"Vicarious redemption is immoral!" A case of anti-theist hypocrisy.

[Huggy Bear]

The "immorality" of vicarious redemption is a concept popularized by Christopher Hitchens, years after his passing I haven't seen many atheists revisit, or quote for that matter, anything from Hitchens. "Vicarious redemption" simply put, is a law of nature, no different than gravity and arguing the morality of either would be nonsensical behavior. In my opinion the argument Hitchens makes is rooted in anti-theism and not critical thought.

I'm curious to see who agrees with Hitchens on this subject.

[brewerb]

[Thumpalumpacus]

Vicarious punishment is what is unjust.

[Edible crust]

What, accepting that someone else pays for my fuck ups and embracing it?
Yeah I agree with the dead guy.

I might just run over a pensioner on purpose and repent, just like all of those born again Christians on death row.

[Deesse23]

The "immorality" of vicarious redemption is a concept..

Nope. Vicarious redemption is an immoral concept. Calling it immoral is just stating the obvious fact.

"Vicarious redemption" simply put, is a law of nature, no different than gravity

You couldnt be any more bullshitty than that.

and arguing the morality of either would be nonsensical behavior. In my opinion the argument Hitchens makes is rooted in anti-theism and not critical thought.

You, talking about stuff like critical thought always makes me laugh.

[Minimalist]

Here's a Hitchens quote which perfectly nails the problem with superstitious fools.

"Faith is the surrender of the mind; it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals. It's our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me."

Christopher Hitchens

[jerry mcmasters]

Seems like for the concept to work you would need a God or gods or supernatural powers, wouldn't you?

[epronovost]

"Vicarious redemption" simply put, is a law of nature, no different than gravity and arguing the morality of either would be nonsensical behavior.

If vicarious redemption is a law of nature can you please provide evidence as to what it is and how it functions. If it's a law of nature, it's empirical and demonstrable an I would be interested in those observations.

From my own knowledge of this principle, vicarious redemption is the idea that the sacrifice and punishment of a neutral party can provide forgiveness for the wrongdoings of a guilty party. This is not a natural thing; it's a social construct; it's ideological and philosophical. It's also a weird interpretation of Christian martyrdom. Jesus wasn't a third party sacrificed vicariously; Jesus, according to orthodox Christian is God. God suffered and died on the cross as a symbol of his forgiving of humans for their disobedience towards him.

[Minimalist]

Is there any example in nature of one animal killing another because of the actions of a third animal?

Only humans are stupid enough to do that.

Only theistic humans, I might add.

[brewerb]

Vicarious redemption with/thru money exists, I haven't heard it called immoral by the Catholic church, they seem to like it.

[Minimalist]

The pervert priests don't like it when the juries award big judgments to their victims, though.


It's strictly a one-way street with those fucks.

[Edible crust]

Making somebody into a scapegoat is never a good thing, seeing someone else being punished for your own wrongdoing wouldn't feel good to the vast majority. If this all powerful Jupiter creating god couldn't bring itself to forgive a minor indiscretion without a blood sacrifice then it's either bloodthirsty or bloodthirsty.

[Huggy Bear]

"Vicarious redemption" simply put, is a law of nature, no different than gravity and arguing the morality of either would be nonsensical behavior.

If vicarious redemption is a law of nature can you please provide evidence as to what it is and how it functions. If it's a law of nature, it's empirical and demonstrable an I would be interested in those observations.

From my own knowledge of this principle, vicarious redemption is the idea that the sacrifice and punishment of a neutral party can provide forgiveness for the wrongdoings of a guilty party. This is not a natural thing; it's a social construct; it's ideological and philosophical. It's also a weird interpretation of Christian martyrdom. Jesus wasn't a third party sacrificed vicariously; Jesus, according to orthodox Christian is God. God suffered and died on the cross as a symbol of his forgiving of humans for their disobedience towards him.

Sure.

