Was Jesus' sacrifice really a sacrifice at all?

[FadingW]

If Jesus was guaranteed to live in Heaven for eternity and be the focus of billions of peoples worship and praise how is his dying on the cross a sacrifice at all?

It is questionable whether Jesus existed muchless the mythical Jesus that turns water into wine, etc.

But as to whether there is meaning in a 'sacrifice' when there is a reward afterwards, that would depend on individual perspectives.

In the first place, Jesus' death is different than other deaths.

For example, as mentioned, supposedly Jesus had foreknowledge of the future. For normal people, we expect to die and the end or if we believe in an afterlife at least we harbor doubt, seeing as none of us have ever been there.

In this sense, it would be more impressive if, say, an atheist would die for people because an atheist has no expectations of any gains at all from the action other than personal satisfaction. Death is a much less impressive feat if the one who does it knows or errs in the belief that more is to come.

Was it painful? Surely there are a lot of really unpleasant ways to die. I myself would prefer to die in the act of love with a beautiful lady, but alas not everyone can get what they want.

It would be a stretch to say that crucifixion is worse than drowning or burning.

Yet in one sense could say that it was painful. Supposedly heaven is where God is. If connection with God is what makes heaven heavenly, then disconnection from God would be what creates hell.

It is said that God cannot coexist with sin and that Jesus took upon himself the sins of the world. Therefore, would it not suggest that there was a moment when Jesus was separated from God?

Leaving aside the mind bendingness of the trinity, I liken this to the crude example of drugs. Some drugs are said to give great pleasure, but the price is ever increasing amount or risk of the painful opposite.

To be ripped asunder from the greatest pleasure possible: would that not be equal to the greatest pain?

Indeed, if Jesus was supposed to substitute the sins of the world, and if the result of sin is hell, then it might suggest that a substitute is only proper if subjected to hell.

How is it relevant to the faith and how is it seen a selfless act?

I think the main point the illustration is trying to make, nevermind how successfully, is the paradox that losing one's life can at times be the gaining of it. I interpret this to mean that a fulfilled life can be obtained by giving into the success of other people rather than only selfish pursuits.

It is seen as selfless in the sense that people readily give of their time, possessions, even life for those who are good to them or that they love. But it is less common for such to occur amongst people with no prior relationship... whether blood, or nationality, or culture, or race, or class.

Supposedly if someone believes that they themselves were the object of overwhelming favor, then perhaps that would give them the push to do the same to other people. It's a shame that human empathy is not enough for some people, though.

and as a side note how is him dying the cure for all previous and future sin?

Now this is a fascinating idea. I wonder about this one: if Jesus died, but no one knew, would it have any effect? If it would not, then perhaps it is not merely Jesus dying which is the effective agent.

I'd go through whatever pain you could think of if I was to then go on to live forever in the sky world with sky daddy and the praise and love of half the earth.

Hrm, I hear quite a lot of people would rather go through whatever pain to NOT live forever with sky daddy. But your point is taken that if the reward is high enough, the dauntingness of a payment is diminished.

I think that is the point, however. Not that Jesus's sacrifice was oh so terrible. But that there are some things worth sacrificing for. People being one.

That is a point I wish Christianity had learned.