Is Redemption Unethical?

[Yazata]

Is Redemption Unethical?

In my opinion that depends on what kind of redemption it is. In some of its guises, it's pretty much the essence of ethics.  

Is it ethical to believe that your sins can be forgiven by the punishment of another person?

Not really. I think that the idea of vicarious atonement arose in tribal societies where transgressions by members of one tribe led to long-lasting bloody feuds between tribes. So if a member of tribe A commits a transgression against a member of tribe B, tribe B is owed a debt. That was typically paid by committing an offsetting transgression against the transgressor. ('An eye for an eye'.) But if that individual wasn't available, it was paid by doing harm to another member of the transgressor's tribe or family (in ancient times, tribes were imagined to be families writ large).

It sounds unethical to us, but it worked in tribal societies where feuding was a constant threat to social harmony. We see it today in Islamic law, where murder isn't a crime but rather a tort. A murder victim's family or tribe can sue the killer (or his/her family or bedouin tribe) for damages. The early Hebrews were a similar sort of Semitic society and had similar sorts of customs.

Redemption: What does it mean?

I more or less equate redemption with atonement. Redemption (in the ethical context) means something like 'rehabilitation', while 'atonement' means 'making things right'. The etymology of 'redemption' is something like 'buy back', while the etymology of 'atonement' is something like 'at one-ment', making things whole. So redemption would seem to serve the purpose of atonement.

If we reject the idea that a person can simply reform after committing a great sin like murder, if we still believe that there needs to be some consequence for great transgression, then we are embracing the idea of atonement, the idea that there's a debt to be paid, that the transgressor's good name and standing in society needs to be bought back, so to speak. It's all about making things right, earning forgiveness and restoring social harmony.

Is it just an unconscious self-defense mechanism?

Too Freudian. I think that it's a lot more profound than that. It goes to the idea of reciprocity, which lies at the basis of most of our ethical ideas, ranging from the 'golden rule' to justice to fairness.

[Syne]

They do not believe that Jesus can be made guilty of their sins.

Jesus was punished for our sins as a sacrifice to God. Ofcourse he was guilty of those sins. That's how atonement works. The sins are placed on the scapegoat or lamb and he is banished or killed in stead of the sinners. The guilt is transferred FROM the sinner to the atoning victim. If there was no transfer of guilt then there was no atonement. That's what the Bible teaches. Read it sometime.. You might learn something.

Here's a Christian website to explain it all to you:

http://www.realchristianity.com/become_c...r_sin.html

The word "punish" is nowhere in your link. And who do you think made him a "sacrifice to God"? It certainly wasn't the Romans who put him to death, as they didn't believe in the god he taught.
And it doesn't say Jesus was guilty, it says "the guilt of all of it was put upon Him", e.g. "made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf". If you are guilty, you have sinned, you do not personify sin as a symbolic act.
LOL! You actually think a goat can be made guilty of human sins? It's symbolic. A scapegoat only takes on the "burden of sin" not the actual sin itself. Guilt is never transferred, only the consequences. A scapegoat is not the same thing as scapegoating, in which the object of blame is actually thought or insinuated to be guilty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoating

---

So you think there's more value in reveling in your own glorification? Does that include your own "thirst for vengeance" and "festiveness of cruelty"?
What heavy load? The guilt and blame Christianity gives a blueprint for accepting and releasing?

I sort of agree with Peterson on the account that our need for redemption might reflect our need for acceptance, which sparks a quest for meaning—something sacred and eternal. Something that rose from an impersonal force, "spirit" if you like.

The eye of the needle from the Talmud is used to express the impossible. A camel cannot pass through an eye of a needle. A needle is used to weave a single strand. You are but one among many strands sewn into the tapestry.

The desert represents an existential crisis—"the loneliest desert."

The camel bears the burden of morals and truth and goes out to face the harsh conditions of the desert. It has reverence for morality and wants to do the right thing. These are the burdens placed upon its back, but the camel is not free, and kneels to an external authority with rules disguised as absolutes.

"Verily, to him it is preying, and a matter for a beast of prey. He once loved "thou shalt" as most sacred: now he, must find illusion and caprice even in the most sacred, that freedom from his love may become his prey: the lion is needed for such prey."

The lion is needed for a resounding "No" to traditional values. This is the last god—the dragon—his last battle.

"The values of a thousand years glitter on those scales, and thus speaketh the mightiest of all dragons: "All the values of things- glitter on me."

