What does redemption mean?

Redemption is a really strong word for me. If someone redeems himself or herself, then it means more than nothing has happened – they grow more important and more trustworthy in my eyes. Everyone messes up…someone who proves that they understand they did, works to fix it, and strives to restore themselves in your eyes – that’s someone I know has got my back, or will get it eventually.

couldnt agree more

Redemption is unconditional. If not, you should use a different word.

You can make restitution without redemption. To me, restitution is paying back what you owe. Redemption is consciously chosing to turn your life around and live differently.

Redemption is self-defining. If you mean it in the sense that the internet has redefined ‘irony’, then you mean forgiveness or acceptance?

That would depend on the individual, of course, but if somebody has done the time and seems to have learned from the misstep, I am inclined to give him/her a clean slate.

True ‘justice’ means paying once, and only ONCE for a mistake.

Be that legally or personally.

TRUST on the other hand needs to be earned.

How long it might take to rebuild trust is highly subjective and sometimes it cannot happen.

But…if one truly ‘owns’ their shortcomings, mistakes, feels ‘redemption’ in their hearts,self forgiveness MUST take precedence over other forgiveness, or one is sentencing themselves to hell forever.

How is redemption conditional or unconditional?

A persons redemption has nothing whatsoever to do with me.

I always saw redemption a a religious word. I never thought I was capable of redeeming myself. That’s what my faith is for.
I was always taught that redemption was when you were given something (Like a coupon) to purchase something, that you don’t have to pay for.
A person who served his time in jail wouldn’t be redeemed because they paid the price for their crime. If someone gave them a “get out of jail free card”, and they used it, THAT would be redemption.

I believe you are correct @Judi.

Nothing is “always”. In the context you are using, a person who had served his/her sentence could be viewed in many dfferent lights after the fact by many different people.
I might feel differently about I from one person to the next. How I feel about one person in no way dictates how I feel about another.
To redeem something is to buy it back. You redeem a bounced check, and you generally pay more for it than face value. So a person who does something wrong and consequetly goes to jail could be thought to be buying back his/her repectability. At a price set by society, or the judge, however you want to look at it. Serving the sentence is the payment. Your subsequent lack of trust in no way invalidates the purchase price paid by that person. He has bought back or at least paid for what he lost. In that sense, he has redeemed himself. In society, that is. The price for your trust may be high, and it may be measured in time. He may or may not ever again have your full measure of trust. But he has redeemed his place in society once he has served his legally imposed sentence.
You may be thinking of atonement. A person who was truly penitent may seek atonement for something without direction by a higher authority like the courts system. Or you may be referring to your own forgiveness of or faith in a person. That is always a personal matter. I submit to you though, that broken faith has naught to do with the legal system. When one takes an action which shows that trust in him has been misplaced, one does not need a court of law imposing a sentence to purchase your trust back. That will or will not happen through your own internal process.

It is the story of Michael Vick that made me think of this. He tortured dogs and was put in jail for it and he served his time. He sought work, doing what he did before, and was hired by a team, and a lot of people felt he shouldn’t have been hired.

However, he has done work for the humane society, and I think he says he understands what was wrong, and who knows, maybe he was just doing what he grew up with and never realized it was animal torture. A lot of people don’t believe that animals should be considered as having feelings that matter.

So he’s served his time, perhaps learned his lesson, and is making restitution in a way. But now he has suddenly become the best football player in the country. Now he is not just someone who did wrong and made up for it; now he is a hero, as well.

Is it justice for him to become a hero again? The most sought after commodity in the game? Or should his crime have forever forbidden that to him?

On the other hand, is his performance something that redeems him? Do people who didn’t forgive him before now forgive him because he is so amazing?

SO you see, it was quite confusing to me, and I appreciate all your answers. I have more clarity on this, but maybe you would like to turn your ideas to this case, and see whether Michael Vick has been redeemed, or not.

Vick is fine by me.

He’s served his legal sentence. Good enough.

But there is another sentence that he must endure. That is the judgment of his fellow humans for the rest of his life. There is more to serving ones time than just serving ones time. There is Stigma, the sentence we place upon ourselves. It is permanent, and all too often neglected when considering the temporal laws of men. Stigma remains with us, even beyond the grave.