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

[Minimalist]

Beat me to it, Danu!

[Huggy Bear]

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.

I have literally never heard of ANYONE arguing the immorality of presidential pardons... But in this case it would be like if the president wanted to pardon someone, he'd have to serve their sentence, in this case, president would probably have a good reason for pardoning someone.

In your opinion which is more immoral?

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

I have literally never heard of ANYONE arguing the immorality of presidential pardons... But in this case it would be like if the president wanted to pardon someone, he'd have to serve their sentence, in this case, president would probably have a good reason for pardoning someone.

In your opinion which is more immoral?

Easy -- punishing an innocent for the crimes of another. If you think Jesus was pure as driven snow, and that your god created flawed humans, demanding that a perfect avatar of himself be sacrificed in order to expiate the sins of the flawed humans he himself created would be immoral.

Of course, that whole "I lived through it, bro" thing with Jesus means he didn't actually die, which rather kicks the legs out from under your "argument", such as it is. If you think Jesus still lives, then he didn't "die" for your sins. If you think he's actually dead, then he isn't God, unless you accept that God is dead too.

[Mathilda]

"Vicarious redemption" simply put, is a law of nature,

Cool. How then can we use it mechanically for practical purposes? What physical mechanisms are involved? How can we measure this using scientific instruments?

[Huggy Bear]

"Vicarious redemption" simply put, is a law of nature,

Cool. How then can we use it mechanically for practical purposes? What physical mechanisms are involved? How can we measure this using scientific instruments?

If you would have read the post in it's entirety, I explain. In short "vicarious redemption" is Hitchens terminology for the act of Jesus dying for sin, but Jesus himself states that his purpose in dying is so people may have life eternal, sin is the condition that separates man from God, the source of life.

"I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."

The natural world mirrors the spiritual world, so in the natural sense let's say we rename sin and call it starvation,  No one would claim that killing and eating an innocent chicken to save one from starvation is immoral...

[Inkubus]

Cool. How then can we use it mechanically for practical purposes? What physical mechanisms are involved? How can we measure this using scientific instruments?

If you would have read the post in it's entirety, I explain. In short "vicarious redemption" is Hitchens terminology for the act of Jesus dying for sin, but Jesus himself states that his purpose in dying is so people may have life eternal, sin is the condition that separates man from God, the source of life.

The natural world mirrors the spiritual world, so in the natural sense let's say we rename sin and call it starvation,  No one would claim that killing and eating an innocent chicken to save one from starvation is immoral...

Jesus glue sniffing Christ this guy can't be for real.

Let's say we rename christian fundie and call him a troll.

[Edible crust]

Let's rename Jesus and call him Colonel Sanders.

[Paleophyte]

The natural world mirrors the spiritual world, so in the natural sense let's say we rename sin and call it starvation,  No one would claim that killing and eating an innocent chicken to save one from starvation is immoral...

Nobody would claim that the chicken is offering itself so that you may be redeemed from hunger. There's just so much wrong with that.

It's possible that you aren't competent to post on the internet, and that's an impressively low bar to slink under.

[Huggy Bear]

If you would have read the post in it's entirety, I explain. In short "vicarious redemption" is Hitchens terminology for the act of Jesus dying for sin, but Jesus himself states that his purpose in dying is so people may have life eternal, sin is the condition that separates man from God, the source of life.

The natural world mirrors the spiritual world, so in the natural sense let's say we rename sin and call it starvation,  No one would claim that killing and eating an innocent chicken to save one from starvation is immoral...

Jesus glue sniffing Christ this guy can't be for real.

Let's say we rename christian fundie and call him a troll.

You still don't get it, sin isn't an act it's a condition, the same as starvation. The bible clearly states one is born into sin, therefore a newborn is guilty of sin... what act has it done?

I like how you guys take the troll angle... what's my purpose? Talking to you guys is like talking to children, I have to oversimplify and it still goes over your heads.

[SYZ]

...In short "vicarious redemption" is Hitchens terminology for the act of Jesus dying for sin, but Jesus himself states that his purpose in dying is so people may have life eternal, sin is the condition that separates man from God, the source of life.

