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

[airportkid]

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

Every animal alive derives its sustenance from other destroyed lives, either destroyed by itself directly, or by others, but inescapably destroyed.  Even vegetarians ravage plant life, eating roots and seeds.  Only plant and microbial life are able to derive sustenance from only minerals, water and sunlight.

Did you enjoy the babies you, @Huggy Bear ate for breakfast this morning, with your toast and coffee?  You might have had them fried, or scrambled.

[epronovost]

Did you enjoy the babies you, @Huggy Bear ate for breakfast this morning, with your toast and coffee?  You might have had them fried, or scrambled.

It's illegal to sell fertilize eggs. We eat placenta and amniotic liquid in a calcium shell... we all so put cow juice in a lot of stuff.

[Astreja]

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

I take full responsibility for not subscribing to a strict breatharian diet.  Virtually everyone, you and me included, eats previously-living things in order to survive.  Doesn't matter if someone is a carnivore or a vegan - that food was alive and now it isn't.

So when are you going to take up this urgent matter with your imaginary god-thing, who according to your mythology is responsible for this sorry state of affairs?  

[brewerb]

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

I'm guessing that you have never taken an antibiotic, right? Or brushed your teeth with tooth paste?

[Minimalist]

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.

That was pretty light work, too.  Epy!

[airportkid]

... sin causes death, in order for us to not die someone not born with sin had to pay with their life ...

You make that statement as if the god that has to abide by it has no choice, has no means to reformulate its dictate.

Religious believers make statements like that all the time: "Such and such has to be that way" with no awareness that the god they're making subservient to the dictate is supposedly the god that set it up.  Can't be a god with any true power, bound up by some ridiculous tangle of its own making.

[Huggy Bear]

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.

You're attempting to argue semantics... not gonna work because the basis of Christianity is that Christ died in the place of the sinner, both literally and figuratively, a murderer named Barabus was supposed to be crucified, he was pardoned and Jesus took his place. In what way is "substitute" being used incorrectly? 

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.

I'm confused... sounds like you're trying to make a case for a non consensual act to be more moral than a consensual one.? Again you're attempting to argue semantics, if a life is required to sustain yours, that means it's life is being substituted for yours, that's the 'vicarious' part, whether or not the life was willing or not is a moral argument which you're failing horribly ant making.

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.

The point of this thread is discussing doctrine, I have also shown how you survive by practicing this same doctrine on a daily basis.

[Minimalist]

You're attempting to argue semantics... not gonna work because the basis of Christianity is that Christ died in the place of the sinner, both literally and figuratively, a murderer named Barabus was supposed to be crucified, he was pardoned and Jesus took his place. In what way is "substitute" being used incorrectly? 

It's a perfect literary analogy of the Jewish atonement ritual of the sacrificial lamb.  It's merely superstitious dreck to insist that such horseshit ever really happened.

The Romans DID NOT release a condemned criminal on the passover.  That is simply bible fiction.  It's still bullshit whether you insist on believing it or not.

[Astreja]

The point of this thread is discussing doctrine, I have also shown how you survive by practicing this same doctrine on a daily basis.

As long as you're pushing the food angle, Huggy, consider this:  Unless we're starving and need to eat whatever's available, we have choices.  There are a lot of foods I refuse to eat:  Blue cheese, veal, smoked oysters.  Just as it's not hypocritical to say "No, thank you" to food we don't like, we can say "No, thank you" to ideas that we don't like.

The whole Crucifixion dog-and-pony show is a "No, thank you" for me.  The idea of a god demanding a sacrifice comes across as ridiculous and unnecessary.  It's obvious to me that the "Jesus died for you" trope is just a ham-handed way of guilting people into Christianity, and that it's a human invention rather than a divine one.  Surely a real god would be smart enough to come up with a workaround that didn't require death.

[Deesse23]

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.

Word games!? That all you have? How disappointing, but par for the course.

[epronovost]

You're attempting to argue semantics... not gonna work because the basis of Christianity is that Christ died in the place of the sinner, both literally and figuratively, a murderer named Barabus was supposed to be crucified, he was pardoned and Jesus took his place. In what way is "substitute" being used incorrectly?

That's not what we were talking about though; you claim vicarious atonement was a natural law; we are not discussing your more or less well informed theological and doctrinal proclamations.  

if a life is required to sustain yours, that means it's life is being substituted for yours, that's the 'vicarious' part, whether or not the life was willing or not is a moral argument which you're failing horribly ant making.

that's not vicariousness though. That's killing to live; it's not me living through the life of someone else that would be vicarious living. Vicarious atonement is thus atoning through someone else doing the atonement in your place. Vicarious living is living through someone else doing the living. A vicarious experience is one that you feel or have through someone else who is actually experiencing the real deal.

The point of this thread is discussing doctrine, I have also shown how you survive by practicing this same doctrine on a daily basis.

Except I don't live by having someone else gaining forgiveness in my place. I live by killing and digesting other organic lifeform and inhaling oxygen to fuel my metabolism. There is no vicarious experience in there since i don't live through someone living; I live through someone thing else dying and being digested. Dying and being digested is not something I experience while i eat and vice versa.

