Essay: Martyrdom and Sacrifice: Cultural Perspectives Through History


This was my post/opinion on X.com. I’m trying to be rational about this entrenched idea.

If martyrdom and self-sacrifice are so righteous and good, everyone would be in a suicide cult like Jim Jones and do collective suicide. It goes against NATURE to teach that suffering, working 120 hours a week and not taking rational steps to take care of yourself somehow makes you transcendent over others. It doesn’t. It’s an irrational action. People would stop having babies all together and letting them live if that was the case.

Infanticide was the case in some countries like China! We still generally believe that life can be good and sometimes is and it’s better for humans to be content and happy than killing themselves or each other, suffering, and calling it righteous. Even sick care professes to want to relieve the suffering of people even though they generally fail in that because of error.

Teaching religious suffering is gratuitous and irrational. Teaching SERVICE TO OTHERS as an action is what Jesus taught. Suffering occurs because of ERROR (evil) and I think people justify it because they don’t know how to FIX IT or aren’t willing to correct it if everyone else is doing it.

https://twitter.com/15913txri/status/1925907508859703796

I’m Weighing in with the Urantia Book at urantia.org

Part IV The Life of Jesus, Page 2016, Paper 188 The Time of the Tomb, part 4, Meaning of the Death on the cross

The Son of Man did not offer himself as a sacrifice to appease the wrath of God and to open the way for sinful man to obtain salvation. It is a fact though, that Urantia has become known among other neighboring inhabited planets as the “World of the Cross”. Jesus did not die to ransom man from the clutches of the apostate rulers and fallen princes of the sphere. God never conceived of such crass injustice as damning a mortal soul because of the evildoing of his ancestors. Neither was the Master’s death on the cross a sacrifice which consisted in an effort to pay God a debt which the race of humankind had come to owe him. Jesus portrayed the love and mercy of a heavenly Father.

The animal nature, the tendency toward evildoing or error may be hereditary, but sin is not transmitted from parent to child (DNA). Sin is the act of conscious and deliberate rebellion against the Father’s will and the Sons’ laws by an individual will (RNA) creature.

Jesus lived and died for a WHOLE UNIVERSE not just for the races of this one world. While the mortals of the realms had salvation even before Jesus lived and died on Urantia, it is nevertheless a fact that his bestowal on this world greatly illuminated the way of salvation; his death did much to make forever plain the certainty of mortal survival after death in the flesh.

Though it is hardly proper to speak of Jesus as a sacrificer, a ransomer, or a redeemer, it is wholly correct to refer to him as a savior. He forever made the way of salvation survival more clear and certain for the entire universe of Nebadon. The infinite love of God is transcendent over all other universe realities. (White 13 Cosmic Dog, kin 130)

All this concept of atonement and sacrificial salvation is rooted and grounded in selfishness. Jesus taught that service to one’s fellows is the highest concept of the brotherhood of spirit believers. Salvation should be taken for granted by those who believe in the fatherhood of God. The believer’s chief concern should not be the selfish desire for personal salvation via sacrifice but rather the unselfish urge to love and , therefore, serve one’s fellows even as Jesus loved and served mortal men.

(You can’t use your gifts and be of service to humanity if you’re dead or constantly suffering.) Please read this entire paper and section online at urantia.org

From GROK

The history of humans associating suffering, sacrifice, and martyrdom with righteousness spans millennia, deeply rooted in cultural, religious, and philosophical traditions. These concepts have often been elevated as virtuous because they symbolize selflessness, (not really. As it says above it’s selfish,) devotion, and moral superiority, serving as mechanisms to unify communities, justify hardship, or assert spiritual authority. (selfish) Letโ€™s break this down historically and thematically, drawing on the context from the X posts and related web results you provided, while weaving in broader historical patterns.


Ancient Foundations: Suffering and Sacrifice as Duty

The idea of suffering and sacrifice being righteous can be traced back to prehistoric and ancient societies. In many early human cultures, suffering was often linked to survivalโ€”enduring hunger, harsh climates, or conflict was *a collective necessity*, and those who bore it were seen as contributing to the groupโ€™s survival. Sacrifice, particularly human sacrifice, was a ritual practice in many societies, as noted in the Human sacrifice – Wikipedia entry. From the Iron Age onward, cultures like the Phoenicians, Carthaginians, and some Mesoamerican societies (e.g., the Aztecs/Maya) practiced human sacrifice to appease gods or ensure societal stability. These acts werenโ€™t just pragmatic; they were imbued with moral weightโ€”sacrificing oneself or another was seen as a noble act for the greater good, often tied to religious or cosmic order.