This is fast approaching non sequitur territory Huggy.
You've used two presuppositions in order to reference this
claim.  Firstly, you have no evidence that a man named
"Jesus" actually existed as claimed 2,000 years ago. And
you have no evidence that this purported individual was
executed and was "resurrected" three days later.

You need to acknowledge that 3rd party hearsay is not empirical
evidence for anything or all things.

And the thing (?) that separates man from any of the multitude
of gods alleged to exist across the planet is...  science.

The natural world mirrors the spiritual world, so in the natural sense let's say we rename sin and call it starvation,  No one would claim that killing and eating an innocent chicken to save one from starvation is immoral...

Nope.  This is just plain silly!  The "natural" world does not,
could not, and never will "mirror" any purported spiritual
world.  And until theists and people like yourself prove otherwise,
that's how things will stand.   

But anybody please don't hold your breath.     

[Edible crust]

Huggy.
As it has already been pointed out to you Jesus didn't die, he just had a bad weekend.

He's apparently lurking around somewhere waiting for Christ knows what, and then he'll reappear and reward everyone who believes that scapegoating is a good thing and to punish those who don't.

What a lovely message to pass down to the children.

[Huggy Bear]

...In short "vicarious redemption" is Hitchens terminology for the act of Jesus dying for sin, but Jesus himself states that his purpose in dying is so people may have life eternal, sin is the condition that separates man from God, the source of life.

This is fast approaching non sequitur territory Huggy.
You've used two presuppositions in order to reference this
claim.  Firstly, you have no evidence that a man named
"Jesus" actually existed as claimed 2,000 years ago.

Stop right there, see this is what I mean by 'it feels like I'm talking to children'. THIS THREAD IS ABOUT HITCHENS CLAIM THAT VICARIOUS REDEMPTION IS IMMORAL. An argument that is based on the assumption of the biblical account being true, he says so himself. 

You guys are insufferable.

[LastPoet]

It seems logic isn't your thing. Look up Reductio ad absurdum. You start with the premise and then, using logic take it to the absurd position. I don't use it much in informal logic, more in math, we call it the RA+

[Huggy Bear]

@LastPoet

The concept of God becoming human and dying for sin, is already an absurd concept for an athiest, so we're already started off in absurd land, but that's not the point, do you think I forgot where I'm at? I'm addressing an athiests argument that supposes everything about the biblical account is true.

I asked in the OP for the opinions of people who agreed with Hitchens, if you don’t agree, you're welcome to keep it moving, this thread isn't for you.

[Deesse23]

let's say we rename sin and call it starvation,  

Lets say we rename shit and call it chocolate. All of your posts, ever, taste like chocolate. Want to try my chocolate?

[SYZ]

@LastPoet

The concept of God becoming human and dying for sin, I already an absurd concept for an athiest, so we're already started off in absurd land, but that's not the point, do you think I forgot where I'm at? I'm addressing an athiests argument supposing everything is true.

I asked in the OP for the opinions of people
who agreed with Hitchens, if you don’t agree with Hitchens you're welcome to keep it moving, this thread isn't for you.

Firstly, in order to debate atheism, you need to know how
to spell the word.  I'm sure you'd be laughing—rightly so—
at you if we repeatedly called you a "thiest".

The other thing that's obvious (from your comments) is that
you apparently have very little knowledge of what's encompassed
by the terms 'atheist' and 'atheism'.

Atheism is NOT a religion, or a belief, a creed or doctrine.  It's
simply a state of mind—nothing more; nothing less.  It's like
being happy or fearful or sad, or in love.

   —I'm an atheist.  That's it.   Nothing more to add.

[Edible crust]

An atheist who supposes the biblical account is true?
Do you mean hypothetically true?

Morality, objective biblical?

Anti-theist hypocrisy?

Your OP is vague.

Not all atheists are anti-theist, there are disagreements on the definition of morality so I don't know what you were expecting.

[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.  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.

I have literally never heard of ANYONE arguing the immorality of presidential pardons...

Debate about the potential abuse and immoral use of presidential pardon power dates back to the writing and debating of the US Constitution.  Anti-Federalists argued that it could be used against the public good and lead to tyranny, so there was literally argument about the immorality of presidential pardons more than 250 years ago.

