The Salvation Equation: How The Sunk Cost of Crucifixion Only Encourages More Sin

Walk into most Catholic churches, and you'll be struck by the larger than life representation of a man nailed gruesomely to a cross hanging from the ceiling, right above the altar, smack dab in the center of the church.

The point, of course, is not only to remind people what sinful bastards they really are, but to also burn into their memory every Sunday the horrendous suffering and death that their 'savior' was forced to endure for their miserable hides because of it, which is why they should all fall to their knees in gratitude!

Yet, when the priest explains that "Jesus died for our sins," no one ever thinks to ask the simple question of "Why?" or even, "Okay, but who asked him to?"

The image is so gruesome and emotionally jarring, in fact, that it short-circuits the rational part of our brain called the cerebral cortex, by triggering a flood of endorphins called an "amygdala hijacking," which basically "baptizes" our brains with a flood of emotions. This is why so many seemingly sane, educated people never notice how truly disturbing it is for them to all file into a "place of worship" that looks like something one might only see in a Stephen King movie or the basement of a serial killer.

This image also serves as a reminder that violence and death are incredibly useful means -  and when one considers how often the two are used in both the Old and New Testaments, they are perhaps God's most favorite means of all - of fulfilling God's "divine plan." No wonder humanity has only ever sought to engage in the more of it, and always tried to surpass the bloody deeds of their "holy homicidal father."

The idea that Christ died for our sins raises numerous paradoxes, of course, but one could be thought of in terms of economics. If all of our "sins" were paid for with that sacrificial act, then the more sins we commit, the better the bargain.

From an economic perspective, one that seeks to maximize returns on investment, Christ's death and resurrection are a sunk cost. In economics and business decision-making, a sunk cost is a cost that has already been incurred and cannot be recovered. And since that cost cannot be recovered, the only way to maximize it is to commit as many sins as we can, while we can. 

Think of it this way: if only one person had ever committed a single sin in all of human history, and let's say that sin was swearing, then that would be the only sin that Jesus would have to atone for. In this scenario, the crucifixion seems like overpaying for the single sin of swearing, committed by a single person. The more sins people commit, however, and the worse those sins are, the easier it is for us to imagine that the "crucifixion" was necessary as equal compensation. 

From this perspective, the relationship between the crucifixion and sin is exactly like E=MC2, in the sense  that Christians believe that the amount of suffering Christ endured on the cross was necessarily equal to the amount of sin humanity had or would ever commit, in the same way that E (units of energy) always equals MC2 (mass x the speed of light squared). 

Of course, this only leaves us to wonder how all of the suffering experienced by both people and animals in the Old Testament factored into such an equation, as well as why there would be any need for an Apocalypse as described in the Book of Revelations, let alone why the "sufferings" of purgatory or even eternal hell would be needed to settle the final score between man and God, if Jesus had allegedly paid the tab for all human sin in full already. 

The amygdala hijacking produced by the sight of a crucifix, as such, thus has the same effect on vampires that it has on Catholics who drink the blood of Christ every weekend in the hope of obtaining eternal life.  That Catholics are quite literally vampires,  in this respect, is likewise kept from any rational consideration by such an emotional hijacking.

But here's the problem in an economic sense: If the suffering of Christ on the cross is a fixed sum, then the more sin we can commit, the greater the bargain that fixed sum of suffering acquires, which only incentivizes us to sin only all the more. This is like paying a fixed price for utilities or to eat a buffet lunch. In both cases, the way to maximize what a person pays is to use or eat as much as they can. 

On the other hand, if the suffering of Christ on the cross is an infinite sum (because Christ is supposedly an infinite God) then we have a deficit that we are only incentivized to try and recover, since we are finite beings. This is like paying an infinite amount of money for a buffet lunch, which would only incentivize us to always be as glutinous as possible at every meal, as we strive forever on to get our money's worth.  

In either case, the crucifixion not only glorifies death and violence as the preferred vehicle for advancing the divine plan of the God of peace and love, ironically enough, but only encourages us to commit as much sin as we can possibly commit, in order to maximize the bargain of such a sacrifice.

 This would explain why so many Christians engage in so many "sins," while claiming they are doing it all for their God.