Is Redemption Unethical?

[Syne]

Oh, god, Syne. That’s just ridiculous. You weren’t a very good Christian, were you? I paid attention. Why do you think I’m an atheist now?

God required innocent blood, my dear. That in itself is fucked up. Jesus paid the debt. Well, if you believe the narrative, it was actually suicide.

You have to believe in this shit if you’re going to defend them. As far as the resurrection is concerned, you could go with the goldilocks cells like Peterson, but that’s a little irrational, dontcha think?

Nants ingonyama bagithi Baba ♫

Wait, no, it’s a just camel.  

No, again, you're conflating OT animal sacrifice to a purportedly wrathful god with NT personal sacrifice from a benevolent god. The religion actually evolved over time, especially from Judaism to Christianity.

Where in these atonement theories is the requirement for blood? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_in_Christianity
Quite to the contrary:

They worshiped their idols, which led to their downfall. They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons. They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters. By sacrificing them to the idols of Canaan, they polluted the land with murder. They defiled themselves by their evil deeds, and their love of idols was adultery in the LORD ’s sight.
- Psalm 106:36-39

There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
- Proverbs 6:16-19

Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked.
- Exodus 23:7

The shedding of animal blood was an improvement on killing the sinner (not innocent blood). And no, an unblemished lamb is not the same as an innocent person.

No, it wasn't suicide. But please do explain how you arrive at that conclusion.

No, you don't actually have to believe something to defend it. You can also defend it because it has numerous benefits to society and actual value to be gleaned regardless of literal interpretations.

Goldilocks cells? O_o

[Secular Sanity]

No, you don't actually have to believe something to defend it. You can also defend it because it has numerous benefits to society and actual value to be gleaned regardless of literal interpretations.

Oh, you’re one of those. It doesn’t just come natural to you? You need instructions on how to be nice, eh? Hmm…I could see that. Well, I hope you know what you’re doing because Bundy did say that looking at pornography and reading about violence fueled his addition. Lord knows there’s plenty of that in there.

See you later, Syne.

[Syne]

No, you don't actually have to believe something to defend it. You can also defend it because it has numerous benefits to society and actual value to be gleaned regardless of literal interpretations.

Oh, you’re one of those. It doesn’t just come natural to you? You need instructions on how to be nice, eh? Hmm…I could see that. Well, I hope you know what you’re doing because Bundy did say that looking at pornography and reading about violence fueled his addition. Lord knows there’s plenty of that in there.  

See you later, Syne.

Wow, talk about non sequitur ad hominems.

Just keep circling the wagons to quell your cognitive dissonance.



What, could you not even find what "Goldilocks cells" referred to?

[Secular Sanity]

What, could you not even find what "Goldilocks cells" referred to?  

"The world is a very strange place. It’s far stranger than we think. We don’t understand about consciousness and its relationship to the body. I don’t understand the structure of being well enough to make my way through the complexities of the resurrection story. I would say that it’s the most mysterious element of the biblical stories to me and perhaps I’m not alone in that. It’s the central drama in the Christian Corpus let’s say but I don’t believe that it’s reasonable to boil it down to something like, do you believe that or do you not believe it? I don’t know the limits of human possibility. In order to stay alive, it is necessary to get the balance between death and life right in your psyche and your physiology because death keeps you alive. Your cells die and regenerate all the time. And if you die too much then you die. And if you don’t die enough then you also die. You end up with cancer or something like that. You have to get the balance between death and life right in order to survive. I don’t know what would happen if you got the balance between death and life exactly right. I don’t know what the upper limits are to human possibility and neither does anyone else. We don’t know what we’re capable of. I’m unwilling to rule out the existence of heaven. I’m unwilling to rule out the existence of life after death. I’m unwilling to rule the idea of universal redemption and the defeat of evil." Jordan Peterson

[Syne]

What, could you not even find what "Goldilocks cells" referred to?  

"The world is a very strange place. It’s far stranger than we think. We don’t understand about consciousness and its relationship to the body. I don’t understand the structure of being well enough to make my way through the complexities of the resurrection story. I would say that it’s the most mysterious element of the biblical stories to me and perhaps I’m not alone in that. It’s the central drama in the Christian Corpus let’s say but I don’t believe that it’s reasonable to boil it down to something like, do you believe that or do you not believe it? I don’t know the limits of human possibility. In order to stay alive, it is necessary to get the balance between death and life right in your psyche and your physiology because death keeps you alive. Your cells die and regenerate all the time. And if you die too much then you die. And if you don’t die enough then you also die. You end up with cancer or something like that. You have to get the balance between death and life right in order to survive. I don’t know what would happen if you got the balance between death and life exactly right. I don’t know what the upper limits are to human possibility and neither does anyone else. We don’t know what we’re capable of. I’m unwilling to rule out the existence of heaven. I’m unwilling to rule out the existence of life after death. I’m unwilling to rule the idea of universal redemption and the defeat of evil." Jordan Peterson

LOL! So you have some problem with a description of cancerous cell growth versus healthy cell regeneration or speculation on the possibilities of the human body?


You never answered whether you understood that the difference between punishment and sacrifice is consent. Nor have you justified your assertion of suicide.
And I have no idea why not believing something in its entirety would mean morality doesn't come naturally. Seems like a false dilemma, even for those who literally believe something is inerrant. But then you seem to think saving your own son's life could be unethical, depending on unpredictable consequences. Maybe you need some instruction.