Is the vicarious redemption of jesus MORAL?

[Dr.Physics]

(lets assume the the crucifixion happened as the christians say it does for this thread)

the crucifixion of jesus christ was brutal and bloody. if i were present i would feel the need to STOP the bloody human sacrifice. this act of vicarious redemption is equivalent to scapegoating. is this not immoral and barbaric?

"you can serve my sentence in jail, but you cant take away my responsibility... after looking at the offer (of jesus' sacrifice) and considering it, i would rather decline the offer of this lamb's blood, but thanks anyways...... - whats that? if i dont accept this offer you will KILL ME?! and send me to hell for eternity? is that a THREAT?" (Christopher Hitchens)

This Christian god IF he exists does NOT give me or you a choice, but rather is blackmailing us into following him. The christian idea of god is a "supernatural dictatorship in whose court you have no repeal, with a leader you can not overthrow, and whose supervision you could never escape." (hitch)

i either must worship this being which i think is IMMORAL for performing and/or participating in human sacrifices (among other atrocities) OR burn in hell for eternity.. this is not an offer of a moral creator.[/b]

[McCulloch]

EduChris, the Euthyphro dilemma does not really allow the answer of "both". If you answer yes that a loving act is intrinsically loving, then it is so without regard to God or any other such entity (that is essentially what intrinsically means). On the other hand, if such an act is loving merely because God says so, then it is made into a loving act by the arbitrary fiat of the god, not because of the intrinsic worth of the act itself.

How is it that an omnipotent, omniscient being could ever find himself in the position of not having his preference? Why would such a god put undesired options in front of moral agents whom he did not want to sin? Why would a god with any kind of foresight prefer to be tortured and killed, to redeem his creation to himself? Have Christian theology put humans in the position to thwart God's will?

My objection is not that I cannot suppose that a god might bring about good out of human sin, but that a wise god would not necessitate his own torment to extricate his children from his own wrath. Is it not a Christian teaching that sin is an inevitable part of the human condition, avoided only by Jesus himself? Humans, by their own will cannot behave correctly. Right? God apparently knew this from before the foundation of the world and elected that his own son¹ would have to suffer torment and injustice, in order that human sin could be forgiven.


________________________
¹ This context gets rather confusing. Did God decide that he would have to be a sacrifice to appease his own anger or did God, the Father decide that the other god, God the Son, would have to be a sacrifice to appease his anger.

[Furrowed Brow]

...Have I misrepresented the main facets of the Christian narrative?

Indeed you have.

Erm....I think you have just found a way to reword but basically repeat back 1, 2, 3 and 5 whilst avoiding the psychological reality of the narrative. Its like saying Gone With the Wind is a love story whilst ignoring the civil war and slavery or insisting the United States is built on freedom whilst ignoring the colour apartheid it allowed to be practiced until the 1960s, or many other examples. There is always the happy myth that ignores the reality for those who insist on it.

So yes I have not presented the happy myth and you have. I fail to see how failure to engage with or critique the presence of darker sinister psychology and moral structures inherent in the Christian narrative demonstrates they are not there.

The resurrection demonstrates that God has vindicated the life and teaching and example of Jesus,

Why does anyone need to vindicate themselves? Work through the psychology of that question.

..and that God's love can overcome even the suffering and death that are caused by human sin.

But in the whole narrative he is the author of this edifice. He contrives the problem and then punishes himself (briefly) which in a single blow draws attention to it but deflects away for his authorship of the structure of suffering, death and sin he has created.

As for 4 you may reject the notion but it has been part and parcel of the Christian narrative for centuries. Yes it is good to see it losing its hold. Eventually.

[EduChris]

EduChris, the Euthyphro dilemma does not really allow the answer of "both"...

So much the worse for the Euthyphro dilemma. A loving act is intrinsically loving, and God is that same love by which the act is determined to be in conformity to love. Whoever said that the absolute and non-contingent Ground and Source of all Reality and Love could be fully captured by finite human discourse?

If you answer yes that a loving act is intrinsically loving, then it is so without regard to God...

Not so if God is Love.

How is it that an omnipotent, omniscient being could ever find himself in the position of not having his preference?...

Kenosis.

...a wise god would not necessitate his own torment to extricate his children from his own wrath...

I believe I have already covered this in my previous post. God forgives us, to be sure, but he is committed to forgiving us only on the basis of solidarity with us in our human condition. This is why God became human in Jesus, despite the inevitable and foreseen result that a life lived in perfect conformity with God's will would necessarily entail the ultimate sacrifice at the hands of sinful human authority structures.

[McCulloch]

The Euthyphro dilemma cannot be escaped by redefining God as goodness or love. God is not love. Not even any Christian I know consistently believes that, as a definition. If God is love, then I am a theist. However, love it not the absolute and non-contingent ground and source of all reality. Reality could exist without love. In fact, since love is an other-regarding, other-serving, other-respecting orientation of the will, then love did not exist in the universe until there were sentient conciousnesses capable of having an other-regarding will.

What is it that God is said to forgive us for? Is not God himself the author of the human condition? The suffering of the human condition is there, according to the Christians, because it was decreed by the very same God who now wants to now show solidarity with us. Our protector is also our tormentor.

[EduChris]

...since love is an other-regarding, other-serving, other-respecting orientation of the will, then love did not exist in the universe until there were sentient conciousnesses capable of having an other-regarding will...

Welcome to the Christian doctrine of the Triune God. Eternal Relationality. Eternal Creativity. Eternal Love.