Sure Christianity has a doctrine of vicarious atonement; you experience atonement because Jesus suffered and died to gain forgiveness for mankind. That's an orthodox doctrine of Christianity. It doesn't make much sense and I would find the idea of vicarious or substitutionary atonement to be rather ridiculous, but there is an easy way to solve this issue within Christian doctrine: the doctrine of divine humility. This unorthodox doctrine state that Jesus didn't die on the cross to atone for the sins of mankind, but to show to mankind that, as God, he forgave humanity for their sin and chose to suffer and die as a gesture of love, compassion and solidarity towards mankind who must endure suffering and dying and just as he resurrected and got into heaven so will those who embrace and love God and one another. It's mythology; you can play and negotiate with Christian scriptures and traditions fairly easily if one part of it is a problem to you.

I'm curious though; what argument do you think Hitchens would present to explain why he thinks substitutionary atonement is immoral?

[SYZ]

...Sin isn't an act per say, [se] 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.

Huggy, mate... I seriously think you need to get back
on to your meds.  Your brain seems to be dissolving!      

[Thumpalumpacus]

[...] 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.  

Fasten your seat-belt -- this is @Huggy Bear, after all. Semantic bullshittery is a big part of his schtick.

[OakTree500]

Immoral? To be honest, I don't really know - I don't believe in god so the idea of him pardoning us through the death of his son/himself doesn't really make sense to me to start with.

If anything it just shows how illogical and how much of an asshole god really is. All knowing/all powerful god creates human beings - one eats a fruit from a tree that is physically in the same place as them, giving them "knowledge", and then he'/shes/it's pissed off at us seemingly forever? And this is all AFTER god floods the world and kills babies and all other living creatures outside of a small handful of people + animals?

What the actual fuck does any of this even mean in the long run? To forgive US, (a product that he created in the first instance, killed off and "started again"), he had to kill his son/himself? What? what the fuck are you talking about. If its a metaphor its not a very good one.

[Deesse23]

Predation is not equal to vicarious redemption. Pretending it is, is a false analogy. full.stop.

[LastPoet]

I still don't know what the fuck is going on. I will assume me the stupid.

[daughterofkarl]

I still don't know what the fuck is going on. I will assume me the stupid.

You're not stupid.  The OP is unclear and confusing.  It took me a little while to figure out what was bothering me about the whole thing, but I think it comes down to his odd use of language.  He appears to be attempting to justify his position that Hitchens' assertion of the biblical concept of vicarious redemption as immoral is a hypocritical stance to take since vicarious redemption exists in nature.  The natural world is apparently rampant with it.  

Not sure why so many theists seem to think we atheists are all students of Hitchens, but in my experience, he hasn't been at the forefront of atheist thinking in several years. I always found him a bit strident for my taste.  But I digress.  

Leaving aside the fact that Huggy Bear doesn't clarify how Hitchens defines "moral" or "immoral" or define it himself, so we have no way of knowing whether he and Hitchens have an agreed upon definition from which to argue the point, he's toggling from the literal and concrete to the esoteric and metaphysical whenever he seems to need to deflect the points raised.  

I mean, he uses that fact that human beings need to kill things to eat and survive as an example of biblical vicarious redemption existing in nature.  Several users have correctly noted that he's applying a very literal and concrete application of the terms to justify this.  Not only is this one example problematic because the chicken I ate for dinner last night didn't give its life to save me from death, I took its life, but it reduces the concept of vicarious redemption to a purely transactional relationship required to meet a biological imperative.  I think this is an oversimplification and is disingenuous unless Huggy is asserting that when a leopard brings down a gazelle to feed itself or a spider ensnares the proverbial fly and sucks its guts out, it is making a moral or immoral choice.  The very concept of morality or immorality is a human construct, so I don't think he has proven his point that vicarious redemption exists in nature.  I suppose he could argue that vicarious redemption exists in human nature, but that isn't the argument he is choosing to make. 

Then there's the whole "...sin causes death" thing.  
Sin doesn't cause death.  Cancer causes death.  Car accidents cause death.  Old age causes death.  Disease and drug addiction and starvation cause death.   So, he isn't talking about literal physiological death.  He's clearly talking about that metaphysical, woo woo, after-you-shuffle-off-this-mortal-coil soul death that presumably his magic sky-daddy of choice is going to save him from, so that death isn't really death.  He's completely left the realm of the concrete and literal and moved into the metaphysical.  

Which I think is just circular reasoning:  Using a biblical concept to justify a biblical concept.

Or something.  


DOK

[mordant]

Not sure why so many theists seem to think we atheists are all students of Hitchens, but in my experience, he hasn't been at the forefront of atheist thinking in several years. I always found him a bit strident for my taste.

In my experience and observation, most theists regard atheists as a monolith, probably because their own sect is something of a bloc to them, they are part of it, and can't really see how we would be any different. Hence they assume Hitchens as a prominent atheist must be universally revered by atheists everywhere. Indeed I resist the term atheISM as if we have an atheist pope or atheist holy book, it just perpetuates the misconception. And of course leads to all sort of nonsense about conflating atheism with communism and homicidal authoritarian rulers, etc.