He wants us to value life, not out of duty, but out of love by creating our own value—our own meaning. Something that is worth fighting for.

In the whip picture Lou represents his love of life along with the spring of lilacs, and he’s now proud to be the beast of that burden—to labor for the benefit of man (humans).

"Pity! Pity for the higher men!

My suffering and pity—what do they matter! Do I strive for happiness? I strive for my work!

You sound like you've fallen off your rocker.

Where did Peterson say "redemption might reflect our need for acceptance"?

All your camel/desert/prey talk sounds like free association. What bearing it has on anything is anyone's guess. Sounds like you're just stringing together Nietzsche quotes with nonsense. Maybe lay off the wine before posting?

[Magical Realist]

The word "punish" is nowhere in your link. And who do you think made him a "sacrifice to God"?

He did. He was a voluntary sacrifice to God for our sins. This is all thruout the New Testament.

It certainly wasn't the Romans who put him to death, as they didn't believe in the god he taught.
And it doesn't say Jesus was guilty, it says "the guilt of all of it was put upon Him", e.g. "made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf". If you are guilty, you have sinned, you do not personify sin as a symbolic act.

Yeah...when you put the guilt of all on someone, that means they bear the guilt for those sinners. It can't be any clearer than that. He was counted as guilty to atone for the sins of mankind. That was the plan at least according the Bible. And that's why it doesn't work, because an innocent person cannot be punished in the place of the guilty. It's unjust and actually immoral. It punishes the innocent for something they didn't do and lets the guilty off scott free. But hey..that's what your Christians believe, Here's another Christian website explaining this belief:

https://billygraham.org/decision-magazin...ty-of-sin/

Here's another:

https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/w...udge-to-do

And here's another:

https://ptv.org/devotional/jesus-bore-our-punishment/

You actually think a goat can be made guilty of human sins? It's symbolic. A scapegoat only takes on the "burden of sin" not the actual sin itself.

No it wasn't just symbolic. It was a blood sacrifice. The sins were actually thought to be placed on the animal by magic and then slaughtered to please God. That's why it was called a scapegoat too. That's the barbaric nature of religion. The blood was actually thought to have magical cleansing properties. And they believed slaughtering innocent unblemished animals appeased a wrathful deity and ensured their good standing with him.

[Syne]

The word "punish" is nowhere in your link. And who do you think made him a "sacrifice to God"?

He did. He was a voluntary sacrifice to God for our sins. This is all thruout the New Testament.

I already said it was a voluntary sacrifice.  

Biblical redemption isn't the externally meted punishment of another person; it's the voluntary sacrifice of another as an act of grace.

A punishment implies something imposed externally, where Jesus voluntarily sacrificed himself (albeit with last minute misgivings).

But again, considering the trinity, it's meaningless to say he sacrificed himself to himself. It was not to appease a god but to atone for sin, making men compatible and able to commune with the nature of god. It's akin to a karmic debt that must be paid, one way or another, to restore balance.

It certainly wasn't the Romans who put him to death, as they didn't believe in the god he taught.
And it doesn't say Jesus was guilty, it says "the guilt of all of it was put upon Him", e.g. "made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf". If you are guilty, you have sinned, you do not personify sin as a symbolic act.

Yeah...when you put the guilt of all on someone, that means they bear the guilt for those sinners. It can't be any clearer than that. He was counted as guilty to atone for the sins of mankind.

LOL! Again, do you think a goat can be made guilty of a human sin?  

That was the plan at least according the Bible. And that's why it doesn't work, because an innocent person cannot be punished in the place of the guilty. It's unjust and actually immoral. It punishes the innocent for something they didn't do and lets the guilty off scott free. But hey..that's what your Christians believe,

Not punished, made a voluntary sacrifice. And that grace is only available to those who genuinely repent and change their behavior. Not scot-free. Just a second chance.

Here's another Christian website explaining this belief:

https://billygraham.org/decision-magazin...ty-of-sin/

"If Christ is not my substitute, then I still occupy the place of a condemned sinner. If my sins and my guilt are not transferred to Him, and He does not take them, then they remain with me. If He did not deal with my sins, then I must deal with them. If He did not bear my penalty, then I must bear it. There is no other possibility. Either He paid the penalty for my sin or I will pay it in hell forever.

The truth is that in the process of salvation, God Himself is bearing our sin, for Jesus was God in human flesh. He wills that sin be punished, and He wills to be the victim who bears its punishment."

"transferred to", "take them", "deal with", and "bear my penalty", not "made guilty".
Again, due to the trinity, you're claiming that god could be made guilty.

