Is Redemption Unethical?

[Syne]

Life after death, as an immortal soul, is an essential tenet of Christianity, but the bodily resurrection of Jesus is only significant as symbolism or miracle. Disbelief in a literal bodily resurrection doesn't change anything.

Resurrection is the concept of coming back to life after death. In a number of ancient religions, a dying-and-rising god is a deity which dies and resurrects.

The resurrection of the dead is a standard eschatological belief in the Abrahamic religions. As a religious concept, it is used in two distinct respects: a belief in the resurrection of individual souls that is current and ongoing (Christian idealism, realized eschatology), or else a belief in a singular resurrection of the dead at the end of the world.

Since when are we talking about "a number of ancient religions"? Pray tell, where is an example of physical resurrection in the Old Testament?
There's certainly physical ascension, but no physical resurrection from death.
And where does the Bible clearly state that the rapture is a physical resurrection? I remember talk of a "new body", but not recycling the old one.

When the soul and the breath are considered analogous, there's no surprise when talk about an afterlife uses similar metaphors.

The death and resurrection of Jesus, an example of resurrection, is the central focus of Christianity. Christian theological debate ensues with regard to what kind of resurrection is factual – either a spiritual resurrection with a spirit body into Heaven, or a material resurrection with a restored human body. While most Christians believe Jesus' resurrection from the dead and ascension to Heaven was in a material body, a very small minority believe it was spiritual.

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

Christians regard the resurrection of Jesus as the central doctrine in Christianity. Others take the incarnation of Jesus to be more central; however, it is the miracles – and particularly his resurrection – which provide validation of his incarnation. According to Paul, the entire Christian faith hinges upon the centrality of the resurrection of Jesus and the hope for a life after death.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrecti...n_of_Jesus

Like I said, Paul was from a Greco-Roman culture, which "stressed instead the pagan belief in the hero who is immortalised and deified in his physical body."

No one is disputing that most Christians believe Jesus' resurrection was physical. You keep arguing a straw man no has disputed. Again, only discussing how Christians view redemption...you know, the topic of YOUR thread.

Hmm...Can a soul die?  

Why do most of them believe that it was a material body? Because death was the punishment for the original sin, duh!

I think the Bible says souls can be destroyed by god, after the final judgement.
And? The moral punishment for original sin could be paid without physical resurrection.

Was it a spirit body, Syne? I don’t know. Do spirits eat food? 

Luke 24
And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
And he took it, and did eat before them.

And? Are you saying you believe in the literal infallibility of the Bible? Many Christians do not, evidence a quarter of UK Christians. Again:

There is a strong early tradition that the family and immediate followers of Jesus, as well as Paul the Apostle, had visionary and mystical experiences of Jesus after his death. Several decades later, when the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John were being written, the emphasis had shifted to the physical nature of the resurrection, while still overlapping with the earlier concept of a divine exaltation of Jesus' soul. This development can be linked to the changing make-up of the Christian community: Paul and the earliest Christ-followers were Jewish, and Second Temple Judaism emphasised the life of the soul; the gospel-writers, in an overwhelmingly Greco-Roman church, stressed instead the pagan belief in the hero who is immortalised and deified in his physical body.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Resur...s_of_Jesus

[Magical Realist]

Pray tell, where is an example of physical resurrection in the Old Testament?

Clearly you're too ignorant of the Bible to be arguing about it. Stick to what you know.


2 Kings 4:

32 "When Elisha came into the house, he saw the child lying dead on his bed.
33 So he went in and shut the door behind the two of them and prayed to the Lord.
34 Then he went up and lay on the child, putting his mouth on his mouth, his eyes on his eyes, and his hands on his hands. And as he stretched himself upon him, the flesh of the child became warm.
35 Then he got up again and walked once back and forth in the house, and went up and stretched himself upon him. The child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes.
36 Then he summoned Gehazi and said, “Call this Shunammite.” So he called her. And when she came to him, he said, “Pick up your son.”
37 She came and fell at his feet, bowing to the ground. Then she picked up her son and went out."

Daniel 12 also mentions the resurrection in the latter days:

Daniel 12 Revised Standard Version (RSV)
The Resurrection of the Dead
1 “At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time; but at that time your people shall be delivered, every one whose name shall be found written in the book.
2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
3 And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever."

