Well, I don't wanna get into a discussion about Peterson. I quoted him as a response to a comment Craig made. His work is probably useful to some people and not to others. I really dug the Maps of Meaning series though. He's kind of an enigma with the way things have played out.

Have you seen this? Really funny.

So did anyone ask?

Why do you think that someone is sacrificing their highest potential by—I'll use your word—"surrendering?" The highest good that I can see is that of self-sacrifice. I could be kind, give money to charity and visit the sick, but those all fall short of voluntarily suffering myself and letting others know they're not alone.

When you come across a hungry person, they don't need you to practice self-sacrifice ... they need food and it is moral to provide it. If you slashed a couple fingers off, or denied yourself food, or flogged yourself with a whip ... not so moral. The doctrine of self-sacrifice is a giant poetic dramatization that is impractical as a concept in the real world. If you help someone because you value doing such things, that isn't self-sacrifice, it's self-expression. If I value others wellbeing, respect their suffering, and have a humane impulse toward them, and them toward me, none of that is self-sacrifice ... just the opposite it is acting on the values of yourself. If a parent goes to great lengths for their children, they didn't sacrifice themselves -- they enacted love and caring as an expression of the values of their self.

Only when we get to the over-the-top story telling of: "Look, I slaughtered the whole human race once, and I'm going to have to do it again if I don't send a piece of myself down there and sacrifice perfection to cover sin" ... only then is the idea of self-sacrifice even very coherent. At that point, we destroy something valuable (IN THE STORY) for something infinitely less valuable. This is only sensible in make believe supernatural superstitious scenarios from a culture in which saviors were a dime a dozen.

Take the extreme case of a soldier jumping on a grenade. In that example they did give up their life, but it isn't any more moral than if he could have saved them without costing his life. It isn't the "sacrifice of himself" that makes it moral. It is the helping of others. That of course too is contingent. If the others are Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Bundy ... not so moral.

Sacrifice is not the measure of morality. And when someone surrenders their agency to whatever entity, real or imagined, THAT is the self-sacrifice that is behind much immorality.

The kind of self-sacrifice I'm talking about has to do with transcending suffering by voluntarily choosing it. Yes, I think it's good to help the hungry by giving them food, but the "help" I'm talking about has to do with the health of the soul and the capacity to overcome the internal afflictions that life throws our way. If one doesn't lead by example, they are of little or no help in this respect. It is an act of love, and the sacrifice one makes is unique to that individual.

If someone has promised your loved ones paradise + salvation, but has gone missing and has failed to deliver, what do you do?

The fullest image of self sacrifice is -> self perfection + self destruction.

For the saved, self destruction draws forth the savior, so that he must deliver on his word. Self perfection forces the savior to come quickly, snatching away any justification he can use against you to delay (refer to how long Jesus delayed in saving Lazarus).

Sacrifice has rightly been associated with fire (burnt offerings) and killing. Self sacrifice is standing in front of the righteous judge, not as the innocent sheep, but as the goat who is thrown into the everlasting fire of hell. Self sacrifice is to undermine all of your previous righteousness and become the grim reaper in the way Abraham does to Isaac.

This level of faith is only for those who are unwilling to take no for an answer and who are truly willing to get their hands dirty. It is unbecoming of anyone who is of the light and is therefore forbidden.

Can you further explain this? How does this relate to our interaction from earlier? The Abraham analogy has me a bit confused.