Jesus Will Pay Your Fine
Many Christians use this analogy when trying to explain the central message of their religion:
Think of it this way. You have violated the law and face a $50,000 fine. You tell the judge that you are truly sorry for your crime, but he answers, “So you should be—you have broken the law! Now, can you pay this fine?” He can only acquit you if the fine is paid. If someone else pays your fine, then he can let you go, but he must have “grounds” on which to release you.
The idea here is, of course, that the judge (or in some versions of the story, a complete stranger) steps in to pay your richly-deserved fine, much in the same way that Jesus Christ died for your sins.
Now, enjoy this new version of the analogy, as read on the Austin-based internet radio show “The Non-Prophets” on September 5th, 2009.
So I was driving 66 in a 65 MPH zone, got pulled over, got a ticket and had to go to court. The judge said that because I had broken the law, I had to serve the minimum sentence of life in prison with no possibility of parole at a maximum security penitentiary… I thought the sentence was a bit steep; but I later realized that we all fall short of the glory of the judge who never broke any laws whatsoever and cannot tolerate even the slightest unlawfulness, so I had no choice but to accept my punishment. However, the judge did take pity on me. He called his son in and proceeded to brutally whip him with a cat o’ nine tails until he was raw and bloody, and then nailed him to a cross until he was dead. He then told me to eat his flesh and blood, I did, and after that he said I was free to go. I walked out of the courtroom a free man, as did the serial child molester who also ate the judge’s son’s flesh and blood (he was a cannibal, so he didn’t really mind). However, this other woman said she didn’t want to cannibalize the judge’s son and that she didn’t do anything wrong; but the judge just said that “all have committed crimes, and all must be endlessly punished for them,” and the only way for her to escape was for her to eat his son. The woman still refused, so she was sentenced to life in prison….
Well, I guess it just sucks to be her. Anyways, I’m a free man now; though my schedule is pretty full now. I’ve been spending most of my time at the judge’s house thanking him for freeing me and telling him how great he is over, and over, and over, and over, and over again.
You should follow us on twitter.
Quick question. No one asked, in this forum, what exactly you want us to contemplate. Do you want us to read the 2nd quote and respond on how terribly out of context it’s written in? Just because it’s been said, doesn’t make it true and it’s obviously abused metaphors for the sole purpose of attacking a set of beliefs.
Example:
I don’t believe in a god. I don’t believe in an overall sense of morality, because nothing was there to create or put in place that overall sense of morality. Therefore, morality to me, is what is beneficial to me.
Furthermore, Natural Selection has ceased sense the coming of modern medical technology. People who are weak keep on living. The way of the world for the last million years has come to a giant halt because medical practices. Natural selection has helped us progress and sense we’ve already stated that morality doesn’t exist, we obviously need to stop keeping the weak people around.
Science now says that Hitler was correct and a perfect race must be formed. Eugenics must be brought back and no “lesser” of our species must be allowed to stick around and continue to dilute our precious gene pool which has been incredibly tainted due to modern medicine.
End of Example
Is it sciences fault that I used it to completely distort everything it stands for? Is it sciences fault that Hitler mass murdered people for ridiculous reasons?
Maybe this is what you wanted us to get out of it though? That ignorance shown in the 2nd quote should be ignored? Could you clarify?
Joel,
Did you actually read this article? It sounds as though you are commenting on something else entirely.
You claim the 2nd quote is “out of context.” What? “Out of context” would suggest that I took a passage and omitted a part of it to make the rest say what I wanted it to say. In this case, I used the ENTIRE portion of the 2nd quote, which was written by someone in an attempt to highlight the absurd analogy (quote #1) often used by Christians. That’s its intention, and that’s how I used it. There’s “nothing out of context” here.
I also fail to understand the relevance of your Hitler example. My article was not about how Christianity can be “distorted” to justify evil; my only purpose was to showcase what was (in my opinion) an amusing take on the oft-used Christian “judge” analogy. Many Christians have claimed that God is like a judge that will pay the fine for your sins. The 2nd quote is simply an attempt at pointing out the problems that nonbelievers like me see with quote #1.
Now, if you’re claiming that the analogy is not an accurate one, that’s fine–but why not just say that? Feel quite free to point out what the inaccuracies are–I’m curious to hear them. But please, in the future, you should either A) make more of an attempt to completely read/ understand things, or B) do a better job of articulating your position.
Sara,
I agree with your “either/or A) and B)” [actually not either/or but both] but I think that ‘the law’ should apply to you too, judge, as I also agree with Joel where he says :”… what exactly you want us to contemplate.” I’m not sure either as I’m not sure about the meaning of Joel’s example.
My view on your metaphors is this [sorry if I missed the context]:
- I don’t believe in the original sin and the need to absolve it through a sacrifice of some sort [whether animal or the supreme one- human]. That is a tale to be told to kids. This gets back into the quid pro quo mentality from the beginning of civilization where there was no such a thing as a free lunch. I think that it is time to move away from the old concepts and language [that do not rezonate in modern people's ears any longer]. As such, I believe in the free lunch that is offered- it is up to me to accept it or not. There’s no need to kiss ass if I accept it either! I need only to stay in the relationship in order to get the free lunch every day. It is offered to the hungry, poor and humble ones. No need to go if you’re already full, sheltered and haughty because of this. In fact you won’t even know where the lunch is offered if you are not hungry- you can only give your opinion on what you heard the food tastes like based on your experience. Sweet and sour, salty and umami may come in wide combinations that are not possible to describe in words and which you can only approximate in trying to make an image about them without trying the food.
I think that this is a good metaphor- you really need to be hungry and almost desperate, shaky on your legs to seek and find solace in faith. Religion truly is the opium of the masses and not the ecstasy of the rich partiers! “The full one will never believe the hungry one.”
- The sacrifice I make in accepting to believe is no sacrifice at all but a way of life. It may appear as a sacrifice to a bystander that is kibitzing from the side, but that is no different from, let’s say, people who play golf or collect little spoons, hobbies which I try to understand… That doesn’t mean that spoon collecting can’t be a ‘life saver’ for the individual who puts time, effort, dreams and passion in it at good and bad times alike. Boozers do the same. I think that these are people who just don’t have the patience and maturity to see farther than the immediate gratification expected from their actions. It is the western culture of ‘getting and having’ that has a powerful influence here [in opposition, there’re cultures that nurture the effort towards freedom from the trap of attachment to material stuff, including basics like water and food].
Interesting. When I was in high school, I remember the guys talking about their sins of sex with girls and how much they’d have to pay the church to have them forgiven.