Vicarious Redemption

[Kyuuketsuki]

Again from the Hitchens vs Turek debate Hitchens said the following:

"I don't see what's moral about Christian preaching, for example, apart from the horrible idea of vicarious redemption; I'll say it again in case I missed you the first time what I mean by that ... I can pay your debt even if I don't know you. If I was a friend I could say, "You're in debt? I'll pay!" In extreme cases people have been known to say, "I'll serve your sentence in prison", I could do that for you. But what I cannot do is relieve you of your responsibility; I can't say, "Throw your sins on me and they'll melt away." Immoral! You're not allowed to be, you're not entitled to be relieved of your responsibilities. And vicarious redemption by human sacrifice is a very primitive and horrible scape-goating idea that belongs to a barbaric period of human history."
Christopher Hitchens

I think I got that pretty much word for word.

My question, given that this goes right to the heart of Christian philosophy, is ... is he right? Is it effectively immoral to remove from everyone (by human sacrifice, and I don't suppose it matters if that was voluntary or not) their responsibility for a supposed evil (granted only some kind of inherited evil) within them?

Thoughts?

Kyu

[rlrose328]

I don't know that I would call it "immoral" really... but I think it's silly and lazy and childish.  And it requires that the individual be grateful to said person who relieved them of their responsibility.  In this case, we must be grateful for all of eternity for something we can never verified ever happened!

If someone came to my door and told me he'd paid all of my parking tickets and now, I have to be his chauffer forever in order to show my gratitude, I'd laugh at him.  I'd also ask him to prove he'd paid the tickets off for me.

I never asked anyone to kill themselves or be killed for me to live forever worshipping them/their dad.  That's a debt I don't feel obligated to pay.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I don't know that I would call it "immoral" really

I think the "immorality" bit comes from the idea that, assuming the offence is actual (which it isn't) it removes all responsibility from the individual. I would agree with the immorality based on what I said to Titan earlier (that being based on the vicarious redemption idea):

* The lifelong murdering rapist who repents just before he dies and believes wholly in Jesus and everything he stands will go to Heaven and ...
* The altruistic atheist who spends his entire life right up until death helping others in whatever way he can goes to Hell

Myra Hyndley (one of Britain's most notorious child abusers/killers) is in Heaven now it seems ... she confessed and accepted Jesus just before she died.

Kyu

[Lila]

I wouldn't say immoral, but I would say that it abdicates responsibility, because as soon as you are "saved", then Jesus "washes your sins away". However, it just doesn't work like that. We all bear guilt from past transgressions, and we must accept the responsibility for what we have done and accept the consequences. Christians like saying that they are "born-again", but they are still a continuation of the person they were before.