The redemption is obviously not of this life and this world. To believe in it requires faith.
Ms. Rand obviously rejected the whole notion, which is her privilege. A great many people choose to believe that Christ has redeemed the world, in an ultimate sense, from sin and death. At present only in the afterlife, but to be brought to the earth in a literal form in the future.
From a purely secular perspective, even a committed atheist should be able to recognize that the ideas of human equality and human rights grew directly out of the soil of Judeo-Christian morality and theology. In this theology, we are all, in an ultimate sense, equal because we are all equally children of God. As the D. of Independence says, we have inalienable rights granted by the Creator.
It is probably significant that no other society in all of human history came up with anything remotely similar to the idea of human equality and human rights. Regardless of western civilization’s highly imperfect record in implementing these ideas, the invention and spread of them should stand to its credit, and to that of Christianity, the parent of this civilization.
I absolutely disagree with that.
On an individual level, Christianity has turned a lot of people's lives around. It doesn't make them perfect ... but it definitely puts them in a better place than they were. The story of Western Civilization is, in large part, a story of redemption -- on-going, gradual, incomplete -- but redemption nevertheless.
It is quite incorrect to state that "redemption" is not of this life and world.
The very life of Jesus is the breaking-in of God into this world, into this life (and directly so, in the case of His disciples).
In Christian theology, the power of "this-world" redemption is granted to the Holy Spirit, Who works in and through human beings.
The New Jerusalem of Rev. 21 is of course the ideal ... but Christianity holds that God is active and engaged in this world, even now: Redemption is a real-time deal, not just an end-times hope.
Save yourself some trouble. I am quite familiar with Christian theologoy, all it’s flavors. There is a reason where there are so many flavors, of course.
My question was a light way of asking if you are a universalist, in the old sense. If Christ really died for all the sins of the world, and anyone still goes to hell, payment for some sins is being collected twice. Is that just?
If you are not a universalist, then you really don’t believe in “free” salvation, because an individual has to do something to be save, and save from what?
Ah, now it get’s interesting. Turns out people are “born sinful.” What does that mean—either they are already sinners in Adam (as some hold) or they have a sinful nature inhereted from Adam, which causes them to sin. In either case they are condemned to eternal torment for that sin unless they are saved, right?
And that torment is described as, “payment for sin.” Please explain how pain and torment are a “payment for sin,” and who exactly is collecting that payment, and why they enjoy it so much that they are willing to accept it as payment.
About the only thing I’m certain came out of Christianity are the concepts of revenge and retributive justice.
(That’s a bit of exaggeration. I have frequently defended Christianity. For example:
http://theautonomist.com/aaphp/articles/article80.php )
Hank