The notion of redemption in religion

[reyn_til_runa]

the idea/application of redemption, in it's various definitions, has always interested me. i suppose it fairly closely relates to justice (in that for any debt incurred, there is payment which can reverse the debt). it's been one of those life themes and it can be seen everywhere in nature. the way that nature can repair itself, or even destroy itself in the interest of eventual or overall healing is one instance.

perhaps it has been an interest because i've often found myself in debt. i gave up on the spiritual redeemer awhile ago after realizing that redemption only makes sense if for each different sin, there is a different redemptive act to be applied (and that this was not what most gods were claiming to be able to accomplish).

forgive me. i was steeped in religion against my will for many years, yet i simply cannot understand why people are so happy about a christian redeemer who covers ALL sin and doesn't discriminate. How in god's name does this do any good?

XXXXXXXXXXXX

God should be a row of mini gods like the Xs above, only strung on towards infinity.

the axis runs horizontally through the centers of the Xs. each 1/2 X is god, or in other words, CAUSE.

each corresponding 1/2 X is EFFECT.

In this particular case, we could see it as debt (cause)/redemption (effect).

this could be an instance of synesthetic weirdness, but i thought perhaps the idea of redemption overall could be attributed to one quadra or another.

(i am thinking gamma with it's obvious relation to economy).

[ScarlettLux]

You make the most intriguing posts, reyn!

I've thought about that redemption thing too, in regards to how it seems like Christianity will allow you to be "redeemed" for anything, any sin, no matter how great or small -- you are to only ask for the forgiveness, open your heart, blah blah. It just makes me think, wtf? So a murder can just be forgiven if you are truly "sorry" ? It seems a little too easy, but what do I know about religion. It just seems like a lot of this stuff is said to make people feel better about all their sins, so that they feel they can go to church, go to confession and "redeem" themselves afterwards.

[discojoe]

What the shit is this fuck?

To understand redemption, think of the word "redeem". To redeem something means to recover by means of payment. So if you lose something that's yours, you get it redeem it by paying a certain sum.

This equation can be expanded to suit a more philosophical analysis of the concept of redemption as well.

It should be noted that the "imbalances" that redemption often corrects are usually subjective. The universe runs on a flux of subjective balances and imbalances.

[reyn_til_runa]

What the shit is this fuck?

To understand redemption, think of the word "redeem". To redeem something means to recover by means of payment. So if you lose something that's yours, you get it redeem it by paying a certain sum.

gee, thanks. i know.

This equation can be expanded to suit a more philosophical analysis of the concept of redemption as well.

thanks again

It should be noted that the "imbalances" that redemption often corrects are usually subjective. The universe runs on a flux of subjective balances and imbalances.

of course. because making the judgement call that someone or something needs redemption requires a recognition of value, discriminating between what has been lost, and what needs to be gained.

[redbaron]

I think the idea is that any sin, large or small, is so far from the perfection of God that it's humanly impossible for us to bridge the gap back to him (God) without his help. Some would say that it's not just the individual sins that you commit that separate you from God but the sin that each human is born with in their very nature. Thus no one gets off scott free, whether you murder someone or not. All have fallen but all will be accepted if they choose to accept the redemption of Christ. Christians believe that ultimately God *will* discriminate on the basis of specific sins, whether one is "saved" or not. Everyone will supposedly answer for what they have done or not done, down to the words you say and the thoughts that you think. Not sure if that helps answer some questions or not?

[discojoe]

What the shit is this fuck?

To understand redemption, think of the word "redeem". To redeem something means to recover by means of payment. So if you lose something that's yours, you get it redeem it by paying a certain sum.

gee, thanks. i know.

This equation can be expanded to suit a more philosophical analysis of the concept of redemption as well.

thanks again

It should be noted that the "imbalances" that redemption often corrects are usually subjective. The universe runs on a flux of subjective balances and imbalances.

of course. because making the judgement call that someone or something needs redemption requires a recognition of value, discriminating between what has been lost, and what needs to be gained.

K.

[crazedrat]

I think the idea is god is omniscient and omnipresent, and you can "see" him in anything, from the perspective of the thing. So maybe you could think of god as the state of grace, or balance, the state you are trying to return to, and by simply re-accepting that state into your mind and soul you are pulled toward it regardless of in which direction you have deviated away from it in.

[Ms. Kensington]

I would agree that redemption in its common use encompasses more than a concept of payment.

I noticed that some alternate meanings online list "to fulfill" and "to set free", and "to restore honor". I think refilling an empty cup is not the same as payment. I don't see the difference between many X/2 multiplied by the number of xs and one X that equals all of that amount. I'm sure I've missed something of reyn's meaning.

