Redemption

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


Yes.

We are all entitled to our beliefs, no matter how narrow and petty those "beliefs" might make us.

But if you have ever studied comparative religions, you might not be quite so quick to assume that all religions are fraudulent at their core.*

They might be wrong, but that's another matter entirely.

* For example,
Generally Buddhism does not believe in a personal God or a divine being, it does not have worship, praying to, or praising of a divine being (although some sects do.) It offers no form of redemption, forgiveness, no heavenly hope, or a final judgment to those practicing its system. Buddhism is a moral philosophy, an ethical way to live for the here and now of this world to gain the ultimate state. It has more in common with humanism and atheism than its original religion Hinduism it separated from. But Buddhism is not atheism just because they don’t believe in a personal God. It is more like pantheism, there is a impersonal force the void which is the ultimate.
http://www.letusreason.org/Buddh1.htm
 
Last edited:
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?

Perhaps not all religions, but all that I am fairly familiar with.
Religion is a business, spirituallity is not.
 
Are you really so narrow and petty as to believe that all religions practice such deliberate deception?


Yes.

We are all entitled to our beliefs, no matter how narrow and petty those "beliefs" might make us.

But if you have ever studied comparative religions, you might not be quite so quick to assume that all religions are fraudulent at their core.

They might be wrong, but that's another matter entirely.

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

We are all narrow and petty. We are americans. We are inherently selfish. We have our own selfishly garded perceptions. My only presumption is that what I have witnessed in almost 60 years is that little changes. I have faith that you will come to see I am not in error.

The only hope I see for redemtion is acceptance of truth of which religion is the enemy. As long as you cling to myth as the foundation of your judgement I will never defer to your opinion.
 
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?

Perhaps not all religions, but all that I am fairly familiar with.
Religion is a business, spirituallity is not.

Then you are merely sharing your bountiful ignorance, it appears.

Thanks, but

no.
 
explain ....

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

Im not sure what you are asking Gunny so I'll just explain the word redemption.

improving of something: the act of saving something or somebody from a declined, dilapidated, or corrupted state and restoring it, him, or her to a better condition
atonement for human sin for example the deliverance from the sins of humanity by the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross
buying back of something: Like when you redeem your winning scratch ticket
ending of financial obligation: like the repayment of a loan or promissory note

IS that what you were looking for?
 
Huggy, you happen to be incorrect in your presumption, but that will be for you to find out for yourself.

We are all narrow and petty. We are americans. We are inherently selfish. We have our own selfishly garded perceptions. My only presumption is that what I have witnessed in almost 60 years is that little changes. I have faith that you will come to see I am not in error.

The only hope I see for redemtion is acceptance of truth of which religion is the enemy. As long as you cling to myth as the foundation of your judgement I will never defer to your opinion.

And Huggy demonstrates his faith in unreligion. OK, I got that.
 
Are you asking about

FORGIVENESS

or

REDEMPTION

?

To me they are two different animals, but closely tied together.

For instance, Elin Woods right now could be willing to extend FORGIVENESS to her wayward husband Tiger, but yet still be unwilling to REDEEM him and allow him back into her heart and their marriage bed.

She could move on, take half of his billion, his two children and return to her native country, while maintaining a cordial co-parenting relationship with him. She could wish him all the best in the world and and move on with her life. Tiger would still not be redeemed as long as he was a catting around unfaithful lout.

Does this make sense?
 
Bottom line, everything is just shit that happens, if you can't reconcile yourself and move on with life, nobody can do it for you.
 
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.

The Gospel according to Foxfyre:

In my theology, your definition here would be repentence rather than redemption. To repent is to change your mind, to think/understand differently, to reject sin, to turn from immorality.

Redemption in the purest theological sense is 'liberation' or 'rescue' or 'ransom' and it is not something you do but something that is done for you. One is given opportunity to be free from the bonds that hold them (Moses) or somebody else pays the price so that we are not required to suffer the prescribed consequences for our choices and actions (the Messiah).

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

Forgiveness is intentionally not holding one liable or accountable for an action. We cannot forgive ourselves for the wrongs that we do to others. That is not our prerogative - it is only theirs. We can regret, we can repent, we can beg forgiveness and all that we should do. But so far as the act of forgiving goes, the ball is in their court and we have control only over that for which we forgive others, or ourselves for that matter.

Forgiveness is not the same thing as forgetting. Also there can be redemption when we can understand that feeling regret or remorse for what we have to do seals us as people of conscience, but is not automatically something that needs forgiveness.

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.

Here we agree. We can 100% agree on the sanctity and value of human life, but taking the life of another can be necessary to preserve our own life or others. The death penalty as a prescribed consequence for violating certain laws is not immoral, but it should never be considered lightly or without consequence or without regret for the waste. We can believe with all our heart that the unborn is a human life to be cherished and protected, but nevertheless an abortion can be justified when the life of the mother is at risk or the unborn will be unable to have any quality of life. We can know and loathe the suffering and hardship in store for an errant employee or the drunk driver and his family, but firing a bad employee or jailing the drunk is sometimes the better of two very unpleasant choices. It's okay to accept that no matter how bad we feel about it, it is sometimes necessary to make such choices.
 