[Syne]

Pray tell, where is an example of physical resurrection in the Old Testament?

Clearly you're too ignorant of the Bible to be arguing about it. Stick to what you know.


2 Kings 4:

32 "When Elisha came into the house, he saw the child lying dead on his bed.
33 So he went in and shut the door behind the two of them and prayed to the Lord.
34 Then he went up and lay on the child, putting his mouth on his mouth, his eyes on his eyes, and his hands on his hands. And as he stretched himself upon him, the flesh of the child became warm.
35 Then he got up again and walked once back and forth in the house, and went up and stretched himself upon him. The child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes.
36 Then he summoned Gehazi and said, “Call this Shunammite.” So he called her. And when she came to him, he said, “Pick up your son.”
37 She came and fell at his feet, bowing to the ground. Then she picked up her son and went out."

Daniel 12 also mentions the resurrection in the latter days:

Daniel 12 Revised Standard Version (RSV)
The Resurrection of the Dead
1 “At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time; but at that time your people shall be delivered, every one whose name shall be found written in the book.
2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
3 And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever."

Ah, good catch on Elisha. Elijah, his mentor, raised the dead as well. It's not clear if Daniel refers to physical resurrection.
And I don't claim to be a Bible scholar, nor even a Christian, so I'm bound to have gaps in my knowledge/memory of the Bible.

Clearly you're desperate to discredit anything I say. I wonder why.
Too bad it's only relevant to SS' straw man, rather than any argument I've actually made. These are examples of miracles, but not redemption.

[Secular Sanity]

These are examples of miracles, but not redemption.

Do you believe in miracles, Syne?

Too bad it's only relevant to SS' straw man, rather than any argument I've actually made.

When you invoke a straw man, you put forth an argument—usually something extreme or easy to argue against—that you know your opponent doesn't support. It's a way of misrepresenting your opponent's position.

I'm pretty sure that it was you that erected the first straw man.

Now if you think people being willing to forgive others is unethical....

I didn’t ask if forgiveness was unethical. I asked if it was ethical to believe that your sins can be forgiven by the punishment of another person?

No Christian believes that they can absolve themselves by making Jesus guilty.

Maybe not, but all of them believe that you have to accept his sacrifice or else.

[Syne]

These are examples of miracles, but not redemption.

Do you believe in miracles, Syne?

In the sense of "a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences."

Too bad it's only relevant to SS' straw man, rather than any argument I've actually made.

When you invoke a straw man, you put forth an argument—usually something extreme or easy to argue against—that you know your opponent doesn't support. It's a way of misrepresenting your opponent's position.

I'm pretty sure that it was you that erected the first straw man.

Oh, so all your resurrection talk was just a non sequitur red herring. Okay.

Now if you think people being willing to forgive others is unethical....

I didn’t ask if forgiveness was unethical. I asked if it was ethical to believe that your sins can be forgiven by the punishment of another person?

While redemption has nothing to do with resurrection (your non sequitur), redemption is essentially only forgiveness. So you asking if redemption is unethical is tantamount to asking if forgiveness is as well. And as I've said umpteen times now, it was a voluntary sacrifice, not punishment, and it's on that distinction that the question of ethics resides.

No Christian believes that they can absolve themselves by making Jesus guilty.

Maybe not, but all of them believe that you have to accept his sacrifice or else.

Not quite. They believe that you must accept his sacrifice or suffer the consequences of your natural state...which is separation from god.

[Secular Sanity]

First you have to assume that the narrative was true and that he actually existed. Lots of deities were presented with the same narrative, e.g. virgin birth, death and resurrection, etc. If he did, according to the narrative, he was tortured. He not only suffered but he died for our sins, i.e. vicarious redemption.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin_trial_of_Jesus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_at_Herod%27s_court
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate%27s_court
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_deicide

According to the canonical Christian gospels, Pilate presided at the trial of Jesus and, despite stating that he personally found him not guilty of a crime meriting death, sentenced him to be crucified. Pilate is thus a pivotal character in the New Testament accounts of Jesus.