Here's another:

https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/w...udge-to-do

"Jesus enters in and he is able to do what no human could do. This is why there is a difference. No human ever could do this in a court of law. He is so perfect and he suffers so much, and his motives are so Godward, that when he dies on the cross, what is manifest is, "Look how valuable the glory of God is!"

If a mom stepped forward in a courtroom and said, "Let me take my son's place. Let me take my son's place, please." We all know that would be unjust. She goes to the electric chair, and this son goes on to sin more.

The two differences are

1. She's not doing that to magnify the worth of the state—God. She's doing it to magnify the worth of her son, and that's not what's happening at the cross.
2. She's freeing the son, untransformed, to go into the world and sin some more.

And those are the very two things that are different about the death of Jesus.

1. Jesus dies not to magnify the sinner's worth, but to magnify God's worth.
2. And he dies and changes those who escape from hell. He doesn't just release more sin upon the world. He puts the Holy Spirit in our lives and begins to transform us into the image of Christ so that we bring more glory to the Father than if we had been left in our sin."

I don't think you even know what point you were trying to make with this link. Probably just an unread Google search result.

And here's another:

https://ptv.org/devotional/jesus-bore-our-punishment/

Again, you don't even seem to know what point you think this link makes.

You actually think a goat can be made guilty of human sins? It's symbolic. A scapegoat only takes on the "burden of sin" not the actual sin itself.

No it wasn't just symbolic. It was a blood sacrifice. The sins were actually thought to be placed on the animal by magic and then slaughtered to please God. That's why it was called a scapegoat too. That's the barbaric nature of religion. The blood was actually thought to have magical cleansing properties. And they believed slaughtering innocent unblemished animals appeased a wrathful deity and ensured their good standing with him.

Not in Judaism.

With few exceptions, korbanot could only be used as a means of atoning for the first type of sin, that is sins committed in ignorance that the thing was a sin. In addition, korbanot have no expiating effect unless the person making the offering sincerely repents his or her actions before making the offering, and makes restitution to any person who was harmed by the violation.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korban#Purpose

Later in the ceremonies of the day, the High Priest confessed the intentional sins of the Israelites to God placing them figuratively on the head of the other goat, the Azazel scapegoat, who would symbolically "take them away".
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat#Ancient_Judaism

So not scot-free and absolutely figurative.

[Magical Realist]

"transferred to", "take them", "deal with", and "bear my penalty", not "made guilty".
Again, due to the trinity, you're claiming that god could be made guilty. Rolleyes

He wouldn't be bearing the penality if the sinner's guilt wasn't transferred to him. Hence as these quotes say he was punished for our sins. It's right there in black in white. It's what your christians believe. If you have problems with it take it up with them.

"How can this be? Here is how: In Romans 3, Paul writes that all the punishment for our sin fell on Jesus Christ."--- https://billygraham.org/decision-magazin...ty-of-sin/

"Why Is God Just to Punish Jesus for Our Sins"---- https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/w...udge-to-do

"But here’s the heart of the gospel: Jesus Christ paid the penalty for our sin. He took the punishment that you and I deserve for our sins."---- https://ptv.org/devotional/jesus-bore-our-punishment/

no expiating effect unless the person making the offering sincerely repents his or her actions before making the offering, and makes restitution to any person who was harmed by the violation.

So what? So the magic blood wouldn't expiate until they repented. It's still because of the blood sacrifice that his sins are washed clean. That's the whole idea behind blood sacrifices. That's what their religion teaches.

This is a quote from the article I originally quoted regarding jesus bearing the guilt of sinners:

"Jesus had never sinned or been guilty of anything throughout His eternal existence. Therefore it must have felt horrific to be directly associated with sin and to have all the sin, transgression and iniquity of all the world heaped on to Him and treated as if it was His own. In fact, as He hung on the cross and the guilt of all of it was put upon Him, God the Father and the Holy Spirit viewed Jesus as if He actually was sin. We are told that He was made "to be sin"-----
http://www.realchristianity.com/become_c...r_sin.html

[Syne]

"transferred to", "take them", "deal with", and "bear my penalty", not "made guilty".
Again, due to the trinity, you're claiming that god could be made guilty. Rolleyes

He wouldn't be bearing the penality if the sinner's guilt wasn't transferred to him. Hence as these quotes say he was punished for our sins. It's right there in black in white. It's what your christians believe. If you have problems with it take it up with them.