...What is it that God is said to forgive us for?...

God forgives our refusal to consistenly use our freedom to cooperate with God in the work of other-regarding, other-respecting, other-serving creativity.

[McCulloch]

In other words, God forgives us for for not giving up the freedom that He has given us to become obedient to his will. Right?

[EduChris]

In other words, God forgives us for for not giving up the freedom that He has given us...

We can use our freedom in any number of creative ways and still be consistent with love. God forgives us when we operate in ways contrary to love, and God helps us to learn that freedom is no less free--indeed it can only remain truly free--when it is oriented toward love.

[Zzyzx]

.

EduChris, the Euthyphro dilemma does not really allow the answer of "both"...

So much the worse for the Euthyphro dilemma. A loving act is intrinsically loving, and God is that same love by which the act is determined to be in conformity to love. Whoever said that the absolute and non-contingent Ground and Source of all Reality and Love could be fully captured by finite human discourse?

Whoever showed that "the absolute and non-contingent Ground of all reality and love" is anything other than imagination?

If you answer yes that a loving act is intrinsically loving, then it is so without regard to God...

Not so if God is Love.

IF is the operating word. All is conjecture. Is there any evidence (other than non-authoritative sources, conjecture or opinion) that "god is love"?

How is it that an omnipotent, omniscient being could ever find himself in the position of not having his preference?...

Kenosis.

What does "emptiness" have to do with anything?

...a wise god would not necessitate his own torment to extricate his children from his own wrath...

I believe I have already covered this in my previous post. God forgives us, to be sure,

Exactly how can one be "SURE" that "god forgives us"?

Yes, that is told in unverified tales by religion promoters and in sermons (and presumably in seminaries). However, that has not been shown to be anything other than conjecture, opinion, imagination, or wishful thinking.

but he is committed to forgiving us only on the basis of solidarity with us in our human condition.

How, exactly, does one know that "god" is "committed to forgiving us"? Is that from an unverified tale by religion promoters?

What does "solidarity with us in our human condition" mean in real world terms?

This is why God became human in Jesus, despite the inevitable and foreseen result that a life lived in perfect conformity with God's will would necessarily entail the ultimate sacrifice at the hands of sinful human authority structures.

"God became human" is not uncommon in mythology -- nor is a "god" being "sacrificed". Is there any evidence that any of this actually happened?

[EduChris]

...All is conjecture...

You can continue your incessant demands for unattainable objective "proof" all you want, but as I have repeatedly said, I am simply explaining the Christian worldview. I am not attempting to "prove" it objectively.

And of course I and others have argued elsewhere that all worldviews are ultimately "unprovable." The real question is not whether we can prove the unprovable, but whether our worldviews can hold up to the three criteria of 1) internal coherence, 2) overall consistency with other scholarly disciplines, and 3) explanatory scope.

[theopoesis]

The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, has presented a problem for theists ever since Plato's original discussion, and it continues to be an object of theological and philosophical discussion today. Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?

You see, if what is good is intrinsically good, then there is a standard of good independent of God and it would be to that standard of goodness that we would assess the moral value of the redemption by vicarious suffering and the substitutionary atonement Christian doctrines.

However, if without God's commands, nothing would be right or wrong, then moral reasoning is reduced to mere hermeneutics. God's intentions are be completely arbitrary. So the Christian argument in support of the vicarious redemption becomes a futile exercise in begging the question. The same book which declares what is God's will, the arbitrary moral laws laid down the by all-powerful, also declares that the otherwise nonsensical idea of vicarious redemption is good. QED.

McCulloch:

Excellent contribution to the discussion. Here are my thoughts on the matter:

The Euthyphro dilemma is a problem for Christians because if what is good is God's will, then goodness is somewhat arbitrary. Moreover, one cannot judge the deity's actions as good or bad because what God says is good. Therefore saying "God's vicarious redemption through Christ is good" is pretty much meaningless. All you are saying is essentially "God's vicarious redemption through Christ is done by God." Goodness becomes an arbitrary assertion of will.

On the other hand, if goodness exists independently of God, then what need is there for God in terms of defining goodness? There are points at which there this understanding of goodness seems to contradict the Biblical narrative. Also, there is the problem of actually defining this independent good.

Do I understand the basic issues correctly?

A Christian solution to the dilemma common before William of Okham and others redefined divine sovereignty was to root goodness in God, but not in God's will. Goodness was rooted in God's nature/being. In some ways this escapes the Euthyphro dilemma. On the one hand, goodness is not an arbitrary exertion of will. Something is not simply good because God says it is so. It is good because it conforms to the nature of God. Second, "good" is linked with "being." God is perfectly good because God perfectly exists. Evil is non-being or non-existence. Given this definition, the vicarious redemption would be good if it acted according to the nature of God, and if the action led to more perfect being. Since Christians claim that this was according to God's loving, gracious, merciful nature, the cross might be considered good (and not just because God says so). From another perspective (and according to Christians), because the cross led to the redemption of humans from sin and evil so that they might have eternal life, the cross led humans away from non-being and evil toward being and goodness and thus is a good action.

Euthyphro's other option is also escaped in this way. Good is not independent of God, just of God's will. God is not irrelevant to ethics and morals, and we do not have the difficult task of discovering or defending an independent universal objective ethic. We also escape some of the problems related to Scriptural exegesis, and some of the philosophical problems of defining God's divinity if something exists independent of God.

I think this solution escapes the largest problems presented by Euthyphro, if not all problems completely. The single source of scripture is still there.