as easily as he created it–whatever. But
losing a “son” for a weekend, when that “son” is actually a 100% immortal
piece of yourself–that’s supposedly a hardship.

And keep in mind that he actually created–atom by atom–the entire world in
which this so-called tragedy would happen. Not only did he create the Earth
and the Jews and the weapons and the food and the legal system that’d be
used to convict him–but he also already knew the outcome before he even
started. So he went from being alone to putting the entire thing in motion,
knowing precisely how it would play out. This doesn’t just take the
sting out of it; it makes the entire thing ridiculous.

Remember, it was just him in the beginning. No universe, no planets, no
Earth, no trees, no snakes, no evil…nothing. Just him. Nobody suffering.
Nobody sad because they didn’t know happiness. Nothing. And into that world
God injected all the pieces for this horrible existence to play out–exactly
as he knew it would. That’s somewhere between careless and sickening,
depending on your evaluation.

Some like to say that you can’t have good without evil. Sure, but you also
can’t have evil if don’t have highly flawed people in the first place to
commit that evil, surrounded by circumstances that you already knew would
cause it to happen. He engineered every single variable.

What kind of fourth-grader logic can’t figure out that if you create the
world atom by atom and produce a world where you know with absolute
certainty that billions of people will suffer horribly,
that you’re responsible?

There was nothing. No suffering. No people to suffer. Just God. It is not a
moral act to create a species in which the vast majority of people who have
ever lived will choose incorrectly and suffer an eternity of hell–when you
have the option to 1) not create that world, or 2) create a different one
where that’s not the case.

Get a weekly breakdown of what’s happening in security and tech—and why it matters.

The free will argument (that he gave free will, so it’s on us) is silly at
Herculean levels. In the first case you can’t give someone true free will if
you know all the variables that will affect their decisions. Not only do you
know them, but you assembled them–atom by atom. If you go with, “He
didn’t know every variable and every option”, then now he’s a horribly
irresponsible and arguably evil entity that just gave a child a sawed off
shotgun and an owners manual (but only some people got the manual, and only
in a language that a small portion of the world speaks).

Anyway, that’s the setup. Then the claim is that he injects his
only son (which he should be able to make more of) into this mix, so
that he can die, so he can rescue the people he hand-made (atom by atom),
from nothing (he also invented the atoms, by the way, and all the laws of
physics). Only the only son won’t actually die, he’ll actually live forever.

Oh, and the son is actually him. They’re the same person. Yeah.

But let’s say it’s all true. Granted. Good. Let’s say Jesus was actually
scared when they came for him, and of course nobody doubts that being
crucified would be horrible.

But he knew he’d be back. He knew he’d live forever.

Let’s compare that with countless common soldiers and parents that have
chosen endless suffering and torture rather than give up a loved one. How
about the numerous protesters who have lit themselves on fire to make a
political point? And do you not think that dozens or hundreds of people have
been literally been crucified (just like Jesus) because they failed to sell
out a friend, a family member, or a lover?

So Jesus is to be revered for all time for performing a task that any good
person would do, and millions of good people have already done, all without
actually performing a sacrifice since
he’s not only still alive but actually immortal. I’m not sure how
this stands up to even the smallest amount of scrutiny.

Precisely nothing about this fable makes sense when evaluated rationally. I
urge you to do what you would do if hearing this story for the first time as
an educated, non-inculcated adult: discard it as an obvious fiction.

Notes

1. Naturally, this is all based on believing that Jesus was the Son of God,
   which I don’t.