"How can this be? Here is how: In Romans 3, Paul writes that all the punishment for our sin fell on Jesus Christ."--- https://billygraham.org/decision-magazin...ty-of-sin/

"Why Is God Just to Punish Jesus for Our Sins"---- https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/w...udge-to-do

"But here’s the heart of the gospel: Jesus Christ paid the penalty for our sin. He took the punishment that you and I deserve for our sins."---- https://ptv.org/devotional/jesus-bore-our-punishment/

As usual, you are making the most naive and literal interpretation of things you obvious don't understand or are intentionally straw manning.
Romans 3 doesn't actually mention punishment. Christians generally understand that the only punishment is what is spared the sinner, and that what god experienced, in the person of Jesus, was symbolism in terms humans could understand.
The title of an article (the question asked) that only mentions "punishing sinners", hardly makes whatever point you think it does.
You just keep quoting things that any Christian would understand but you clearly don't. Christians don't question the fairness of Jesus' sacrifice because the whole point is that it was not deserved, just like any unearned forgiveness.

no expiating effect unless the person making the offering sincerely repents his or her actions before making the offering, and makes restitution to any person who was harmed by the violation.

So what? So the magic blood wouldn't expiate until they repented. It's still because of the blood sacrifice that his sins are washed clean. That's the whole idea behind blood sacrifices. That's what their religion teaches.

You're making up nonsense about "blood magic" because you patently, or ignorantly, refuse to understand simple symbolism. If you bothered to read anything on the matter, you'd know that expiation is one of the lessor purposes to animal sacrifice in Judaic law.

Contrary to the common pejorative doctrine pertaining to the Old Testament held in some Christian groups that Jewish korbanot were for sins, their use was far more complex—only some korbanot in mostly one rare restrictive circumstance were used to atone for unintentional sins, and these sacrifices only accompanied the important required core means of atonement to be ever considered legitimate. Besides this one exception, there were the overwhelming majority of other purposes for bringing korbanot, and the expiatory effect is often incidental, and is subject to significant limitations.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korban#Purpose

This is a quote from the article I originally quoted regarding jesus bearing the guilt of sinners:

"Jesus had never sinned or been guilty of anything throughout His eternal existence. Therefore it must have felt horrific to be directly associated with sin and to have all the sin, transgression and iniquity of all the world heaped on to Him and treated as if it was His own.  In fact, as He hung on the cross and the guilt of all of it was put upon Him, God the Father and the Holy Spirit viewed Jesus as if He actually was sin. We are told that He was made "to be sin"-----
http://www.realchristianity.com/become_c...r_sin.html

And? Again, the guilty has sinned, they don't become sin personified, as a symbolic act.

[Magical Realist]

LOL! I just quoted 3 Christian websites describing Jesus as being punished for our sins, which you denied Christians believe. I then posted another quote describing Jesus as bearing the guilt for our sins, which you also denied Christians believe. Like I said, this is the central gospel of most Christians, that Jesus bore the guilt of sinners and was punished in our stead for our sins. It's so clear I would only be repeating it at this point. There's nothing more to say. You stand refuted. Time to move on.

[Syne]

LOL! I just quoted 3 Christian websites describing Jesus as being punished for our sins, which you denied Christians believe. I then posted another quote describing Jesus as bearing the guilt for our sins, which you also denied Christians believe. Like I said, this is the central gospel of most Christians, that Jesus bore the guilt of sinners and was punished in our stead for our sins. It's so clear I would only be repeating it at this point. There's nothing more to say. You stand refuted. Time to move on.

No one ever denied that Christians use that language, only that you seem functionally incapable of grasping how they understand it. Again, you seem to rely on whatever understanding you gleaned as a child, without any further evolution of your comprehension as an adult. Hence your very literal take, lacking any significant nuance.

In Christianity, as well as many other things (like explaining physics to laymen), there are several different ways the same concept is communicated, often depending on the audience. For children, and perhaps potential converts, punishment is a much easier concept to grasp than grace, and guilt much easier than expiation. But like other subjects, the analogies used for the uninitiated are not their entirety. Like the gulf between god and man that redemption was meant to bridge, the lack of ongoing development of your understanding, willful or otherwise, is what will keep you thinking your naive take is not only legitimate but also a good justification to continue your ignorance.

C'est la vie.

[Secular Sanity]

Is it ethical to believe that your sins can be forgiven by the punishment of another person?

