Vicarious redemption of sin, is it moral? Was Jesus a scapegoat?
Options
And_So_It_Burns
Members Posts: 921 ✭✭✭✭✭
Vicarious redemption of sin, the belief someone can pass their transgressions onto someone else and that person would be punished is immoral to say the least. The old middle eastern practice for this was called "scapegoating" where the sins of a tribe were pilled upon a goat, that goat would then be driven out into the desert where it died. It takes away moral responsibility even if I were to pay for your sins, I can't take away what you did. My question is, this practice, is it moral?
Comments
-
And_So_It_Burns wrote: »Vicarious redemption of sin, the belief someone can pass their transgressions onto someone else and that person would be punished is immoral to say the least. The old middle eastern practice for this was called "scapegoating" where the sins of a tribe were pilled upon a goat, that goat would then be driven out into the desert where it died. It takes away moral responsibility even if I were to pay for your sins, I can't take away what you did. My question is, this practice, is it moral?
the cross did not take away moral responsibility for sins it took away spiritual responsibility. You are still responsible for your wrong doing on earth and when you accept the cross technically you are given a responsibility to live godly which would naturally mean to address your moral failings. -
Jesus wasn't a scapegoat. A scapegoat is someone who is unfairly blamed for something even though that person may not be responsible for most or all of what led to the problem.
Jesus was a willing sacrifice. No one threw that burden on him. He chose to take it on. -
The devil is the scapegoat. That's who religionists point the finger at whenever they ? up.
But I get your point. Yes, not accepting consequences for your actions reeks of moral depravity. Satanism would never permit such recklessness but these Abrahamic religions promote it heavily. -
The ? is spiritual responsibility? What you just described is morality.And_So_It_Burns wrote: »Vicarious redemption of sin, the belief someone can pass their transgressions onto someone else and that person would be punished is immoral to say the least. The old middle eastern practice for this was called "scapegoating" where the sins of a tribe were pilled upon a goat, that goat would then be driven out into the desert where it died. It takes away moral responsibility even if I were to pay for your sins, I can't take away what you did. My question is, this practice, is it moral?
the cross did not take away moral responsibility for sins it took away spiritual responsibility. You are still responsible for your wrong doing on earth and when you accept the cross technically you are given a responsibility to live godly which would naturally mean to address your moral failings.
You claim to not have "spiritual responsibility" knowing that even with such a burden, you will still at some point, sin again and be judged for said actions.
Either you have a moral code or you don't. Either you accept responsibility for your actions or you don't. And the arrogance of thinking you know what your g-d will and won't forgive when you die is astounding. -
I see this from the workplace to the hood now a days.
-
soul rattler wrote: »
The ? is spiritual responsibility? What you just described is morality.And_So_It_Burns wrote: »Vicarious redemption of sin, the belief someone can pass their transgressions onto someone else and that person would be punished is immoral to say the least. The old middle eastern practice for this was called "scapegoating" where the sins of a tribe were pilled upon a goat, that goat would then be driven out into the desert where it died. It takes away moral responsibility even if I were to pay for your sins, I can't take away what you did. My question is, this practice, is it moral?
the cross did not take away moral responsibility for sins it took away spiritual responsibility. You are still responsible for your wrong doing on earth and when you accept the cross technically you are given a responsibility to live godly which would naturally mean to address your moral failings.
You claim to not have "spiritual responsibility" knowing that even with such a burden, you will still at some point, sin again and be judged for said actions.
Either you have a moral code or you don't. Either you accept responsibility for your actions or you don't. And the arrogance of thinking you know what your g-d will and won't forgive when you die is astounding.
Spiritual responsibility is the debt you owe to ? this debt can only be washed away with faith in christ and faith without works is dead. THERE are some christians that believe once saved always saved i am not one of them so no one knows who is going to heaven. -
I know the religious/spiritual answers will be in defense of this.
Im not gonna say right or wrong, i just think its a dope philosophical question.
In comparison, this is one of the main differences in muslim and christian/jewish philosophy. In islam, there is no original sin, no one is made to carry anyones sins/punishments, and no one can erase your sins. There is something called 'tobe', its when a person realizes their mistakes and sins and renounces them and promises to never do it again. It must be a spiritual awaikening for it to matter. You cant just claim tobe and have it work. You must believe in your heart and actually change, and ? knows whats in your heart so you cant lie to ? . It doesnt erase your sins but it will work in your favor when your getting judged.
Again, cool philosophical question. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Jesus wasn't a scapegoat. A scapegoat is someone who is unfairly blamed for something even though that person may not be responsible for most or all of what led to the problem.
Jesus was a willing sacrifice. No one threw that burden on him. He chose to take it on.soul rattler wrote: »The devil is the scapegoat. That's who religionists point the finger at whenever they ? up.
But I get your point. Yes, not accepting consequences for your actions reeks of moral depravity. Satanism would never permit such recklessness but these Abrahamic religions promote it heavily.