Last edited:
You guys want to see what redemption looks like? Here is a beautiful illustration:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xwCG0Ey2Mg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xwCG0Ey2Mg[/ame]
 
Redemption,

It is what you make it to be.

You don't have to be a Christian to redeem yourself.

But Christians can by asking for forgiveness, but if they don't walk the walk, it really doesn't mean much, does it?

I am a Christian. I walk what I talk. That is irrelevant. I didn't ask for a religion, nor someone's political stance on religion.

Religious or not, can redemption be attained, and who redeems?

I think redemption for yourself is any time you say "I'm sorry" and truly mean it. Whether or not the recipient of the apology "redeems" you is irrelevant. Your own conscience is redeemed. Then just walk away.
 
One can be redeemed if they want to be.

Explain.

If one wants to redeem themselves, they have to make an attempt to right their wrongs and admit their faults.

Some people are unwilling or unable to admit that they have flaws, and thus, they cannot be redeemed.

In order to admit to flaws, one first has to acknowledge inwardly that s/he has them.
 
explain ....

There is no possibility of Redemption. What is done cannot be undone. And it is just for that reason, that we should not be afraid! The absence of redemption, is the proof of our freedom. For, if our past could be wiped out, our self-responsibility would be likewise wiped out; and free choice means nothing, indeed there is no "self," if you do not permanently bear the consequences of your choices. There never was nor ever can be "Redemption," Thank God!

Ctrl-Z is my redemption!

Hmmm, as many computer models as I've worked on, they all had an "escape" key and it never worked. Ever. Should I fear Ctrl-Z? Poof?
 
Religious or not, can redemption be attained, and who redeems?


I am not a Christian (not that there is anything wrong with that *royalty check to Seinfeld*) but my personal opinion is this, you know when you have violated your own sense of personal worth, your reason for being, and then you yell out to God or the Universe, give me some grace, save me from myself.

That is either when grace comes or does not.

I do not know if it is from God or self, but redemption is what it is, take it any way you can get it.

It's called a primal scream. And it IS very cleansing. (But I usually choose a spot far away from the public.)
 
Gunny asked me to assume that a redeemer exists and that a promise of redemption exists, but what if a person believes he cannot be redeemed. This belief is what I believe to be the "sin" (blockage of man from self attainment or redemption, if you will) that plagues mankind; it is self despair, which all have felt at one time and some are feeling right now. Whether a murderer or a tax cheat or a jay walker or a heavy drinker, we all do things that make us despair to one extent or another. When the individual gives up on himself, s/he is a goner if s/he cannot regain that feeling of hope for redemption.

:clap2: Yup, that's it. AND, if the person who is asked to forgive does so with reluctance, skepticism, or conditions, it is that person who needs to work on his or her own redemption. Being able to forgive is paramount to any relationship.
 
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?

I often think guilt is a self indulgent emotion; one decides to do something and then flees from the consequence in a personal sense of guilt.

Example, you have sex with another woman.

Should you tell your wife?

That will hurt her, but it will give you a personal sense of virtue, you can appease your guilt.

So you hurt her to make you feel virtuous.
I have heard the same thing before, you are only making yourself feel better by telling your wife. I don't know I agree with it but it has some truth.

Not to derail the subject, but there is definitely truth to the old adage "What you don't know can't hurt you." A one night stand is one thing (drop it), but an affair is something else (and it never stays hidden).
 
In my view, redemption is subjective. One could seek redemption from society, their God or Gods, their peers, or just about anythng at all. For me redemption of self is most important. Self forgiveness is necessary before any other entity can grant redemption. Redemption is in the eye of the Redeemer.
 
Gunny, murder or wrongful death is redeemable. If we believe in a life eternal, then the act, although grevious, is not damnable if truly repented. If you think you killed wrongly, then I feel strongly for your inner illness. But I do believe such is redeemable.

I'm not talking murder. There is a distinction between murder and killing. I could never commit murder. I don't even know about "wrongful death".

I'm talking about taking another human being's life, regardless the circumstances.

It helps if you strongly believe in fate. Was it that person's time to die anyway? There are a godzillion examples of how fate MUST play a part in the scheme of things. Why did so-and-so suddenly decide to take the scenic route to work instead of the freeway one fine day and wind up dead because he hit a moose? Was it his scheduled moment to die and not someone else who could have also died had he taken the busy freeway?
 
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.

The Bible is replete with contradictions of evil and goodness. We can find self-justification many times over by carefully choosing those passages we like best and applying them to our own lives. Or not.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top