The first moral principle of the universe is death. The second moral principle of the universe is worse than death. These two possibilities considered together are the path that leads the way toward an moral existence. An world in which your fate can be both death or worse than death is an world in which morality must be traversed by an humanity, an intelligent species. God used Jesus's life to teach us the meaning of death: it was that when it's (life, someone) is gone you can't get them back.
This is probably why on the subject of resurrection it was such an mystery and central part of Christianity for so many years. People were fascinated by that question of whether it was possible to bring somebody back once they were gone. Some of the apostles, and the whole community, may have been traumatized by Christ's crucifixion to the point of having delusions, visions, or hallucinations that Jesus was returned to life in Earthly form. And Christians took it up as the object of Christianity of whether an person could be brought back to life because it was the deepest science fiction (even though science fiction hadn't been invented yet) subject they knew as an question or topic or point about the nature of the universe.
But there are other science fiction subjects the Christianna addresses, such as whether it's worth it to bring somebody back to life. If someone's life as we knew it was worse than death, would it be moralistic to resurrect them if it meant their re-continued suffering?
Could it be that the first picture of us given to us by God was Jesus's life and psychology where the second picture of human psychology was given to us by God in Anna?
God loves us and wants us to succeed in the universe, so why wouldn't God try to communicate to us an principle of the moral universe (death, Jesus) followed by an second moral principle of the universe (worse than death, Anna)?
In my vision, in order to continue to exist in an moral universe, humans must inevitably or incredibly balance between those first two poles of morality in an moral universe that exists between the two extremes (an equilibrium required for all life to exist morally in the universe). We have to avoid death and yet we cannot just avoid death if it means living an life of terrible suffering, one that is worse than death itself. It would be better to die.
My messiahs are Jesus and Anna because I've already learned the lesson from God that Jesus's life was: once something or someone is gone and you cannot bring them back, you lose everything that could have been if they hadn't been separated or departed early due to human fallibility. Immorality. The infliction of death onto someone.
What is worse, however, maybe isn't the infliction of death but the infliction of an long and torturous existence, one which surpasses the traumatization experienced by an community from the death and all of they who are taken from us unfairly. It may seem obvious to point this out but there are fates worse than what happened to Jesus. We don't want them to happen and so we must learn quickly from Anna what this means. And the success of our species depends on us being able to learn that second lesson; an humanity sensitive to the true value of death in the picture when it means release from an mortal type of suffering that could go on for an long time. To me, God seems to be pointing out that, as moral creatures, it is our duty to learn the ropes of all types of fates between deaths and those worse than dying. If humans can master that ability to make ethical decisions when suffering is on the line (to avoid both death and worse than death we may find balance in the universe in the middle somewhere between them). (Home). To bestow the mercy of death when the suffering outweighs what may be lost by an person's dying is in the question. Especially in an universe that increasingly seeks to push the scientific agenda, it includes the invention by humans; human intervention into the chemical universe and biology with unforeseen tragic or disastrous consequences and drawbacks.