Yes, but I'm talking in this context
noun
1.a person or group made to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place.
2.Chiefly Biblical. a goat let loose in the wilderness on Yom Kippur after the high priest symbolically laid the sins of the people on its head. Lev. 16:8,10,26. -
The idea of Jesus Christ sacrificing himself for the benefit of people who deserved to suffer in his place is endearing or even ? sacrificing his own son because he loved human beings just as much (at least if any one of the sinners he died for would suffer more than Christ did if his sacrifice were not made) but I don't think a perfectly compassionate ? would be inclined to punish anyone for their sins to begin with. I know that Christians argue ? is just as well as kind but I think they're inherently contradicting virtues.
If sins have to be paid for I don't think it makes sense for anyone besides the sinner to be held accountable but that's a secondary issue for me. Then again, people are allowed to pay off the debts that other people accumulate so maybe you can compare it to that. -
I have a different understanding of the sacrifice of jesus. Jesus sacrificed himself to save the world, yes this is good, this is how we should behave, but we don't. We sacrifice the world to save ourselves. That is our current thought system. I don't think the message was jesus takes away our sins by him being sacrificed, it just doesn't make functional sense.
-
The sacrifice was done in vain, ? should've known this.
-
-
The sacrifice was done in vain, ? should've known this.
Pretty much, aside from giving people another religion to believe in I guess -
The idea of Jesus Christ sacrificing himself for the benefit of people who deserved to suffer in his place is endearing or even ? sacrificing his own son because he loved human beings just as much (at least if any one of the sinners he died for would suffer more than Christ did if his sacrifice were not made) but I don't think a perfectly compassionate ? would be inclined to punish anyone for their sins to begin with. I know that Christians argue ? is just as well as kind but I think they're inherently contradicting virtues.
If sins have to be paid for I don't think it makes sense for anyone besides the sinner to be held accountable but that's a secondary issue for me. Then again, people are allowed to pay off the debts that other people accumulate so maybe you can compare it to that.
That's the thing about original sin that never made sense to me, why should a whole sea of humanity be punished for the sins of a few people? And if that ? is all knowing, it should have known its own creations were flawed and would make poor decisions.
I do understand the concept of someone paying a debt a relative might own if one co-signed or whatever, but only a wicked being would punish a whole range of people for a few people sinning (Adam and Eve). And assuming "Christ" sacrificed himself, he should have truly wiped the "sins" of Adam and Eve after 2,000 plus years, it's beyond ridiculous. The priests in the Catholic schools I went to growing up were always tongue tied on my questions on a "compassionate" ? never truly forgiving the sins of Adam and Eve. -
People in here do not understand the concept of SIN in this thread i can tell just by the questions asked in here that you guys don't know a thing about christian theology.
SIN literally changed reality so adam and eve were forgiven but the fabric of reality was already changed so everyone born into reality is affected by it. -
People in here do not understand the concept of SIN in this thread i can tell just by the questions asked in here that you guys don't know a thing about christian theology.
SIN literally changed reality so adam and eve were forgiven but the fabric of reality was already changed so everyone born into reality is affected by it.
AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Adam and Eve were forgiven but people worldwide still must suffer the consequences of Adam and Eve sinning? How in the HELL does that make sense. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »People in here do not understand the concept of SIN in this thread i can tell just by the questions asked in here that you guys don't know a thing about christian theology.
SIN literally changed reality so adam and eve were forgiven but the fabric of reality was already changed so everyone born into reality is affected by it.
AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Adam and Eve were forgiven but people worldwide still must suffer the consequences of Adam and Eve sinning? How in the HELL does that make sense.
Adam and eve are forgiven but we are not adam and eve the world we live in now is the world our parents created for us. Spiritually and physically speaking -
kingblaze84 wrote: »People in here do not understand the concept of SIN in this thread i can tell just by the questions asked in here that you guys don't know a thing about christian theology.
SIN literally changed reality so adam and eve were forgiven but the fabric of reality was already changed so everyone born into reality is affected by it.
AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Adam and Eve were forgiven but people worldwide still must suffer the consequences of Adam and Eve sinning? How in the HELL does that make sense.
Adam and eve are forgiven but we are not adam and eve the world we live in now is the world our parents created for us. Spiritually and physically speaking
According to your Bible, original sin is the reason for the world's troubles. And like I said in my earlier post, if the Bible ? is disappointed in modern humans, it shouldn't be because it made humans flawed, many have schizophrenia, bi-polarism, low impulse control, or even born with psychopathic tendencies. The Bible ? should have seen all this coming, especially the part about some people LITERALLY being born with psychopathic tendencies.
I know doctors and believe me, it's crazy and scary the things some people are born with. With all this in mind, the Bible ? shouldn't act like forgiving people is some big deal, when he made many people flawed to begin with. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »People in here do not understand the concept of SIN in this thread i can tell just by the questions asked in here that you guys don't know a thing about christian theology.
