The Pig That Wanted To Be Eaten

(Borrowed from The Restaurant at the End Of The Universe and tailored through poetic license).

Bob sat down to his pork chop meal and said that we should give thanks.

"I thought you said that you weren't religious" I said.

"I'm not", said Bob, "I'm giving thanks to Petunia".

"Who's Petunia" I asked.

"Why, Petunia is the Pig". "She's a Jesus Pig, she's a special breed of pig that can talk and who wants to be eaten".

"What!?" I exclaimed in horror.

"Yeah, she told me just yesterday how much she was looking forward to being slaughtered and eaten by me."

"You must be joking" I exclaimed.

"No, really". "She told me how she had been fattening her hams especially fat so they would be extra succulent and juicy when fried up." "She was looking forward to being slaughtered, having her guts ripped out and being processed into choice cuts to be eaten by me." "That's how they're bred". "They're bred so that they want to be butchered and tell you so, so you don't feel guilty for eating them."

"That's immoral" I said.

"Why, would it be better to kill animals that don't want to be slaughtered and eaten?" he returned.

Why do we instinctively feel queasy about the prospect of having a conversation with an animal that wants us to eat it?

Perhaps it's because it's just shouldn't be that way!

We know that all values are held by the living (presumably), so how can a living, thinking being value anything else if it doesn't value it's own life? If we bred it to want to die, to be depressed and miserable, looking at death as a release, then this would be torture and evil. However, in Petunia's case, she's HAPPY about the prospect of being slaughtered and eaten. So, what's so evil about it? Maybe we don't want our feed stock to KNOW that we're going to butcher it and feed on it's flesh. We certainly don't want to talk about it and certainly not encourage it. It's just too creepy!!

But, consider that Petunia is being ALTRUISTIC.

Philosopher & socialist August Comte coined the term 'altruism', which he defined as "a moral obligation to live for the sake of others". Surely, this is what Petunia is doing. She's being self-sacrificial for a 'cause bigger than herself'.

But Bob called this breed of talking self-sacrificial pig a "Jesus Pig". What did he mean by that?

Well, the scriptures tells us that Jesus didn't really WANT to die. It was dad's bright idea. Jesus actually asked dear ol' dad to change his mind, but Jesus was willing to subjugate his own will to the will of his pop in the sky.


Mark 14:36 (KJV)
And he said, Abba, Father, all things [are] possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.


But there are hundreds of kinds of Christians, and what I call the "Neo-Christians" are Christians that are of a type that are gaining popularity now. Neo-Christians don't believe in hell, and that 'god' the father is not supposed to inspire "fear and trembling" (as both the OT and NT literally say he is), but is rather "all love" instead. Neo-Christians also tend to believe that Jesus WANTED to die, ala Petunia the talking, slaughter-house anticipating pig. In fact, they insist that "The Passion of the Christ" is something to just...forget about. "What matters", they say, is that "Jesus rose again, setting an example for us that physical death is trivial compared to eternity".

Yup, Jesus planned the whole thing (contrary to Acts 4:26-28 apparently), and other than a moment's "fleshy" weakness, was LOOKING FORWARD to being beaten to a pulp, his skin shredded, bloodied and having his body hung up to dry.

Or, perhaps Bob was referring to John 6 instead?

Here's Petunia, ala the Jesus Pig in action.


John 6:53-57 (KJV)
"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me."

That sounds pretty much like Petunia to me. This is one of those frequent times (we are told) that Jesus didn't mean what he said, and didn't say what he meant, (and of course he "really meant" what the Neo-Christians say he meant rather than what he "truly, truly" and "indeed" said).

"But it would be disrespectful to not eat Petunia after her great sacrifice" Bob tells us.

Uh-huh...

Doesn't there also seem to be something creepy and inherently wrong about the idea of a perfectly innocent Jesus showing up just to be tortured and die, so the officials (dear ol' dad) will be happy and let the guilty sinners go free? 'Killing the innocent and setting the guilty free is morally good or morally bad? If 'god' sending sinners to hell is justice, then how can accepting the torture and death of the innocent in their stead, and then setting the guilty free, be anything but an injustice?

Christianity suggests that innocent Jesus' torture and death for the sake of those who don't deserve it, is not only good, rather, it's the ULTIMATE EXPRESSION of moral goodness.

Does this peg your bullshit meter, or what?

We're used to the expression, "There but by the grace of 'god' go I".

In Jesus' case, the Christian is saying, "There by no grace of 'god' goes an innocent person instead of me, the guy who actually deserves it".

The Christians are saying, in essence, "I'm sorry, Jesus, but if it's going to be you or me, it's not going to be me, bub".

The Christian could (and usually does) argue that the deed is already done, so why not exploit it? Wouldn't it be a waste to just go to hell when Jesus has already paid the price anyway?

Well, what one is doing in such a case is making oneself an accessory after the fact. By seeking to exploit an evil for ones own gain, one is making oneself a part of an evil action.

(See next blog, The Perplexed Torturer)