For example, the Vedic Purushamedha (human sacrifice) in ancient India, though largely symbolic by the time of its earliest records, was framed as a righteous act to maintain universal harmony. Similarly, the Human sacrifice – Wikipedia entry mentions Celtic practices, where Roman and Greek sources (like Julius Caesar) describe the Gauls burning victims in wicker men, often criminals, as a form of moral cleansing for the community. Here, suffering (of the victim) and sacrifice were righteous because they served a perceived higher purposeโ€”purifying society or ensuring divine favor.


Judaism and the Roots of Martyrdom

The concept of martyrdom as a righteous act begins to take shape in Jewish tradition, particularly during periods of persecution. The Christian martyr – Wikipedia entry highlights W. H. C. Frendโ€™s view that Christian martyrdom has Jewish roots, describing Judaism as a “religion of martyrdom.” This emerges clearly in texts like the Books of the Maccabees (2nd century BCE), which recount the Maccabean Revolt against the Seleucid Empire. Jews who died rather than renounce their faithโ€”such as the mother and her seven sons in 2 Maccabees 7โ€”were celebrated as martyrs. Their suffering and death were seen as righteous because they upheld Godโ€™s law, setting a precedent for martyrdom as a testament to faith.

This Jewish “psychology of martyrdom” emphasized that suffering for Godโ€™s sake was a moral triumph, a theme that would heavily influence early Christianity. The List of Christian martyrs – Wikipedia mentions figures like James, brother of Jesus (attested by Josephus, ca. AD 94), whose death for his beliefs reinforced this narrative of righteous suffering.


Christianity: The Pinnacle of Sacrifice and Martyrdom

Christianity elevated suffering, sacrifice, and martyrdom to a central moral ideal, largely through the example of Jesus Christ. The crucifixion of Jesus, as described in the New Testament, is framed as the ultimate act of self-sacrificeโ€”dying to redeem humanityโ€™s sins. The Self-Sacrifice: The Most Powerful Idea in Our Culture – Intellectual Takeout article underscores this, noting that self-sacrifice became the “epitome of human virtue” in Christian culture, distinct from earlier traditions like the Spartans, where bravery (not self-sacrifice) was the primary virtue.

Early Christians, facing Roman persecution, leaned into this narrative. The Christian martyr – Wikipedia entry details how figures like Stephen (the first Christian martyr, stoned for blasphemy) and the Apostles Peter and Paul (martyred in Rome) became symbols of righteousness through their deaths. Martyrdom was seen as a direct path to sainthoodโ€”early Christian texts, as noted in the same entry, describe martyrs as “powerful intercessors” whose utterances were “inspired by the Holy Spirit.” Suffering for faith wasnโ€™t just noble; it was a divine calling, as reinforced by passages like Romans 8:35-39 (cited in Human suffering and the sacrifices of righteousness – Vanguard News), which argues that tribulation and persecution cannot separate believers from Godโ€™s love.

The Christian martyr – Wikipedia entry also notes how this “experience of violence during the pagan persecutions shaped the ideologies and practices” of Christianity. By the 4th and 5th centuries, the collective memory of martyrdom influenced how Christians viewed sufferingโ€”those who endured it were closer to God. This is echoed in the Human suffering and the sacrifices of righteousness – Vanguard News piece, which argues that suffering is a divine appointment, not a punishment, and that Jesusโ€™ crucifixion was about cleansing sin, not eliminating suffering.


Medieval and Early Modern Periods: Institutionalizing Martyrdom

In the Middle Ages, the Christian ideal of martyrdom evolved as the Church became a dominant institution. The List of Christian martyrs – Wikipedia mentions figures like Peter of Verona (1252), killed by Cathars and canonized within 11 monthsโ€”the fastest in history. Martyrdom was not only a personal act of righteousness but also a tool for the Church to assert authority. Heretics like Jan Huss (1415), executed by the Catholic Church for his reformist views, were later celebrated as martyrs by Protestant movements, showing how martyrdom could be weaponized in religious conflicts.