Not really. I think that the idea of vicarious atonement arose in tribal societies where transgressions by members of one tribe led to long-lasting bloody feuds between tribes. So if a member of tribe A commits a transgression against a member of tribe B, tribe B is owed a debt. That was typically paid by committing an offsetting transgression against the transgressor. ('An eye for an eye'.) But if that individual wasn't available, it was paid by doing harm to another member of the transgressor's tribe or family (in ancient times, tribes were imagined to be families writ large).

It wasn’t symbolic like Syne is implying, that’s for sure. We have archeological evidence that human and animal sacrifice was very common. It was thought to bring good fortune and to appease the gods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice

You sound like you've fallen off your rocker.

Where did Peterson say "redemption might reflect our need for acceptance"?

All your camel/desert/prey talk sounds like free association. What bearing it has on anything is anyone's guess. Sounds like you're just stringing together Nietzsche quotes with nonsense. Maybe lay off the wine before posting?

You’re right. I gave him too much credit. After reading his thoughts on redemption, the death, and the resurrection of Christ, I think that it’s more likely that it is Peterson who has fallen off his rocker with his free association of evolutionary psychology, Nietzscheism, and Christianity.

My summery of Nietzsche’s three metamorphoses was simply to show you how these steps can lead you to think for yourself.

It sounds unethical to us, but it worked in tribal societies where feuding was a constant threat to social harmony. We see it today in Islamic law, where murder isn't a crime but rather a tort. A murder victim's family or tribe can sue the killer (or his/her family or bedouin tribe) for damages. The early Hebrews were a similar sort of Semitic society and had similar sorts of customs.

It sounds unethical because it is unethical.

If he agrees with me, then he has to be brilliant...

…I'd never heard of him. I've never read anything he wrote. He doesn't seem to be a philosopher at all in the academic sense, rather a clinical psychologist turned cultural critic.

Just from his Wikipedia blurb, which casts him as a critic of political correctness, post-modernism and identity-politics, I think that I like him. (If he agrees with me, then he has to be brilliant.)—Yazata

Do you still like Peterson, Yazata? Do you still think he’s as brilliant as you?

[Syne]

Not really. I think that the idea of vicarious atonement arose in tribal societies where transgressions by members of one tribe led to long-lasting bloody feuds between tribes. So if a member of tribe A commits a transgression against a member of tribe B, tribe B is owed a debt. That was typically paid by committing an offsetting transgression against the transgressor. ('An eye for an eye'.) But if that individual wasn't available, it was paid by doing harm to another member of the transgressor's tribe or family (in ancient times, tribes were imagined to be families writ large).

It wasn’t symbolic like Syne is implying, that’s for sure. We have archeological evidence that human and animal sacrifice was very common. It was thought to bring good fortune and to appease the gods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice

You're conflating ritual sacrifice in general with Judaic animal sacrifice (you know, what's in the Bible) specifically.

You sound like you've fallen off your rocker.

Where did Peterson say "redemption might reflect our need for acceptance"?

All your camel/desert/prey talk sounds like free association. What bearing it has on anything is anyone's guess. Sounds like you're just stringing together Nietzsche quotes with nonsense. Maybe lay off the wine before posting?

You’re right. I gave him too much credit. After reading his thoughts on redemption, the death, and the resurrection of Christ, I think that it’s more likely that it is Peterson who has fallen off his rocker with his free association of evolutionary psychology, Nietzscheism, and Christianity.

So, you're just going to make pronouncements without any argument whatsoever. Typical.

My summery of Nietzsche’s three metamorphoses was simply to show you how these steps can lead you to think for yourself.

Physician, heal thyself. There's a difference between regurgitation and original thought.

It sounds unethical to us, but it worked in tribal societies where feuding was a constant threat to social harmony. We see it today in Islamic law, where murder isn't a crime but rather a tort. A murder victim's family or tribe can sue the killer (or his/her family or bedouin tribe) for damages. The early Hebrews were a similar sort of Semitic society and had similar sorts of customs.

It sounds unethical because it is unethical.

If he agrees with me, then he has to be brilliant...
…I'd never heard of him. I've never read anything he wrote. He doesn't seem to be a philosopher at all in the academic sense, rather a clinical psychologist turned cultural critic.

Just from his Wikipedia blurb, which casts him as a critic of political correctness, post-modernism and identity-politics, I think that I like him. (If he agrees with me, then he has to be brilliant.)—Yazata

Do you still like Peterson, Yazata? Do you still think he’s as brilliant as you?

Watch out for whiplash from that non sequitur.