Desert

No, no, no I don't mean that kind of dessert.

Nope that's not the desert I'm referring to easier.

I'm bringing up desert here in it's philosophical context, i.e. the condition of deserving something, of meriting praise or blame based off an action performed or a property possessed. Specifically I want to discuss desert as it pertains to Christianity and religion as a whole.

Among my biggest ethical problems with Christianity (although let it be noted that this issue has it's roots squarely in Judaism) is that it severely misallocates both redemption and punishment to people who do not deserve it. My understanding of desert is that praise or blame can only be rightly administered to an individual if they are responsible for a certain praiseworthy or blameworthy action.

To put it a different way; agent X deserves Y if it is responsible for Z

Or for a real example; Jones deserves the five dollars that I agreed to pay him if he mows my lawn.

Now I hope that everyone agrees that Jones no longer deserves the five dollars if he is not responsible for mowing my lawns. Having your lawns mowed is a praiseworthy deed but the praise must go to the person responsible for it and to nobody else.

Given such a common sense understanding of desert I'm at a loss to account for all of the ridiculous violations of it in the Bible. Here are some examples.

1. In Genesis Adam and Eve sin by eating the forbidden fruit. God not only punishes them but the rest of humanity by bringing death into the world. The rest of humanity were not responsible for eating the fruit but they were apparently deserving of the punishment.

2. In Leviticus book four the practise of scapegoating is explained. Basically if you find that you have committed a sin you are to slaughter a bullock or a goat or a lamb as an offering to God and since something else has been punished on your behalf you are forgiven.

3. In 1 Kings 21 there's a king called Ahab who's quite keen on having a man's vineyard. He can't buy it off him so his wife has the owner stoned to death so that the king will be happy. In any case God takes exception to this business so he has his prophet Elijah promise that Ahab's sons will be punished. Before they even exist these sons are laden with undeserved punishment for a sin that they were not responsible for.

4. There are many such examples of people in the Old Testament being punished like the sons of Ahab. This next one is from the New Testament though and it's a biggie. Jesus gets crucified on a cross and the punishment that he endures absolves the faithful of their sins. I still can't see how Christians can swallow this one without some serious cognitive dissonance. Jesus is not responsible for the sins that he takes the punishment for and the faithful recieve redemption for an action that they are not responsible for. There's no sense in it.

Must Christianity forgo responsibility on an individual level in this way? How do the Christians here come to grips with this system of desert? Are there any other religons that have similar violations of desert?

In closing there is one particular passage from Deuteronomy that I absolutely must share, for it is of the utmost relevance to this topic. It's confusing to say the least given what I've just detailed.

Deuteronomy 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

Can I chip in with another example, that's been used in a Southpark tv ep. - the story of Job.

The Devil goes up to God and challenges God's authority. God shows off his authority to the Devil (is God feeling threatened?)by repeatedly smiting Job with destruction, death and disease. It's ok about all Job's dead family though. His wife had more children and he re-gained his business in his latter years. "He died being old and full of days". The end.

I'm imagining from the bits the bible leaves out that Job had to spend years in his later life reconstructing his business and raising another family to work for him at the same time - from scratch - and after recovering from leprosy. So the extra hardship placed upon this character well after the story ends off-sets any justice in his poor wife having to pop out 10 more kids and his ultimate farming success (which would be expected anyway, given his previous Job experience).

Can I chip in with another example, that's been used in a Southpark tv ep. - the story of Job.

The Devil goes up to God and challenges God's authority. God shows off his authority to the Devil (is God feeling threatened?)by repeatedly smiting Job with destruction, death and disease. It's ok about all Job's dead family though. His wife had more children and he re-gained his business in his latter years. "He died being old and full of days". The end.

I'm imagining from the bits the bible leaves out that Job had to spend years in his later life reconstructing his business and raising another family to work for him at the same time - from scratch - and after recovering from leprosy. So the extra hardship placed upon this character well after the story ends off-sets any justice in his poor wife having to pop out 10 more kids and his ultimate farming success (which would be expected anyway, given his previous Job experience).