The Christian martyr – Wikipedia entry also describes “blue/green martyrdom” (fasting and penance) and “dry martyrdom” (suffering without bloodshed), indicating how the concept expanded beyond physical death. Suffering through ascetic practicesโ€”like fasting or self-denialโ€”was seen as a righteous imitation of Christโ€™s sacrifice, a way to purify the soul.

Non-Western Traditions: Contrasts and Parallels

While Christianity dominates the Western narrative, other cultures also venerated suffering and sacrifice, though often with different moral frameworks. The Self-Sacrifice: The Most Powerful Idea in Our Culture – Intellectual Takeout article contrasts Christian self-sacrifice with practices like seppuku (ritual suicide) in ancient Japan and suttee (widow immolation) in India. These acts were socially sanctioned forms of sacrifice, often framed as honorable, but they were more about duty to societal norms than personal righteousness in a spiritual sense. The article argues that such practices lack the moral depth of Christian self-sacrifice, which emphasizes voluntary love and redemption.

In Hinduism, the Human sacrifice – Wikipedia entry notes that texts like the Shrimad Bhagavatam condemn human sacrifice, but historical practices persisted in some regions, like the 8th-9th century Kali temple in Kuknur, India. The Chandogya Upanishad (3.17.4) includes ahimsa (non-violence) as a virtue, showing a shift away from sacrifice toward moral reasoning, influenced by Sramanic traditions like Buddhism and Jainism.


Modern Era: Secularization and Cultural Narratives

By the modern era, the righteousness of suffering and sacrifice began to be reinterpreted through secular lenses, though Christian ideals remained influential. The Self-Sacrifice: The Most Powerful Idea in Our Culture – Intellectual Takeout article points to C.S. Lewisโ€™ 1954 observation of a “post-Christian age,” where Christian virtues like self-sacrifice are cherished but disconnected from their religious roots. Modern cinema, as the article notes, often glorifies self-sacrifice (e.g., Steve Trevor in Wonder Woman), reflecting a cultural legacy of Christian morality even in a secular context.

Philosophically, thinkers like Jonathan Haidt (cited in Morality – Wikipedia) distinguish between moral intuition and reasoning, suggesting that humans often rationalize suffering as righteous through intuitive moral frameworks inherited from religious traditions. Utilitarianism, as mentioned in Moral obligations towards human personsโ€™ wellbeing versus their suffering – Science Direct, challenges this by arguing for symmetry in promoting well-being and reducing suffering, but many moral philosophies maintain an asymmetryโ€”suffering demands a stronger moral response, echoing the Christian valorization of enduring hardship.


Conclusion

The history of humans viewing suffering, sacrifice, and martyrdom as righteous spans ancient rituals, religious doctrines, and modern cultural narratives. From Jewish and Christian traditions that framed suffering as a divine calling to secular reinterpretations in philosophy and media, these concepts have been used to define morality, unify societies, and justify hardship. The X post about Elon Musk shows how this narrative endures in contemporary discourse, though not without contention, as modern society grapples with the motives and implications of such sacrifices. This enduring association reflects a deep human need to find meaning in suffering, a thread that runs through history from ancient wicker men to 21st-century social media debates.

The Transgender Movement Ending Patriarchy?


Who came up with this? The 20-somethings. My son said this is what he and his friends are trying to do. The folly of youth. Good grief.

The GenX’ers have expressed that they are using the transgender movement to end patriarchy. Ok. ๐Ÿค”That’s not gonna work. The way to end patriarchy is for biological women and men of all ages to treat each other as full human beings and love one another, not objectify and use each other for sex and money. Friendship must come first not hook ups.

It has been communicated to me via a follower on X.com that the idea is, if you eliminate biological women you eliminate patriarchy. Say what? No. Why do you think that will work? It’s misogynistic femicide. Of course we’re used to that on Earth. The end of women as a species would be the fulfillment of patriarchal fantasy and make it bigger until it blows itself up. Pun intended. All that will be left is men, who are the namesake of patriarchy. Maybe they would rather be matriarchy. The two are almost identical as the idea is to lord your power over another and be abusive. It’s the opposite of eliminating it.

It took mindsets and actions of both women and men to create the system of patriarchy. Fake gender surgery and wishing you were the opposite sex isn’t going to fix it. MINDSET and BEHAVIOR PIVOT is.

