Redemption

Since this one was my bright idea, I wrote a preparatory bit:

In English, redemption is a word weighted with religious and spiritual feeling; we are redeemed in the Blood of the Lamb, Christ is the Redeemer, etc.  Funnily enough, it also has a decidedly unreligious usage.  Many US states, trying to encourage recycling, offer 5 or 10 cent redemptions on beverage bottles and cans, which can be redeemed at any store that sells the product.  How can these uses be reconciled? The main idea is that a person or thing is made useful after losing that capacity through sin (people) or losing contents (containers).  Of course, for people in the religious sense, redemption is to make them useful to their god(s), which may or may not have any benefit for their physical environment.  Redeemed containers, however, will be recycled; some bottles are simply refilled, others, like cans, broken down and remade into something else that has a use to the species of their maker.
To focus on people, while redemption is intimately linked to religion, especially Christianity, it also has a secular usage.  It is a state connected to forgiveness and earning it from others.  To redeem yourself in the eyes of others is to atone for past wrong doing and be seen as good and trustworthy.  The song "Thrash Unreal" by the punk band Against Me!  includes the lines, "They don't know nothin' about redemption, they don't know nothin' about recovery."  The "main character" was a junky but is now implied to be free of drugs, if not the clubbing lifestyle. Most recovery programs for substance addiction and abuse have an element of Christianity, or at least religiosity, highlighting the tie between the idea of redemption and the supernatural redeemer once again.
Does this mean we have to have an outside force/judge/observer to achieve redemption?  Is it a state granted only by an external party or can we claim it for ourselves?  In the religious sense, the redeemer is obviously removed from ourselves and from the real world entirely.  When changing bad habits, perhaps our families or program mentors take on the role of redemption certifier, but we redeem ourselves.  It seems to be closely linked with forgiveness in this case, although the forgiveness of whatever divine being is also a part of religious redemption.  What differentiates redemption and forgiveness then?  It appears to be sacrifice.  For an addict to redeem themselves before their friends and family, they have to change their lifestyle, which inevitably means a sacrifice on their part even if it's for the better.  For Christians, the Redeemer was killed on their behalf before they were even born. Forgiveness may be given with or without any effort on the part of the object of forgiveness, but redemption requires active participation in its earning and bestowal.  It is not merely a gift or state we can accidentally find ourselves in, it is an achievement, one might even say a reward for our efforts.  This is fairly obvious in secular contexts, but where is our sacrifice for redemption in a Christian set of circumstances?  It looks more like some guy a couple millennia ago did all the heavy lifting for us.  Well, in order to be redeemed in Christ, we do have to accept the sacrifice.  We have to put aside any selfish desires and work only towards the furthering of the kingdom, ignoring personal ("earthly") pleasures.  If we have never been tempted away from the holy life (almost a miracle, that) we cannot truly be redeemed since no change or real sacrifice/effort was made or necessary on our part. Redemption requires change for "the better".  Of course, some believers get around this by saying we are all born with the stain of Original Sin, so even if we never actually perform any ungodly acts in our whole lives, we achieve redemption by not giving in to our inborn "sinful" desires.
So, is the truth of redemption the effort and sacrifice behind it?  Is it a relevant idea in our lives or does it belong to the realm of religious "mysteries" trotted out for effect but devoid of any real meaning or substance?  Also, should the religious be offended by bottles and cans sharing their special reward, or do they see themselves as objects of their lord as much as a soda can is an object to a regular person?

The Organizer and the Philosopher also kindly offered their thoughts in writing here and here.

As expected, much of the discussion centered on the religious aspect, beginning with the Researcher who gave us the usual bit of etymology.  He then linked the idea to hope and relief, hope for better things and relief of guilt.  Because we are not perfect beings, we make mistakes; life is pure trial and error.  If our errors cannot be fixed, we have no hope.  Religion, in the wisdom of its creators, offers ways of erasing or at least easing errors and the guilt that accompanies them, hence the proliferation of religions.

The Professional Thinker explained that the Redeemer of Christianity was something of a twisted borrowing from Judaism, since the idea of needing an earthly messiah was rooted in the Babylonian exile.  He then made it clear that it was not his belief that such a character is necessary for humanity, and in fact religions such as Christianity would do better to come up with their own holy books rather than taking from others, swallowing them "hook, line, and sinker".

Others mused over the various uses of the term in common expressions, e.g. "He's beyond redemption." or redeeming objects from a pawn shop.  Then the Organizer insisted on emphasizing the aspect of guilt in the concept, not only individual but also collective.  He reminded us that assigning collective guilt or guilt by association has the danger of being simply unfair when used on large groups.  A small community could believably commit or enable a crime with the knowledge and participation of all its members, but blaming entire nations or ethnic groups, consisting of millions of individuals, is not terribly rational.  This key ingredient of guilt, in his mind, makes religion an indispensable and unavoidable part of the conversation since it is such an important element for identifying, assigning and dealing with the feeling.  Others echoed the sentiment, repeating that religion is necessary to the conversation, although some jabs were taken at Christianity for its lack of innovation in its mythology.  We also were reminded of the importance of repentance for redemption.  Although a good believer can receive forgiveness for free, as it were, to be redeemed requires not only an internal wish for a change in the status quo, but also the outward demonstration of sorrow and desire to make things right.

It was commented that although we have a greater community today than ever before, in terms of numbers and possibilities of communication, we are in fact less communal than we have been at any point in history.  The individual has increased greatly in value compared to the community, at least in Western cultures.  Therefore, the collective redemption of Original Sin is a bit silly.  Our understanding of guilt, sin, and community vs. individual has evolved over the centuries, leaving the religious interpretations behind.  However, another participant pointed out that religion continues to offer easy answers to the complicated perception of reality and, in some ways, instant gratification when it comes to finding purpose and, again, relieving our guilt over our mistakes.

Finally, we all seemed to agree on a question more than any answer: can we be redeemed, not from our mistakes, but from the ignorance of reality that causes us to make them?