Redemption

[Liability]

Religous redemption is a necessity in a religion. Otherwise once you sinned you might as well drop the religion becuase you are going now where with them.

No redemption = no members or contributors.

Far too simplistic. It is not true.

 

[uscitizen]

Great thread, gunny. I am very curious what the wing nut righties believe redemption to be.

I am curious to see what everyone believes it to be. BTW .. I was raised a Southern Baptist in a staunchly Democratic family and most of the congregation was the same. What you need to work on is reconciliation. Your belief that Christianity is exclusively rightwing versus reality.

Oh my gosh........me too. That is why I laugh at all the "real (talk radio) conservatives" who equate being a Democrat with killing babies, having gay sex and hating God. My dad was a WWII Marine vet, Southern Baptist Deacon and lifelong Democrat and they didn't build them any finer than him.

Yep. However many churches are running left wingers off with their preaching politics from the pulpit. LIberals are equated with satan in many sermons.
That is just all so wrong in a supposed Christain? church.

 

[xotoxi]

Hmmm ... and if one is forced by circumstance to do what they feel is not right -- the action itself -- and even understands they did what they had to do, but feels guilty nonetheless,

you say there is no redemption?

You have a point...and I am assuming that they have not and cannot forgive themselves for what they have done.

I suppose this would be an example of redeeming one's self while not forgiving oneself for the action.

Or...maybe they are not truly redeemed, but they are reformed.

So what you are saying is:

Redemption is the changing of actual behavior/thought. Or, not doing it again if you feel it's wrong.

Forgiveness applies to past behavior/thought that one feels is wrong.

The paradox is that one can be raised with "thou shalt not kill" or whatever ethical equivalent makes one believe taking a human life to be wrong vs self-preservation/duty/doing what one has to do.

I guess that all depends on how you define "thou shalt not kill"...

Do you define it as "thou shalt not kill under any circumstances ever"?

Or do you define it as "thou shalt not murder"?

I would have to assume that "thou shalt not kill" would NOT apply to killing a wild animal that is attacking you, like a bear.

Therefore, "thou shalt not kill" should also NOT apply if said wild animal was a human.

 

[California Girl]

Hmmm ... and if one is forced by circumstance to do what they feel is not right -- the action itself -- and even understands they did what they had to do, but feels guilty nonetheless,

you say there is no redemption?

You have a point...and I am assuming that they have not and cannot forgive themselves for what they have done.

I suppose this would be an example of redeeming one's self while not forgiving oneself for the action.

Or...maybe they are not truly redeemed, but they are reformed.

So what you are saying is:

Redemption is the changing of actual behavior/thought. Or, not doing it again if you feel it's wrong.

Forgiveness applies to past behavior/thought that one feels is wrong.

The paradox is that one can be raised with "thou shalt not kill" or whatever ethical equivalent makes one believe taking a human life to be wrong vs self-preservation/duty/doing what one has to do.

In that case, I think 'redemption' is the wrong word. I think you're talking about forgiveness. Two different things.

Forgiving oneself for acting in opposition to one's belief is difficult. Someone I know felt inclined to make amends for what he felt he had done wrong and did this. He has, I think, found a way to live with his past. I think it must take a lot of courage to do.

 

[Liability]

You have a point...and I am assuming that they have not and cannot forgive themselves for what they have done.

I suppose this would be an example of redeeming one's self while not forgiving oneself for the action.

Or...maybe they are not truly redeemed, but they are reformed.

So what you are saying is:

Redemption is the changing of actual behavior/thought. Or, not doing it again if you feel it's wrong.

Forgiveness applies to past behavior/thought that one feels is wrong.

The paradox is that one can be raised with "thou shalt not kill" or whatever ethical equivalent makes one believe taking a human life to be wrong vs self-preservation/duty/doing what one has to do.

In that case, I think 'redemption' is the wrong word. I think you're talking about forgiveness. Two different things.

Forgiving oneself for acting in opposition to one's belief is difficult. Someone I know felt inclined to make amends for what he felt he had done wrong and did this. He has, I think, found a way to live with his past. I think it must take a lot of courage to do.

"I think 'redemption' is the wrong word."