SIN literally changed reality so adam and eve were forgiven but the fabric of reality was already changed so everyone born into reality is affected by it.
AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Adam and Eve were forgiven but people worldwide still must suffer the consequences of Adam and Eve sinning? How in the HELL does that make sense.
Adam and eve are forgiven but we are not adam and eve the world we live in now is the world our parents created for us. Spiritually and physically speaking
According to your Bible, original sin is the reason for the world's troubles. And like I said in my earlier post, if the Bible ? is disappointed in modern humans, it shouldn't be because it made humans flawed, many have schizophrenia, bi-polarism, low impulse control, or even born with psychopathic tendencies. The Bible ? should have seen all this coming, especially the part about some people LITERALLY being born with psychopathic tendencies.
I know doctors and believe me, it's crazy and scary the things some people are born with. With all this in mind, the Bible ? shouldn't act like forgiving people is some big deal, when he made many people flawed to begin with.
He did not make adam and eve flawed he made the perfect freewill creatures and put them in paradise, he made them perfect for what they were. They however turned around and made the world flawed, they damaged creation. that is why people are born all ? up. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »People in here do not understand the concept of SIN in this thread i can tell just by the questions asked in here that you guys don't know a thing about christian theology.
SIN literally changed reality so adam and eve were forgiven but the fabric of reality was already changed so everyone born into reality is affected by it.
AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Adam and Eve were forgiven but people worldwide still must suffer the consequences of Adam and Eve sinning? How in the HELL does that make sense.
Adam and eve are forgiven but we are not adam and eve the world we live in now is the world our parents created for us. Spiritually and physically speaking
According to your Bible, original sin is the reason for the world's troubles. And like I said in my earlier post, if the Bible ? is disappointed in modern humans, it shouldn't be because it made humans flawed, many have schizophrenia, bi-polarism, low impulse control, or even born with psychopathic tendencies. The Bible ? should have seen all this coming, especially the part about some people LITERALLY being born with psychopathic tendencies.
I know doctors and believe me, it's crazy and scary the things some people are born with. With all this in mind, the Bible ? shouldn't act like forgiving people is some big deal, when he made many people flawed to begin with.
He did not make adam and eve flawed he made the perfect freewill creatures and put them in paradise, he made them perfect for what they were. They however turned around and made the world flawed, they damaged creation. that is why people are born all ? up.
People are born ? up because Adam and Eve ate from a forbidden tree, which ? himself put there, knowing they would do why they did. Had he not done that, "sin" could've been prevented. This went according to ? 's plan and therefore it is all his doing. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »People in here do not understand the concept of SIN in this thread i can tell just by the questions asked in here that you guys don't know a thing about christian theology.
SIN literally changed reality so adam and eve were forgiven but the fabric of reality was already changed so everyone born into reality is affected by it.
AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Adam and Eve were forgiven but people worldwide still must suffer the consequences of Adam and Eve sinning? How in the HELL does that make sense.
Adam and eve are forgiven but we are not adam and eve the world we live in now is the world our parents created for us. Spiritually and physically speaking
According to your Bible, original sin is the reason for the world's troubles. And like I said in my earlier post, if the Bible ? is disappointed in modern humans, it shouldn't be because it made humans flawed, many have schizophrenia, bi-polarism, low impulse control, or even born with psychopathic tendencies. The Bible ? should have seen all this coming, especially the part about some people LITERALLY being born with psychopathic tendencies.
I know doctors and believe me, it's crazy and scary the things some people are born with. With all this in mind, the Bible ? shouldn't act like forgiving people is some big deal, when he made many people flawed to begin with.
He did not make adam and eve flawed he made the perfect freewill creatures and put them in paradise, he made them perfect for what they were. They however turned around and made the world flawed, they damaged creation. that is why people are born all ? up.
People are born ? up because Adam and Eve ate from a forbidden tree, which ? himself put there, knowing they would do why they did. Had he not done that, "sin" could've been prevented. This went according to ? 's plan and therefore it is all his doing.
YOU don't understand first of all lets get something understood that eden story is metaphor for humankind choosing to rebel against ? . ? knows human future action as mostly possibility not certainty and reacts to the future we choose to bring into existence. ? has infinite plans which one actually comes into being is largely up to our interaction -
The only way sin could have been prevented is if ? made us robots/animals who only follow programming or if mankind choose to simply willingly live the way ? intended
-
? would've been better off doing to robot thing. No one would have a clue we are "robots" and everything would've been on his terms.
-
? would've been better off doing to robot thing. No one would have a clue we are "robots" and everything would've been on his terms.
That's not what ? wants tho... to me from my reading and study it seems that ? wants us to freely choose him or not... when we don't choose him certain negative things can naturally happen or not. -
If sin was to be understood in the context it was meant, "to err, to miss the mark", humanity is definitely born into that ? , that's how we learn, through our mistakes.
