Rant against anti-atheist agnostics.

[Ben Davis]

In this case, it's the concept that's being misrepresented as something potentially bad when it was devised as the opposite. I get the objection. I see it as a gross misrepresentation.

I wanted to seek clarity from you on what you think's being misrepresented. As I understand, we're talking about the Christian process for redemption, where redemption is defined as 'the action of God saving humans from the consequences of sin, as a reward for certain behaviour'.

The process steps are:

1. Human sins
2. Human believes in Jesus as saviour & redeemer
3. God places consequences of sin on Jesus
4. Human is redeemed from the consequences of sin

It's step 3 that makes the process vicarious. Unless this was changed to something like 'Human accepts personal responsibility for sin and faces consequences', I don't see how this analysis can be avoided.