And I’m over here thinking Christ can redeem all things. So some cultures and thus some men, some lands, some thoughts are not redeemable? And who gets to decide who meets the standard of redeemable?
What does it mean to "redeem" here, in the context of religions? Say to Aztecs "it's bad that you have human sacrifices, but it's your culture, keep doing it"? Or is it, telling Indians "suttee is bad, stop it"? In the former case, nothing is changed, but is it redeeming? In the second, the culture is improved, but it's not the same culture?
I think the article makes the point that there are things which are bad, or rather, BAD with capital letters, and those things need to be stopped. And this is not subjective, but objective.
I think redeemed in the sense that we are all sinners in need of redemption from Christ’a atoning sacrifice. That means putting down the sinner in us and finding new wine skins. Clearly, Jesus said let the little children come to me, not sacrifice them to pagan gods.
We must be reading two different articles. Regardless, treat my questions with the same assumptions of positive intent you gave this article and then you will have your answers.
I might be misunderstanding, as I'm not a native speaker and I'm not sure I understand well the "to redeem" verb. If it's in the sense of "they should get forgiveness, as long as they renounce their evil ways", then I would agree that a thief can be redeemed, _maybe_ a killer (maybe), but a culture that embraced human sacrifice? There, I admit I'm not a good Christian, as I don't think such a culture can be redeemed. And individual, maybe, a culture, not.
The verb redeem has multiple uses. One sense is a releasing from bondage and restoration of wholeness such as the role of God in the Exodus. So a culture, person, and even ideas can be released from the bondage of evil, corruption, and lies to be restored to wholeness, beauty, and truth. As CS Lewis said, "'Goodness is, so to speak, itself: badness is only spoiled goodness,' meaning that goodness is inherently good and exists on its own, while evil is merely a corruption of that inherent goodness; essentially, you can be good for the sake of goodness itself, but evil always requires something good to pervert." God has the ability to remove the evil and perversion from a person, culture or idea and allow any goodness that was/is there to resurrect, thrive, teach, and proliferate. Persons are image-bearers of God and even though that image may be effaced, it is not erased. Therefore, unless God is not that powerful, He should be able to redeem killers, a culture that embraced human sacrifice, and 'Christians' who use their theology to oppress rather than set free.
God is able to do that. Whether God does that, it's another question. Did God actually redeem any evil society except by sword and fire? After a brief thinking, I don't remember any such example, or at least not major ones.
So, while God apparently doesn't want to intervene at this level in human affairs, I believe it's up to good men to purge evil from the world. You might disagree, of course.
Regardless, you seem hellbent on continuing in your way of thinking and a theology that seats you and those like you as judge and executioner (puns intended). No need for me to engage any further.
The audacity for someone to say "Well, although I know God can, I don't think God has so I'll take matters into my own hands (i.e. 'purge evil' aka kill image-bearers I don't like) because God's either not doing a good job, not moving fast enough, or not doing it the way I like it." A theology that allows you do that is mind-blowing.
I also had to do heavy research into the history of the Aztecs to write a high school history curriculum unit on them. I could not include a lot of what I learned: the Aztec culture and religion was bloodthirsty and cruel in a way that many Westerners, in our domesticated, nanny state, pathologically safety-conscious existence, cannot fully process as real.
I have zero qualms about the destruction of Aztec culture and religion as they stood at the time of Cortez.
History is hard to see properly, and often distorted, and there are perpetual layers of lies to cut through. But as I understand it, the Aztec Empire was a perpetual horror show, and overall I'd call it a huge net positive that it was brought to ruin.
And I’m over here thinking Christ can redeem all things. So some cultures and thus some men, some lands, some thoughts are not redeemable? And who gets to decide who meets the standard of redeemable?
What does it mean to "redeem" here, in the context of religions? Say to Aztecs "it's bad that you have human sacrifices, but it's your culture, keep doing it"? Or is it, telling Indians "suttee is bad, stop it"? In the former case, nothing is changed, but is it redeeming? In the second, the culture is improved, but it's not the same culture?
I think the article makes the point that there are things which are bad, or rather, BAD with capital letters, and those things need to be stopped. And this is not subjective, but objective.
> Say to Aztecs "it's bad that you have human sacrifices, but it's your culture, keep doing it"?
"Christ performed the ultimate sacrifice, you can stop sacrificing each other.."
I think redeemed in the sense that we are all sinners in need of redemption from Christ’a atoning sacrifice. That means putting down the sinner in us and finding new wine skins. Clearly, Jesus said let the little children come to me, not sacrifice them to pagan gods.
We must be reading two different articles. Regardless, treat my questions with the same assumptions of positive intent you gave this article and then you will have your answers.
I might be misunderstanding, as I'm not a native speaker and I'm not sure I understand well the "to redeem" verb. If it's in the sense of "they should get forgiveness, as long as they renounce their evil ways", then I would agree that a thief can be redeemed, _maybe_ a killer (maybe), but a culture that embraced human sacrifice? There, I admit I'm not a good Christian, as I don't think such a culture can be redeemed. And individual, maybe, a culture, not.
The verb redeem has multiple uses. One sense is a releasing from bondage and restoration of wholeness such as the role of God in the Exodus. So a culture, person, and even ideas can be released from the bondage of evil, corruption, and lies to be restored to wholeness, beauty, and truth. As CS Lewis said, "'Goodness is, so to speak, itself: badness is only spoiled goodness,' meaning that goodness is inherently good and exists on its own, while evil is merely a corruption of that inherent goodness; essentially, you can be good for the sake of goodness itself, but evil always requires something good to pervert." God has the ability to remove the evil and perversion from a person, culture or idea and allow any goodness that was/is there to resurrect, thrive, teach, and proliferate. Persons are image-bearers of God and even though that image may be effaced, it is not erased. Therefore, unless God is not that powerful, He should be able to redeem killers, a culture that embraced human sacrifice, and 'Christians' who use their theology to oppress rather than set free.
God is able to do that. Whether God does that, it's another question. Did God actually redeem any evil society except by sword and fire? After a brief thinking, I don't remember any such example, or at least not major ones.
So, while God apparently doesn't want to intervene at this level in human affairs, I believe it's up to good men to purge evil from the world. You might disagree, of course.
Umm how about Jesus and the crucifixion?
Regardless, you seem hellbent on continuing in your way of thinking and a theology that seats you and those like you as judge and executioner (puns intended). No need for me to engage any further.
The audacity for someone to say "Well, although I know God can, I don't think God has so I'll take matters into my own hands (i.e. 'purge evil' aka kill image-bearers I don't like) because God's either not doing a good job, not moving fast enough, or not doing it the way I like it." A theology that allows you do that is mind-blowing.
No one has said or advocated for, "so I'll take matters into my own hands."
You've fundamentally misunderstood the point of the post, which is not the first time.
You are correct that there is no need to engage any further because it's like you're part of an entirely different conversation.
Japan perhaps ?
I have Aztec ancestors in one line of my family.
I also had to do heavy research into the history of the Aztecs to write a high school history curriculum unit on them. I could not include a lot of what I learned: the Aztec culture and religion was bloodthirsty and cruel in a way that many Westerners, in our domesticated, nanny state, pathologically safety-conscious existence, cannot fully process as real.
I have zero qualms about the destruction of Aztec culture and religion as they stood at the time of Cortez.
History is hard to see properly, and often distorted, and there are perpetual layers of lies to cut through. But as I understand it, the Aztec Empire was a perpetual horror show, and overall I'd call it a huge net positive that it was brought to ruin.
Like the west now