Leaving aside the fact that Huggy Bear doesn't clarify how Hitchens defines "moral" or "immoral" or define it himself, so we have no way of knowing whether he and Hitchens have an agreed upon definition from which to argue the point, he's toggling from the literal and concrete to the esoteric and metaphysical whenever he seems to need to deflect the points raised.

He wouldn't be the first theist who doesn't understand the first thing about the argument they're trying to critique.  

Then there's the whole "...sin causes death" thing.  
Sin doesn't cause death.  Cancer causes death.  Car accidents cause death.  Old age causes death.  Disease and drug addiction and starvation cause death.   So, he isn't talking about literal physiological death.  He's clearly talking about that metaphysical, woo woo, after-you-shuffle-off-this-mortal-coil soul death that presumably his magic sky-daddy of choice is going to save him from, so that death isn't really death.  He's completely left the realm of the concrete and literal and moved into the metaphysical.  

Which I think is just circular reasoning:  Using a biblical concept to justify a biblical concept.

[jerry mcmasters]

I'm curious though; what argument do you think Hitchens would present to explain why he thinks substitutionary atonement is immoral?

Probably something like:  Imagine a man rapes a woman, and then some third party willingly steps forward and takes on the punishment to atone for the man's conduct.  This does seem to be what Christianity allows (death-bed conversions by evil people, etc) and it does sound grossly immoral.  I suppose it could work with some kinds of conduct, the exchange of money perhaps, A owing B but being paid by C, but it's a bonkers concept when someone really harms someone else.

I assume that the gist of it; Huggy stamp your foot twice if I'm right.

[Paleophyte]

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.

That isn't redemption, that's consumption. Nobody goes to McD's to be redeemed by a burger and the cow involved did not give its life at the slaughterhouse.

If anything this should give you pause to think. You were born into a world where you must kill to continue existing. Doesn't sound much like the work of an all-loving deity to me.

The only hypocrisy here is yours. There are no free lunches, so imagining that yours was paid for by some Jew who died nearly 2000 years ago just leaves the tab unpaid. That should leave a hefty bill accumulating somewhere, but the sin itself is as imaginary as your sky daddy. A lovely example of the unreal atoning for the unreal all helping the priesthood to pick your pockets and empty your head.

[mordant]

I'm curious though; what argument do you think Hitchens would present to explain why he thinks substitutionary atonement is immoral?

Probably something like:  Imagine a man rapes a woman, and then some third party willingly steps forward and takes on the punishment to atone for the man's conduct.  This does seem to be what Christianity allows (death-bed conversions by evil people, etc) and it does sound grossly immoral.

IDK what Hitchen's argument was, but this is the immoral part to my mind. It don't see how it's inherently immoral -- if I want to lay down my life for my wife, say, by taking a bullet for her, there's nothing immoral with that, and so Jesus voluntarily offering himself up for the sins of others (were that a real thing) would be equally fine. The problem isn't the vicarious part so much as the part where some are held accountable for minor sins ("Lied to Mommy? Burn in hell!") and not others ("Adolf Hitler, you accepted Jesus just as you died ... enter into the glory of your Lord!"). It's this ultimate / maximal / eternal punishment for any and all transgressions, regardless of severity and number that is the real problem.

[Fireball]

OK, I scrolled through and gave a light examination of the back-and-forth, so I may have missed it.
As "anti-theists"- Huggy's term for us- we didn't ask for redemption of any sort; it's not our belief, since we have no belief. He's shouting at clouds again.

[Minimalist]

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

That's where you lose it, Huggy.  Vicarious Redemption has nothing to do with eating a humburger.  It has to do with the asinine concept that the sins of one person or group can be shifted onto the back of another who is then executed for it.

A lion who kills a gazelle does not stop to think that he is atoning for anything thereby.

[jerry mcmasters]

Probably something like:  Imagine a man rapes a woman, and then some third party willingly steps forward and takes on the punishment to atone for the man's conduct.  This does seem to be what Christianity allows (death-bed conversions by evil people, etc) and it does sound grossly immoral.

IDK what Hitchen's argument was, but this is the immoral part to my mind. It don't see how it's inherently immoral -- if I want to lay down my life for my wife, say, by taking a bullet for her, there's nothing immoral with that, and so Jesus voluntarily offering himself up for the sins of others (were that a real thing) would be equally fine. The problem isn't the vicarious part so much as the part where some are held accountable for minor sins ("Lied to Mommy? Burn in hell!") and not others ("Adolf Hitler, you accepted Jesus just as you died ... enter into the glory of your Lord!"). It's this ultimate / maximal / eternal punishment for any and all transgressions, regardless of severity and number that is the real problem.

It's also playing fast and loose with the term "life."  An animal can be said to give its life so I may have my life preserved and extended.  A person can lay down their life and preserve a loved one's life.  But what does "life" even mean in the Christian redemption theory?  Jesus gave his "life" so a believer can be forgiven and have "everlasting life"?  We have no conception of a "life" that ends and then comes back in a couple days, nor is heavenly "life" after death something there is any evidence for, let along agreement on what it's actually like if it does exist.

[Dānu]