According to the New Testament, Jesus was brought to Pilate by the Sanhedrin, who had arrested Jesus and questioned him themselves. The Sanhedrin had, according to the Gospels, only been given answers by Jesus that they considered blasphemous pursuant to Mosaic law, which was unlikely to be deemed a capital offense by Pilate interpreting Roman law. The Gospel of Luke records that members of the Sanhedrin then took Jesus before Pilate where they accused him of sedition against Rome by opposing the payment of taxes to Caesar and calling himself a king.

Pilate ordered a sign posted above Jesus on the cross stating "Jesus of Nazareth, The King of the Jews" to give public notice of the legal charge against him for his crucifixion.

A punishment implies something imposed externally, where Jesus voluntarily sacrificed himself (albeit with last minute misgivings). And considering the vast acceptance of the trinity doctrine, there isn't even any external source that could impose such punishment. Jesus was only externally sacrificed by men, as a fitting analogy to OT animal sacrifices, which ended upon his death with the grace it bestowed as substitute.

I thought you just said that conflating NT redemption with OT sacrifice is intellectually dishonest or just ignorant. Nevertheless, how was it a fitting analogy to the OT animal sacrifices? In the narrative the crowd was calling for his death as a punishment, not a sacrifice. 

While redemption has nothing to do with resurrection (your non sequitur), redemption is essentially only forgiveness.

Without the victory of the resurrection, the death of Jesus would have been in vain.  For death by itself is no victory, no matter how well-meaning the sacrificial lamb, no matter how noble the cause.  Through His resurrection, Christ broke the power of death once and for all time. Salvation was not completed only because of the cross.  It was completed by the victory of the empty tomb. – Katherine Walden

So you asking if redemption is unethical is tantamount to asking if forgiveness is as well. And as I've said umpteen times now, it was a voluntary sacrifice, not punishment, and it's on that distinction that the question of ethics resides.

And for the umpteenth time, I didn’t ask if redemption was unethical. I asked if 'vicarious' redemption was unethical.

Oh, so all your resurrection talk was just a non sequitur red herring. Okay.

A red herring leads readers towards a false conclusion. The resurrection was a major player in the trinity. It not only lead people to believe that Jesus was in fact the Son of God, but the father, the son, and the holy ghost, which are said to be the one who raises Jesus from the dead.

But again, considering the trinity, it's meaningless to say he sacrificed himself to himself.

The resurrection wasn’t my little red herring now, was it?

[Syne]

First you have to assume that the narrative was true and that he actually existed. Lots of deities were presented with the same narrative, e.g. virgin birth, death and resurrection, etc. If he did, according to the narrative, he was tortured. He not only suffered but he died for our sins, i.e. vicarious redemption.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin_trial_of_Jesus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_at_Herod%27s_court
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate%27s_court
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_deicide

According to the canonical Christian gospels, Pilate presided at the trial of Jesus and, despite stating that he personally found him not guilty of a crime meriting death, sentenced him to be crucified. Pilate is thus a pivotal character in the New Testament accounts of Jesus.

According to the New Testament, Jesus was brought to Pilate by the Sanhedrin, who had arrested Jesus and questioned him themselves. The Sanhedrin had, according to the Gospels, only been given answers by Jesus that they considered blasphemous pursuant to Mosaic law, which was unlikely to be deemed a capital offense by Pilate interpreting Roman law. The Gospel of Luke records that members of the Sanhedrin then took Jesus before Pilate where they accused him of sedition against Rome by opposing the payment of taxes to Caesar and calling himself a king.

Pilate ordered a sign posted above Jesus on the cross stating "Jesus of Nazareth, The King of the Jews" to give public notice of the legal charge against him for his crucifixion.

And? Again, he made a voluntary sacrifice.
Would dying to save your son's life be unethical? There's your answer. It's as simple as that.

A punishment implies something imposed externally, where Jesus voluntarily sacrificed himself (albeit with last minute misgivings). And considering the vast acceptance of the trinity doctrine, there isn't even any external source that could impose such punishment. Jesus was only externally sacrificed by men, as a fitting analogy to OT animal sacrifices, which ended upon his death with the grace it bestowed as substitute.