 But in this case it would be like if the president wanted to pardon someone, he'd have to serve their sentence, in this case, president would probably have a good reason for pardoning someone.

In your opinion which is more immoral?

I don't follow what you mean here.  Everything you are writing seems immoral to me.  A person getting away with (whatever) murder while someone else serves his sentence...?

[jerry mcmasters]

You guys are insufferable.

On the behalf of the entire forum, I think you deserve an apology.  So I will give it







...to my cat.

[jerry mcmasters]

This is fast approaching non sequitur territory Huggy.
You've used two presuppositions in order to reference this
claim.  Firstly, you have no evidence that a man named
"Jesus" actually existed as claimed 2,000 years ago.

Stop right there, see this is what I mean by 'it feels like I'm talking to children'. THIS THREAD IS ABOUT HITCHENS CLAIM THAT VICARIOUS REDEMPTION IS IMMORAL. An argument that is based on the assumption of the biblical account being true, he says so himself. 

You guys are insufferable.

Well heck how were we supposed to know we had to first assume the truth of the biblical account?  What's funny is that even given that the concept is immoral lol.

[jerry mcmasters]

If we presuppose the truth of the biblical account of redemption, then that encompasses presupposition of truth of God, Jesus, Heaven, Hell, etc etc. If God definitionally can do no wrong and says his method of redemption is not immoral, it's not immoral, and Hitchens by saying it is immoral is by definition wrong. Is that something like what you are looking for, Huggy? That's the only way out. From any other non-psychopathic viewpoint, letting, say, a rapist get away with his crime because the redemption was served by some third party, is despicable and monstrously immoral. (Read that last sentence out loud in your Hitchens voice, it's fun!)

[SYZ]

This is fast approaching non sequitur territory Huggy.
You've used two presuppositions in order to reference this
claim.  Firstly, you have no evidence that a man named
"Jesus" actually existed as claimed 2,000 years ago.

Stop right there, see this is what I mean by 'it feels like I'm talking to children'. THIS THREAD IS ABOUT HITCHENS CLAIM THAT VICARIOUS REDEMPTION IS IMMORAL. An argument that is based on the assumption of the biblical account being true, he says so himself. 

You guys are insufferable.

Hitchens argued that the "multiple authors—none of whom published anything until many
decades after the Crucifixion—could not agree on anything of importance", "the gospels are
most certainly not literal truth", and there is "little or no evidence for the life of Jesus".

—God Is Not Great.

[jerry mcmasters]

Hitchens argued that the "multiple authors—none of whom published anything until many
decades after the Crucifixion—could not agree on anything of importance", "the gospels are
most certainly not literal truth", and there is "little or no evidence for the life of Jesus".

—God Is Not Great.

Yeah but Hitchens (like all good religious critics) would grant hypotheticals to make a point about this or that absurd aspect of a religion.  You allow the framework and then go from there, it's good mental exercise. 

This whole conversation is something like "Who would win in a fight, Spider-man or Wolverine?"

[Thumpalumpacus]

Jesus glue sniffing Christ this guy can't be for real.

Let's say we rename christian fundie and call him a troll.

You still don't get it, sin isn't an act it's a condition, the same as starvation. The bible clearly states one is born into sin, therefore a newborn is guilty of sin... what act has it done?

I like how you guys take the troll angle... what's my purpose?  Talking to you guys is like talking to children,  I have to oversimplify and it still goes over your heads.

Just because I reject your silly notions doesn't mean I don't understand them. It means that I understand them, and I think those ideas are tommyrot.

[SaxonX]

I have literally never heard of ANYONE arguing the immorality of presidential pardons...

Presidential pardons are just asking for needless abuse and the whole concept of a pardon frankly seems unfair in concept

 But in this case it would be like if the president wanted to pardon someone, he'd have to serve their sentence, in this case, president would probably have a good reason for pardoning someone.

In your opinion which is more immoral ?

Pardons can and have been abused it's system ripe for abuse. So no I don't agree with presidential pardons it's a power the president should not have.