I agree that the whole discussion might be problematical since the main term itself is not defined. It can and does mean different things. In fact, it means different things even under the same definition depending on WHO is doing the redeeming and for what and when.

 

[xsited1]

explain ....

oh, and flamers fuck off. I'll delete your posts. Fair warning.

Simply put, it's an element of salvation that means the deliverance from sin. Yes, you can be redeemed, but you're going to have to come to terms with the intense anger you have inside of you.

 

[uscitizen]

Religous redemption is a necessity in a religion. Otherwise once you sinned you might as well drop the religion becuase you are going now where with them.

No redemption = no members or contributors.

Far too simplistic. It is not true.

Once the bull is distilled out it is all simplistic. Complexity is added as a confusion factor.

 

[uscitizen]

So what you are saying is:

Redemption is the changing of actual behavior/thought. Or, not doing it again if you feel it's wrong.

Forgiveness applies to past behavior/thought that one feels is wrong.

The paradox is that one can be raised with "thou shalt not kill" or whatever ethical equivalent makes one believe taking a human life to be wrong vs self-preservation/duty/doing what one has to do.

In that case, I think 'redemption' is the wrong word. I think you're talking about forgiveness. Two different things.

Forgiving oneself for acting in opposition to one's belief is difficult. Someone I know felt inclined to make amends for what he felt he had done wrong and did this. He has, I think, found a way to live with his past. I think it must take a lot of courage to do.

"I think 'redemption' is the wrong word."

I agree that the whole discussion might be problematical since the main term itself is not defined. It can and does mean different things. In fact, it means different things even under the same definition depending on WHO is doing the redeeming and for what and when.

Yes, giving a coupon to a grocery store clerk is an act of redemption.

 

[Liability]

In that case, I think 'redemption' is the wrong word. I think you're talking about forgiveness. Two different things.

Forgiving oneself for acting in opposition to one's belief is difficult. Someone I know felt inclined to make amends for what he felt he had done wrong and did this. He has, I think, found a way to live with his past. I think it must take a lot of courage to do.

"I think 'redemption' is the wrong word."

I agree that the whole discussion might be problematical since the main term itself is not defined. It can and does mean different things. In fact, it means different things even under the same definition depending on WHO is doing the redeeming and for what and when.

Yes, giving a coupon to a grocery store clerk is an act of redemption.

Yeah, but not one of the definitions of "redeem" that touches on the focus of the forum.

I did provide, already, the dictionary definitions of "redeem" which ARE actually relevant in this context, however.

 

[HUGGY]

True friends redeem each other.

Sometimes perfect strangers can redeem if one is open to the redemtion.

A member of ones family can redeem.

Redemtion is a natural act of balancing past with present and future.

 

[Gunny]

You have a point...and I am assuming that they have not and cannot forgive themselves for what they have done.

I suppose this would be an example of redeeming one's self while not forgiving oneself for the action.

Or...maybe they are not truly redeemed, but they are reformed.

So what you are saying is:

Redemption is the changing of actual behavior/thought. Or, not doing it again if you feel it's wrong.

Forgiveness applies to past behavior/thought that one feels is wrong.

The paradox is that one can be raised with "thou shalt not kill" or whatever ethical equivalent makes one believe taking a human life to be wrong vs self-preservation/duty/doing what one has to do.

I guess that all depends on how you define "thou shalt not kill"...

Do you define it as "thou shalt not kill under any circumstances ever"?

Or do you define it as "thou shalt not murder"?

I would have to assume that "thou shalt not kill" would NOT apply to killing a wild animal that is attacking you, like a bear.

Therefore, "thou shalt not kill" should also NOT apply if said wild animal was a human.

A good question. I'd say both schools of thought exist. My belief has always been that "thou shalt not kill" applied to murder.

However, was not Moses denied entry to the Promised Land by God for having killed an Egyptian guard?

 

[uscitizen]

So what you are saying is:

Redemption is the changing of actual behavior/thought. Or, not doing it again if you feel it's wrong.

Forgiveness applies to past behavior/thought that one feels is wrong.

The paradox is that one can be raised with "thou shalt not kill" or whatever ethical equivalent makes one believe taking a human life to be wrong vs self-preservation/duty/doing what one has to do.