I thought you just said that conflating NT redemption with OT sacrifice is intellectually dishonest or just ignorant. Nevertheless, how was it a fitting analogy to the OT animal sacrifices? In the narrative the crowd was calling for his death as a punishment, not a sacrifice. 

An animal obviously cannot give consent to its own sacrifice. Consent is a pretty big difference...or are you claiming otherwise?  
None of the punishment meted by men would have occurred if Jesus didn't want it, as even his disciples urged him to flee when he obviously had the chance...and as you just said, Rome didn't really have much motive to pursue him. But the aspect of men physically killing him was an allusion to animal sacrifice. If it were more than an allusion, he would have literally been killed on an altar.

While redemption has nothing to do with resurrection (your non sequitur), redemption is essentially only forgiveness.

Without the victory of the resurrection, the death of Jesus would have been in vain.  For death by itself is no victory, no matter how well-meaning the sacrificial lamb, no matter how noble the cause.  Through His resurrection, Christ broke the power of death once and for all time. Salvation was not completed only because of the cross.  It was completed by the victory of the empty tomb. – Katherine Walden

Katherine Walden doesn't appear to be a Bible scholar or be any kind of authority beyond being "inspirational and encouraging".

So maybe you can show us the Biblical basis for that sentiment? O_o
Or just quit posting any old Google result that seems to superficially make a point.  

So you asking if redemption is unethical is tantamount to asking if forgiveness is as well. And as I've said umpteen times now, it was a voluntary sacrifice, not punishment, and it's on that distinction that the question of ethics resides.

And for the umpteenth time, I didn’t ask if redemption was unethical. I asked if 'vicarious' redemption was unethical.

The title of this thread is, literally, "Is Redemption Unethical?"

And in response to the further question in your OP, "Is it ethical to believe that your sins can be forgiven by the punishment of another person?", I've already told you, many times now, that it was a sacrifice, not a punishment.

Would it be a punishment to die saving your son? O_o
Or would it be a noble sacrifice? A gift of your life to prolong his?

Or should I start by asking if you would even consider sacrificing your own life for his?

Oh, so all your resurrection talk was just a non sequitur red herring. Okay.

A red herring leads readers towards a false conclusion. The resurrection was a major player in the trinity. It not only lead people to believe that Jesus was in fact the Son of God, but the father, the son, and the holy ghost, which are said to be the one who raises Jesus from the dead.

"A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue." - Red herring (wikipedia.org)

Jesus' disciples and followers thought he was the son of god long before his death and resurrection. Otherwise, his death wouldn't have been noteworthy in the first place.
"The fact that the Bible teaches that God raised Jesus from the dead and that Jesus raised Himself is yet another testament to Christ’s divinity." - https://carm.org/jesus-raise-himself
Assuming it's the only testament to Christ's divinity would be ignoring all the stories of miracles performed during his life...again, long before his death.

But again, considering the trinity, it's meaningless to say he sacrificed himself to himself.

The resurrection wasn’t my little red herring now, was it?

Yes, yes it was.

As I just said, the resurrection wasn't the only thing that led people to believe in his divinity. Otherwise you have to explain away a whole lot of his interactions with others throughout his life.

[Secular Sanity]

Would dying to save your son's life be unethical? There's your answer. It's as simple as that.

Yes, it would be unethical if my son was Ted Bundy, but hey, in the end... even he found Jesus.

It would also be unethical if someone took the life of my son and I demanded the life of theirs.

[Syne]

Would dying to save your son's life be unethical? There's your answer. It's as simple as that.

Yes, it would be unethical if my son was Ted Bundy, but hey, in the end... even he found Jesus.

It would also be unethical if someone took the life of my son and I demanded the life of theirs.

No, you simply being willing to save your son's life is not, itself, unethical. Whatever your son may have done that was unethical doesn't change your sacrifice...unless you are specifically intending to save him so he can commit evil.
Consequentialism presents a problem for normative ethics, as the standard for good or bad can only be accessed post hoc.

Again, you demanding the life of a murder's son would be punishment, not sacrifice. You don't seem to be capable of getting that simple distinction, even though I directly asked you:

Would it be a punishment to die saving your son? O_o
Or would it be a noble sacrifice? A gift of your life to prolong his?

You just keep conflating the two.

[Secular Sanity]

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.