But repairing oneself i see as just mutations of something over time.. not necesarily needing an outside payment. And maybe clearing one's name, that can be called redemption. But the sources of this redemption don't have to directly involve the one who is affected, nor does it seem to be necessarily a correction of imbalance. Sort of just clearing or renewing something. *thinks*

We might think things are just for reason of payment, but also in the absence of payment. "I forgive you". The person doesn't have to have paid you.

..anyway, I think "to fulfill" and "to set free" are areas in which one could work with non-economic definitions..

[UDP]

You make the most intriguing posts, reyn!

I've thought about that redemption thing too, in regards to how it seems like Christianity will allow you to be "redeemed" for anything, any sin, no matter how great or small -- you are to only ask for the forgiveness, open your heart, blah blah. It just makes me think, wtf? So a murder can just be forgiven if you are truly "sorry" ? It seems a little too easy, but what do I know about religion. It just seems like a lot of this stuff is said to make people feel better about all their sins, so that they feel they can go to church, go to confession and "redeem" themselves afterwards.

I head one Christian mass that I really like, when the father went over the "our father", the main prayer. He basically explained that in order to REALLY say it, you have to live it out, too....


"Our father - you can only say this if you realize that God is the father of all people, everyone
who art in heaven - realizing that there is something above you, that you are not quite as perfect as god. Or at least there is growth
hallowed by thy name - respecting the name of god and the idea of sacredness
they kingdom come - taking an active part in bringing about the kingdom yourself, not just standing by
thy will be done - doing God's will, not just your own thoughts, likes or wants, etc. something beyond you
on earth as it is in heaven - bringing the kingdom of heaven here - this is gods will. Bring the necessary change to This World
Give us this day our daily bread - meaning, be humble, just ask for what you need. guard against indulgence
and forgive us our trespasses- to say this means to sincerely want forgiveness, and also (see temptaiton...)
as we forgive those who trespass against us- forgiveness. To say this part means you have to actively forgive people
lead us not to temptation - to really say this means you have to choose, actively, to not get invovled in temptation. practice restraint, and don't tempt others into sin
but deliver us from evil - seek to deliver yourself and others from evil. focus on god's will, and like the last part, don't walk into evil. do your part to avoid it



Basically, it was an outline of "to really say and pray about this part, you have to really act and do this". He put emphasis on how saying alone is very little, unless you actually do stuff.

That aspect is something I like very much

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[niveK]

What's with the idea of "choosing" religion? Since when did we get to decide what was true about the world? You don't choose truth, you just figure out what it is and accept it. The reason I'm not a Christian is it's wrong. Where it actually makes claims about reality, it's demonstrably wrong almost every time, and it's nonfalisifiable sentiments might be nice for some, but in practice, there's no difference between the nonfalsifiable and the non-existent, so why should I waste my time on feel good ideas that do nothing to inform me about the universe so I can make valid decisions? Holding beliefs that are meaningless toward the universe at hand at best and demonstrably false and/or without reasonable basis for consideration at worst is a waste of effort and only holds me back. Religion was useful for coping with life when people didn't have a large body of quality knowledge with which to inform themselves, but it's use has long been superseded for anything beyond a very superficial feel-good sentiment.

(I picked Christianity as an example because it is the one with which I'm most familiar and has been mentioned previously in this thread. Also, I one was one, so it adds a bit of personal touch. Primarily, I find all religions useless because none of them meet a sufficient burden of proof or anything even close to it for the basic tenets. Any theology built upon such useless premises can be chucked away by default. Furthermore, the universe shows every sign of being apathetic to humanity's existence, and the sheer vastness of it all lets you realize just how meaningless we are in the grand scheme of it. When you look at a religion, you find it's almost always trying to make humans the center of the universe [usually by declaring us specially created by some deity]. When it comes down to it, religion is a superficial ego-trip steeped in ignorance and speculation paraded about as if it has authority. Sure, many religions have created some rather shiny veneers to cover over this detail, but it still holds true.

Anyway, the original question posed about redemption seems meaningless to me. What needs redeeming and why?

[Not A Communist Shill]

I think the idea is that any sin, large or small, is so far from the perfection of God that it's humanly impossible for us to bridge the gap back to him (God) without his help. Some would say that it's not just the individual sins that you commit that separate you from God but the sin that each human is born with in their very nature. Thus no one gets off scott free, whether you murder someone or not. All have fallen but all will be accepted if they choose to accept the redemption of Christ. Christians believe that ultimately God *will* discriminate on the basis of specific sins, whether one is "saved" or not. Everyone will supposedly answer for what they have done or not done, down to the words you say and the thoughts that you think. Not sure if that helps answer some questions or not?

I don't see how people answer for what they have or haven't done - you either get sent to hell for all eternity, or you get sent to the most boring place ever for all eternity - and this is based on whether you ask god for forgiveness or not - there is no punishment for commiting crimes or reward for doing good things.