I guess that all depends on how you define "thou shalt not kill"...

Do you define it as "thou shalt not kill under any circumstances ever"?

Or do you define it as "thou shalt not murder"?

I would have to assume that "thou shalt not kill" would NOT apply to killing a wild animal that is attacking you, like a bear.

Therefore, "thou shalt not kill" should also NOT apply if said wild animal was a human.

A good question. I'd say both schools of thought exist. My belief has always been that "thou shalt not kill" applied to murder.

However, was not Moses denied entry to the Promised Land by God for having killed an Egyptian guard?

Yeah but then god commanded the israelites to kill all those who did not flee before them.
Kinda confusing.

 

[California Girl]

So what you are saying is:

Redemption is the changing of actual behavior/thought. Or, not doing it again if you feel it's wrong.

Forgiveness applies to past behavior/thought that one feels is wrong.

The paradox is that one can be raised with "thou shalt not kill" or whatever ethical equivalent makes one believe taking a human life to be wrong vs self-preservation/duty/doing what one has to do.

I guess that all depends on how you define "thou shalt not kill"...

Do you define it as "thou shalt not kill under any circumstances ever"?

Or do you define it as "thou shalt not murder"?

I would have to assume that "thou shalt not kill" would NOT apply to killing a wild animal that is attacking you, like a bear.

Therefore, "thou shalt not kill" should also NOT apply if said wild animal was a human.

A good question. I'd say both schools of thought exist. My belief has always been that "thou shalt not kill" applied to murder.

However, was not Moses denied entry to the Promised Land by God for having killed an Egyptian guard?

My definition has always (and I've based it on what I'm told by our parish priest) that it is more 'thou shalt not commit murder'. However, even if you go by 'thou shalt not kill' literally, and if you believe that it redemption comes from God, my understanding is that any 'sin' is forgiveable - if one is penitent for those sins. Only God can know whether we are truly sorry and only God can judge us. I cannot judge you and, more importantly, you cannot judge yourself.

 

[Gunny]

I guess that all depends on how you define "thou shalt not kill"...

Do you define it as "thou shalt not kill under any circumstances ever"?

Or do you define it as "thou shalt not murder"?

I would have to assume that "thou shalt not kill" would NOT apply to killing a wild animal that is attacking you, like a bear.

Therefore, "thou shalt not kill" should also NOT apply if said wild animal was a human.

A good question. I'd say both schools of thought exist. My belief has always been that "thou shalt not kill" applied to murder.

However, was not Moses denied entry to the Promised Land by God for having killed an Egyptian guard?

Yeah but then god commanded the israelites to kill all those who did not flee before them.
Kinda confusing.

I thought of that even as I was typing my response. Yes, it's confusing.

 

[random3434]

So is killing another person, be it in war or self defense, something a human can redeem himself for. Is that where we are?


I think most people on here have said yes, you can redeem yourself for those actions. Be it forgiving yourself, or asking God for forgiveness, or both.

 

[California Girl]

So is killing another person, be it in war or self defense, something a human can redeem himself for. Is that where we are?


I think most people on here have said yes, you can redeem yourself for those actions. Be it forgiving yourself, or asking God for forgiveness, or both.

God can forgive even Charles Manson - if Charles Manson truly repents of his sins. That is a scary thought! God is a lot nicer than I am!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, I believe a person can redeem (reconcile) himself with the taking of human life. That reconciliation is between the person and himself (and/or his/her higher power).

 

[Liability]

Religous redemption is a necessity in a religion. Otherwise once you sinned you might as well drop the religion becuase you are going now where with them.

No redemption = no members or contributors.

Far too simplistic. It is not true.

Once the bull is distilled out it is all simplistic. Complexity is added as a confusion factor.

Also untrue. You place far too much reliance on pablum and over-generalizations.

You pap philosophy is no substitute for actual thought.

That YOU derive only that kind of thing from "religion" is simply not the same thing as saying that what YOU derive is all there is.

Are you really so narrow and petty as to believe that all religions practice such deliberate deception?

 

[HUGGY]

Are you really so narrow and petty as to believe that all religions practice such deliberate deception?


Yes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Huggy, you happen to be incorrect in your presumption, but that will be for you to find out for yourself.