Men becoming women and ending the existence of naturally born biological women and men so they can replace us will end the human race, not patriarchy.

I think men just realize that women are the greatest species and are jealous of our beauty, power and ability to make a baby automatically. We sort of need your help to do all of that, so…if we love a man, we adore him as much as our children, if you’re kind and hot.

If you guys don’t get it, women probably need their own planet or you guys can all go with Elon to Mars, the women can keep earth, and it can be an all guy planet doing your fantasy AI thing with fake robot females. Don’t forget your stilettos, cross dressing tools, and exo-wombs. We can just ship our eggs to Mars and you can ship your semen to earth and we can be done with this.

I’m not in support of the prospect of no men on the planet but it would definitely be much quieter and safer. ๐ŸซคDang Mars would be filthy.

Essay: Prejudice Toward Fat People


I posted this in 2014. I just cleaned up the structure. Here it is again, probably more pertinent than ever with all the gender dysphoria. The media programming is so toxic.

I have been a deep tissue manual therapist for 23 years. I have worked on thousands of bodies, all body types, male and female. I had one young female patient ask me once, “Do you ever hate someone’s body?” Wow. “No”. That would be a bit incongruous with being a healer, don’t you think? Yet, Dr. David Katz, M.D., a fairly well-read and popular doctor, wrote this great article for Huffington Post on obesity bias in healthcare. Please read it before you go on.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/obesity-bias_b_3193410.html

He doesn’t support obesity bias either and is calling for an end to it. I don’t think he delves quite far enough, though. He cites the surveys that have been done in the healthcare profession that show that a good percentage of professionals feel revulsion, disgust, prejudice, bias, and emotional disgust when dealing with fat patients.

They have an emotional response toward large amounts of adipose tissue. Even people who are fairly large themselves will express revulsion at those with even more adipose tissue than them, feeling that they are superior because “at least they’re not THAT fat!” Everyone says, “But come ON! It’s SO unhealthy!” Practitioners in holistic health think that a thin vegetarian might live forever whereas a carnivorous fat person will probably die at 55.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re happy or not? Frankly, I see clinical studies going both ways. I dated a fellow who was built large, but he was fit. He had lost a lot of weight too quickly and suffered for it. The doctor couldn’t re-align his internal organs for him, so he was in pain.

I’m on the scientific fence on this issue. I think it’s healthier to be happy than to be a people-pleaser for superficial reasons. Yo-Yo dieting and intolerance of yourself and others is more unhealthy. Casting yourself into an elite, “beautiful people group” and exercising 2 hours a day, 5 days a week and dissing others is supremely unhealthy in a myriad of ways…and not cool. Some big people work out 5 days a week and are still big! Now they have muscle on top of fat. The fat doesn’t always burn away.

Diabetes is unhealthy. So is having cancer. So is having 3rd degree burns all over your body. But you don’t hear people emotionally exclaim, with disgust, “Your third degree burns repulse me. Get away from me.” “Your cancer repulses me. That’s it. You’re going to be punished! We are going to pay you less. What’s the problem? We are going to call you names. We don’t want you to work here. We are going to laugh at you. We are going to kick you off the airplane because you have something “different” going on in your body than I do.” Yes, people have a fear of being around the vibes of illness, especially cancer. But they don’t have a judgmental bias toward sick people. For the most part, they have compassion and are supportive.

Yet you continue to hear the social cover-up that belies hypocrisy to obesity, “But it is so unhealthy!” You know there is something deeper going on than a health issue. What’s going on is BODY TYPE INTOLERANCE or frequency of vibration intolerance. The person judging needs others to look like them. That’s messed up. And it’s very weak. It’s even vampirism.
It’s social intolerance!~ Itโ€™s Projection 101 from the person that has a bad self-body image. If you stigmatize or have emotional (intolerance) about obesity, frankly, you have a body image problem of your own and you really need to admit it to yourself and leave everyone else alone. Talk to someone who you can trust. Get some help. You likely have an eating disorder no matter what your body size. It’s not just very thin people who have eating disorders. You don’t like yourself no matter what size you are than it’s not about size. What addiction are you indulging in to cope with your self-loathing? It’s an epidemic. And it’s socially sanctioned.