[Not A Communist Shill]

it is our pride and a resulting dislike to accept the fact that we are just creations that makes us say things like that.

If god exists, he should ask me to redeem HIM.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature, and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears. Would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth.

[lefty]

the idea/application of redemption, in it's various definitions, has always interested me. i suppose it fairly closely relates to justice (in that for any debt incurred, there is payment which can reverse the debt). it's been one of those life themes and it can be seen everywhere in nature. the way that nature can repair itself, or even destroy itself in the interest of eventual or overall healing is one instance.

perhaps it has been an interest because i've often found myself in debt. i gave up on the spiritual redeemer awhile ago after realizing that redemption only makes sense if for each different sin, there is a different redemptive act to be applied (and that this was not what most gods were claiming to be able to accomplish).

forgive me. i was steeped in religion against my will for many years, yet i simply cannot understand why people are so happy about a christian redeemer who covers ALL sin and doesn't discriminate. How in god's name does this do any good?

XXXXXXXXXXXX

God should be a row of mini gods like the Xs above, only strung on towards infinity.

the axis runs horizontally through the centers of the Xs. each 1/2 X is god, or in other words, CAUSE.

each corresponding 1/2 X is EFFECT.

In this particular case, we could see it as debt (cause)/redemption (effect).

this could be an instance of synesthetic weirdness, but i thought perhaps the idea of redemption overall could be attributed to one quadra or another.

(i am thinking gamma with it's obvious relation to economy).

I think this speaks to the gamma's relationship with betas since i think betas probably represent redemption while deltas represent victimization that can lead to redemption. I think for our interactions with gammas we are prodded to become more organized while gammas learn, vaguely, the application of ethics.

lefty
enfj 4w5

[force my hand]

If you have never agreed to it, then you are not responsible for it, and are not held accountable.

Sweet!

Pascal -> up yours, buddy...

[lefty]

I think this speaks to the gamma's relationship with betas since i think betas probably represent redemption while deltas represent victimization that can lead to redemption. I think for our interactions with gammas we are prodded to become more organized while gammas learn, vaguely, the application of ethics.

lefty
enfj 4w5

Dare I ask -- what kind of basis do you have for this statement?

oh i dunno...encounters with life, perhaps? why dont you fill me in on how im wrong. well get the redemption swiftly.

lefty
enfj
4w5

[reyn_til_runa]

the idea/application of redemption, in it's various definitions, has always interested me. i suppose it fairly closely relates to justice (in that for any debt incurred, there is payment which can reverse the debt). it's been one of those life themes and it can be seen everywhere in nature. the way that nature can repair itself, or even destroy itself in the interest of eventual or overall healing is one instance.

perhaps it has been an interest because i've often found myself in debt. i gave up on the spiritual redeemer awhile ago after realizing that redemption only makes sense if for each different sin, there is a different redemptive act to be applied (and that this was not what most gods were claiming to be able to accomplish).

forgive me. i was steeped in religion against my will for many years, yet i simply cannot understand why people are so happy about a christian redeemer who covers ALL sin and doesn't discriminate. How in god's name does this do any good?

XXXXXXXXXXXX

God should be a row of mini gods like the Xs above, only strung on towards infinity.

the axis runs horizontally through the centers of the Xs. each 1/2 X is god, or in other words, CAUSE.

each corresponding 1/2 X is EFFECT.

In this particular case, we could see it as debt (cause)/redemption (effect).

this could be an instance of synesthetic weirdness, but i thought perhaps the idea of redemption overall could be attributed to one quadra or another.

(i am thinking gamma with it's obvious relation to economy).

I think this speaks to the gamma's relationship with betas since i think betas probably represent redemption while deltas represent victimization that can lead to redemption. I think for our interactions with gammas we are prodded to become more organized while gammas learn, vaguely, the application of ethics.

lefty
enfj 4w5

interesting you draw ethical meaning from this post. is there any way of preventing a reaction to action? it seems not, so i am not talking about an ethical dilemma. i am essentially talking about science --observation-- not religion. in fact, this could be called universal justice rather than redemption.

i am imagining a world where complicated human actions possess clear natural counterparts. sort of a binary model of the universe, only shrunk down (maintaining proportion) to the scale of everyday life, where something breaks and we must figure out how to fix it, something goes in the wrong direction and we must steer it around, somebody dies and we look for replacement, somebody lies and we seek the truth. i see the connection you make to ethical decision making, but i don't think this stuff happens on a conscious level most of the time.

the problem of redemption seems to be a problem of finding exact counterparts which are, for the most part, outside the scope of human consciousness.

[Gilly]

universal justice

Got a treatise handy?