RationalAtheist

Well, an understanding of the understanding at the time of Sheol helps to shed some light on the story of Job and how it seems to us rather odd for Job to be perfectly OK with the death of all his kids because he gets new ones.  Basically, at the time that book was written, it was believed that one's experience in Sheol actually does not directly have anything to do with what kind of person one was when alive, but rather it depends on how many people you leave behind when you die who remember you, mourn for you, and talk about you.  If many people do so, then you are kept close to the surface, where things are peaceful and pleasant.  If nobody does so, then you slip away into the depths, never to return to the light.

So, basically, when all of Job's family dies, that more or less implies that he's screwed and is not going to have a very pleasant afterlife.  Then when his fortune returns and he has another family, and lives long (implying that he would have innumerable acquaintances by the time he dies), this returns the assurance that his afterlife will be pleasant.  Even though stuff happens to other people, it's basically all screwing Job in the end.

At any rate, the story is more or less (as I see it) an examination of the topic of divine favor and whether living a good life is a sign that one has divine favor and whether living a cursed life is a sign of divine punishment.  Job's friends thought that the answer to these questions is yes, while the story is clearly arguing the opposite: that the answer is no.

And regarding the broader question of one's deserts, I must admit that I have always been deeply troubled by the concept of someone "deserving" something, a concern that more or less stems from my ultimate rejection of the existence of free will.  Who I am as a person ultimately comes from what shaped me as I was growing up - my family, my place of residence, my schools, my friends, my experiences, my failures, my successes.  If any one of those had been different, then it seems perfectly reasonable to me to suggest that I might have been very different as well.

In what sense, then, do I "deserve" something good for having done something good?  And in what sense does someone else, whose parameters as above were entirely different, "deserve" something bad for having done something bad?  I feel that the concept of someone receiving something because that's what they "deserve" is a fundamentally indefensible position, which is why I much prefer systems that do not include any such notion at all.

Jesus's sacrifice makes no sense to me because he doesn't deserve to be crucified. I, too, have a problem punishing someone else instead of the responsible party.Genetic_Code

It makes no sense for Jesus to have been our scapegoat for our sin but you know what, I rejoice in that I am freely given grace though I do not deserve it.  And yes, I too have issues with this but it is not God's fault but our own.  If we were actually obedient to God in the first place then a sacrifice for our sin would never have been needed.

As far as why there would need to be a payment for sin in the firstplace, even in the form of a scapegoat, it is rooted in the holiness of God.  Because God is holy, he is also just.  In his justice he must destroy sin in order to live up to his character.  However, also in his holiness he is also mercifu.  In his mercy he gives us a way out via the scapegoat of Jesus Christ.

The Devil goes up to God and challenges God's authority. God shows off his authority to the Devil (is God feeling threatened?)by repeatedly smiting Job with destruction, death and disease.RationalAtheist

I don't remember that part of the story.  Satan certainly does question Job's faithfulness and accuses him of things he hasn't even done but never do I see Satan questioning God's authority.  Satan is aware of who God is and I'm rather certain he is aware that he'd never win a battle against God Almighty.  

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

The Devil goes up to God and challenges God's authority. God shows off his authority to the Devil (is God feeling threatened?)by repeatedly smiting Job with destruction, death and disease.mindstorm

I don't remember that part of the story. Satan certainly does question Job's faithfulness and accuses him of things he hasn't even done but never do I see Satan questioning God's authority. Satan is aware of who God is and I'm rather certain he is aware that he'd never win a battle against God Almighty.

No? Its at the beginning:

1There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

2And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters.

3His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east.

4And his sons went and feasted in their houses, every one his day; and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them.

5And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.

6Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

7And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

8And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

9Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?

10Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.

11But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.

...etc.

I guess it must be either selective memory, or selective interpretation.