Vicarious is latin meaning  'substitute' and to 'redeem' means to 'repurchase' or "to extricate from or help to overcome something detrimental", both apply in Christianity because "to extricate from or help to overcome something detrimental" cost something.

How this applies in nature is that in order for you to live, something had to give it's life. If you don't eat, you die, that's as much law as 'what goes up, must come down, therefore your reprieve from death came at the cost of the life of the chicken you probably had for dinner last night, vicarious redemption in a nutshell and to make an argument for it being immoral is the definition of hypocrisy.

Sin isn't an act per say, it's a condition everyone was born with, sin causes death, in order for us to not die someone not born with sin had to pay with their life.

[Minimalist]

Huggy you are far too smart to really believe such utter fucking nonsense.

[Edible crust]

Huggy you are far too smart 

I wouldn't go that far.

[jerry mcmasters]

Vicarious is latin meaning  'substitute' and to 'redeem' means to 'repurchase' or "to extricate from or help to overcome something detrimental", both apply in Christianity because "to extricate from or help to overcome something detrimental" cost something.

How this applies in nature is that in order for you to live, something had to give it's life. If you don't eat, you die, that's as much law as 'what goes up, must come down, therefore your reprieve from death came at the cost of the life of the chicken you probably had for dinner last night, vicarious redemption in a nutshell and to make an argument for it being immoral is the definition of hypocrisy.

Sin isn't an act per say, it's a condition everyone was born with, sin causes death, in order for us to not die someone not born with sin had to pay with their life.

"Jesus died, so that I may receive more calories."  Wait that doesn't sound right.

[Huggy Bear]

@jerry mcmasters

"Then Jesus said unto them, “Verily, verily I say unto you, unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you."

[jerry mcmasters]

@jerry mcmasters

"Then Jesus said unto them, “Verily, verily I say unto you, unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you."

I'd rather have the chicken.

[Dānu]

[Huggy Bear]

Well, that was light work.

[Astreja]

(pats Huggy on head) That's nice, dear. Now go finish up your glass of Jesus-blood and eat your Jesus-cracker and get into your jammies.

[Huggy Bear]

@Astreja

Seems like you need to go look up the meaning of mEtApHoR

[Astreja]

@Astreja

Seems like you need to go look up the meaning of mEtApHoR

Seems *you* should stop calling people hypocrites just because they don't believe what you believe.  I'm not quite sure how you managed it, but in this thread you managed to make hypocrisy more desirable than Christianity.

Speaking for myself, I reject salvation unconditionally.  I do not consent to someone else taking the punishment for anything that *I* may have done, and I agree 100% with the late Mr. Hitchens:  Vicarious redemption is indeed immoral.

[Huggy Bear]

@Astreja
How do you feel about a life being destroyed because you're feeling peckish?

[epronovost]

Vicarious is latin meaning  'substitute' and to 'redeem' means to 'repurchase' or "to extricate from or help to overcome something detrimental", both apply in Christianity because "to extricate from or help to overcome something detrimental" cost something.

That's the Latin root for vicarious; vicarious in this context is an English word and it means "acting or done for another" specifically in it's religious usage of "a vicarious atonement". You can't use a Latin root word usage and meaning to derive a usage in another language; that's not how linguistics and etymology works. Words change usage and meaning depending on context and language.

How this applies in nature is that in order for you to live, something had to give it's life.

That's incorrect. In order for me to sustain my life I have to kill other living organism; they are in no way willing to die for my person, on the contrary. They would very much prefer me to die if it allowed them to live. Predation is not a consensual affair or a willing self-sacrifice from the prey to the benefit of the predator.

Vicarious atonement is inapplicable to the concept of predation unless one is willing to play a semantic game of such epic proportion that it would denature the usage of both term to a point to make them completely unrecognizable.  

Sin isn't an act per say, it's a condition everyone was born with, sin causes death, in order for us to not die someone not born with sin had to pay with their life.

That's just a statement of doctrine that is not supported by any sort of evidence in nature.