PDA

View Full Version : The Wisdom of "Eye for an eye" theology



Pages : [1] 2

Ecumenicist
June 21st, 2005, 03:52 PM
I submit that the "eye for an eye" law was not meant to represent justice on
behalf of the injured party, for that would seem to endorse vengence or revenge
as a healing practice.

Rather, I submit that the wisdom of "eye for an eye," is from the perspective
of the one who inflicts injury. God has always held humanity accountable for
our actions, especially those which hurt others.

What better way to understand the pain inflicted upon another person than
to experience it yourself.

Eye for an eye, translated into the perspective of the perpetrator, becomes
Christ's golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

When asked about the perspective of the injured party, Jesus told us to
forgive, not seek revenge.

The nature of God has never changed. Christ fulfilled the law by drawing
proper focus to the intent, the Spirit, of the law...



Dave Miller

beanieboy
June 21st, 2005, 04:06 PM
That makes a lot of sense. I see nothing gained in paying back the person that wronged you.
And from a Buddhist point of view, that person has already set bad karma into motion, which will come back at them in the way that it was taken out on someone.

I believe that karma is less about punishment, and more about learning how to love, learning compassion.

Nineveh
June 21st, 2005, 04:31 PM
And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.

"Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.

I'm glad God is Just and there is no shadow of turning in Him.

Ecumenicist
June 22nd, 2005, 10:13 AM
And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.

"Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.

I'm glad God is Just and there is no shadow of turning in Him.

Not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing, Nin. We know how you feel about
capital punishment, which probably extends to corporal punishment, but the
subject is about NT / OT consistancy in viewing the role of punishment in God's
plan for humanity.

Dave

Nineveh
June 22nd, 2005, 10:14 AM
God is the same God of both OT and NT, dave.

beanieboy
June 22nd, 2005, 10:32 AM
So, God is going to kill us all, for killing his son?

Nineveh
June 22nd, 2005, 10:35 AM
No, bean, you are going to hell for rejecting Christ.

beanieboy
June 22nd, 2005, 10:53 AM
I submit that the "eye for an eye" law was not meant to represent justice on
behalf of the injured party, for that would seem to endorse vengence or revenge
as a healing practice.

Rather, I submit that the wisdom of "eye for an eye," is from the perspective
of the one who inflicts injury. God has always held humanity accountable for
our actions, especially those which hurt others.

What better way to understand the pain inflicted upon another person than
to experience it yourself.

Eye for an eye, translated into the perspective of the perpetrator, becomes
Christ's golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

When asked about the perspective of the injured party, Jesus told us to
forgive, not seek revenge.

The nature of God has never changed. Christ fulfilled the law by drawing
proper focus to the intent, the Spirit, of the law...



Dave Miller



What is your opinion on this, Nin?

Nineveh
June 22nd, 2005, 10:59 AM
Dave is in need of serious thrological help. What sounds good on the outside of his words usually winds up being extremely debased just underneath.

In this case, justice is restitution for a wrong, not "revenge" and not so the guilty will gain "empathy".

On Fire
June 22nd, 2005, 11:01 AM
This passage came up in church this past weekend:

Today ‘an eye for an eye’ seems very barbaric, like a form of legalized revenge. But in reality, God gave this rule to the Jews as away to stop the revenge cycle. Before this law, if you poked out someone’s eye, his family might come back later and kill your whole family. This law limited payment to an eye for an eye. It was a good thing. But Jesus took it even further saying,“if someone strikes you on the right cheek”, this would have been an offensive backhanded slap, “Don’t put up a fight to exact revenge or protect your honor. Turn the other cheek.” Jesus was advocating using an unexpected response as a way to disarm your adversary and stop the cycle of violence. This was being a peacemaker. And in vs. 40 when Jesus says, “And if someone wants to sue you and take yourtunic, let him have your cloak as well,” he was again talking about unexpected action that would disarm your adversaries. People only wore two outer articlesof clothing then. Giving up both your tunic and your cloak would have left you practically naked. But according to Jesus, letting others take all you have, even if youare left naked, is worth the personal humiliation if it breaks the cycle ofretribution. Again, this is peacemaking.

Ecumenicist
June 22nd, 2005, 01:06 PM
This passage came up in church this past weekend:

Today ‘an eye for an eye’ seems very barbaric, like a form of legalized revenge. But in reality, God gave this rule to the Jews as away to stop the revenge cycle. Before this law, if you poked out someone’s eye, his family might come back later and kill your whole family. This law limited payment to an eye for an eye. It was a good thing. But Jesus took it even further saying,“if someone strikes you on the right cheek”, this would have been an offensive backhanded slap, “Don’t put up a fight to exact revenge or protect your honor. Turn the other cheek.” Jesus was advocating using an unexpected response as a way to disarm your adversary and stop the cycle of violence. This was being a peacemaker. And in vs. 40 when Jesus says, “And if someone wants to sue you and take yourtunic, let him have your cloak as well,” he was again talking about unexpected action that would disarm your adversaries. People only wore two outer articlesof clothing then. Giving up both your tunic and your cloak would have left you practically naked. But according to Jesus, letting others take all you have, even if youare left naked, is worth the personal humiliation if it breaks the cycle ofretribution. Again, this is peacemaking.

Amen bro...

This makes perfect sense from the perspective of the victim, but turning the
question around, what do you think Christ would say to a repentent sinner who,
a. stole a coat, or b. struck another person in the face?


Dave

Ecumenicist
June 22nd, 2005, 01:07 PM
Dave is in need of serious thrological help. What sounds good on the outside of his words usually winds up being extremely debased just underneath.

In this case, justice is restitution for a wrong, not "revenge" and not so the guilty will gain "empathy".