It manifests socially as Xenophobia-not liking people who look different from you because you are so insecure. Thatโ€™s as old as the hills. It’s what starts wars. It’s the cause of divorce. It’s the way criminals and predators are. They feel like victims, so they victimize others. It’s also a symptom of the scarcity model that underpins Capitalism. Capitalism thrives on the economic caste system. God Bless America.

Personally, I have been all body sizes. When I was a teenager (18-19) I was a size 9 and weighed 135. I was not happy for other reasons. When I was in my 20’s I was a size 12. I was not happy for other reasons. After I had my baby at 36, I was at 170 and was a size 14-16. I was happy because I had my baby. And I loved having a cushy, mama marshmallow body. Then, in my very bad, stressful marriage where I was attacked verbally and emotionally and had to defend myself all the time, I got up to size 24. I’ve been divorced for nine years and now I’m back down to a size 16 and going down and settling down, and dealing with the kind, sensitive person I am. I want to bounce around for the next fifty years and to save my joints, I’m working out every day and eating healthy. But I feel good no matter what and I get A’s on my yearly physical.

My point is, at all times, I kept moving forward, had sex, was told I was gorgeous, had men pawing on me, and succeeded at whatever I wanted to. It was not due to the size I was. It was due to the fact that I am the Queen of my body and my mind and I think I’m hot stuff. My jealous sister says, “Stop being a diva.”Ummm, no. I have achieved things and I feel confident. I’m not a diva, in fact, many people don’t think I take enough credit. I don’t like attention because attention from humans will eventually mean crucifixion when they get sick of you. They build people up so they can tear them down eventually.

I see how everyone has a “hot side”. I love all people. I support every woman and man to feel the same way about themselves. I felt comfy sitting in my marshmallow padding getting very intellectual in college and graduating magna cum laude. That’s what I wanted! I didn’t WANT to be small and bouncy. My plush body served my purposes then. And it serves my purposes now at size 18. When you look at cushy people, know that it’s serving their life purposes right now or they’d be different.

People have the right to have the size body they need at the time, when they need it, for their own personal reasons. When they want to change it THEY WILL, for their own reasons! Or, if they don’t want to, THEY WON’T, for their own reasons. You do not have the right to project your self-loathing and judgment, and teasing onto them, then justify it by saying, “But it’s SO unhealthy!” Your mindset of sticking your nose into judging other people’s body is unhealthy. Take care of your own. They won’t be changing themselves TO PLEASE YOU, WHO ARE UNCOMFORTABLE with yourself no matter what size you are!

This culture needs to stop scapegoating fat people, start loving themselves and taking care of themselves at ALL stages in their body. The health and happiness of your body are in your hands. It’s not in your spouse’s hands, your doctor’s hands, your kids hands, your parent’s hands, or the pastor’s hands. What you feel in your body is what matters most. It’s your body!

Everyone is different. Everyone has a story. Everyone has different needs. Be cool.

NYTimes: A Diverse Supreme Court Questions the Value of Diversity


A Diverse Supreme Court Questions the Value of Diversity https://nyti.ms/3fsZ2xa

If diversity was defined by DNA and not surface appearance or gender, humans would see there is very little difference between us, meaning 98% the same genetically. That probably goes for E.T. humanoids as well. They are our E.T. ancestors and love us.

But for some strange reason, maybe our mirror neurons in our brains, earth humans note different appearance and make biased judgments based on that. The N.Y. Times has done it here. The whole media does it, all the time and it’s completely incorrect.

The assumptions about a person’s culture based on appearance are the worst. There are plenty of black people raised very much in the white culture with white values but that depends on class. Poor whites, middle class whites or rich whites? The same can be brought to every single ethnic culture based on economics. Money is the big dividing line in how people are raised and treated, more than culture.

Then consider that many people had parents from two different cultures so they are bi-racial but only appear so. Maybe their parents appear opposite but values and experience are the same culture for them. You must open your mind to real diversity which is INSIDE, not outside.

You get my drift. Don’t make assumptions about people based on APPEARANCE. Especially with humanoids walking the planet, weโ€™re about to get a real lesson in diversity. Meaning, the Andromedan you meet looks completely human, and they do, but then they let you know they were not born in this galaxy…

Earthlings have maybe 10 years to get a basic grip on this.

I’m here to help, and as far as I know I’m an earth human, but patients don’t think so.๐Ÿ˜‰