Restitution, revenge, how does losing an eye restore the sight of a victim?

beanieboy
June 22nd, 2005, 01:12 PM
Amen bro...

This makes perfect sense from the perspective of the victim, but turning the
question around, what do you think Christ would say to a repentent sinner who,
a. stole a coat, or b. struck another person in the face?

Dave

Karma would say that as a greedy, ungenerous person, that you live a life as a poor person, and as I said, learn from the experience. I'm not sure if I agree, but one can apparently reverse their karma by doing good for others. But I don't know. What do you think Christ would say? It seems the, "gee. Sorry or whatever" doesn't seem to be enough.

There is a scene in Crash where a white cop tries to free a woman from her car, and they both realize that he molested her the night before, so she resists. He gets his own karma, and realizes how it effected her.

beanieboy
June 22nd, 2005, 01:14 PM
Restitution, revenge, how does losing an eye restore the sight of a victim?

When I was a kid, my brother wrecked one of my toys out of anger. He was an angry kid. My father said that I could wreck on of his. He cried and said no. But I didn't see it as making my toy better, and in fact, would make me feel worse, because I would know that I had done something wrong as well.

It's like a man who cheats on his wife.
Does it make it ok for her to cheat on him to get even?

Or are they both hurt either way?

Poly
June 22nd, 2005, 01:15 PM
When I was a kid, my brother wrecked one of my toys out of anger. He was an angry kid. My father said that I could wreck on of his. He cried and said no. But I didn't see it as making my toy better, and in fact, would make me feel worse, because I would know that I had done something wrong as well.



Anybody ever noticed how beanie is always bragging about the good that he did/does?

Nineveh
June 22nd, 2005, 01:16 PM
Like I said, dave, you need some serious theological help. Do you realize you are advocting maiming people in the name of God for the sake of empathy? Probably. I'll just chalk this right up there with defining sin apart from God's standard and putting yourself in the position to forgive God, oh yeah, and God sins.

wickwoman
June 22nd, 2005, 01:22 PM
I have a bumper sticker by Ghandi on my car that says "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Of course, it only makes everyone half blind, but anyway, it's catchy. But maybe it's time to get a new sticker since this makes sense to me Dave. And I liked on Fire's commentary too. It does put it into perspective.

Proverbs 26:27 (New International Version)

27 If a man digs a pit, he will fall into it;
if a man rolls a stone, it will roll back on him.

It doesn't say, someone will push him into the pit or someone will roll a stone over him. So it could be "the equal and opposite reaction" is what the "eye for an eye" scripture is referring to. And not a separate party executing judgment.

But, considering that, why God's need for a human sacrifice as repayment for our sin?

On Fire
June 22nd, 2005, 01:24 PM
Amen bro...

This makes perfect sense from the perspective of the victim, but turning the
question around, what do you think Christ would say to a repentent sinner who,
a. stole a coat, or b. struck another person in the face?


Dave
Not sure what you're getting at.

He would say "Why do you do the things I ask you not to do? Never mind - rhetorical question."

On Fire
June 22nd, 2005, 01:26 PM
Do you realize you are advocting maiming people in the name of God for the sake of empathy?
Did I miss something? Where did he say that?!

beanieboy
June 22nd, 2005, 01:32 PM
Anybody ever noticed how beanie is always bragging about the good that he did/does?

Actually, that has always been my nature.
I don't think I am all that good, really.
I'm just bad at being mean.

Do you feel any real satisfaction from revenge?
I never have. It never seems to be enough.
What you want is for things to be the way they were before it happened, and you can't get that back. You want to make the other person understand and feel what you feel, but that doesn't bring anything back.

If you burned my only baby picture, burning yours isn't going to make me feel better.
It's lost, and that will hurt even if I burn all of yours, and worse, I will feel bad, you will feel bad...

It serves no purpose. I don't have the picture no matter what I do, so it is better to simply face that, explain how that made me feel, and move on.

beanieboy
June 22nd, 2005, 01:35 PM
I have a bumper sticker by Ghandi on my car that says "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Of course, it only makes everyone half blind, but anyway, it's catchy. But maybe it's time to get a new sticker since this makes sense to me Dave. And I liked on Fire's commentary too. It does put it into perspective.

Proverbs 26:27 (New International Version)

27 If a man digs a pit, he will fall into it;
if a man rolls a stone, it will roll back on him.

It doesn't say, someone will push him into the pit or someone will roll a stone over him. So it could be "the equal and opposite reaction" is what the "eye for an eye" scripture is referring to. And not a separate party executing judgment.

But, considering that, why God's need for a human sacrifice as repayment for our sin?


That's what I've never understood.
If we are going with eye for an eye, then, technically, God would disobey us, and all would be well, so I'm confused why there is a need for human sacrifice.

I go to God with this all the time, and rarely get an answer.

Nineveh
June 22nd, 2005, 01:39 PM
Did I miss something? Where did he say that?!


The OP:

"Rather, I submit that the wisdom of "eye for an eye," is from the perspective
of the one who inflicts injury. God has always held humanity accountable for
our actions, especially those which hurt others.

What better way to understand the pain inflicted upon another person than
to experience it yourself. "

beanieboy
June 22nd, 2005, 01:43 PM
The OP:

"Rather, I submit that the wisdom of "eye for an eye," is from the perspective
of the one who inflicts injury. God has always held humanity accountable for
our actions, especially those which hurt others.

What better way to understand the pain inflicted upon another person than
to experience it yourself. "

His question is:
If Jesus call is for the victim to forgive, what is the call of the perpetrator?

While, I don't think it is to literally be victimized ("please, steal my coat..."), the victim may at least have to listen to the person explain how they felt. I once saw a show where a woman confronted a boy who molested her, and she explained what the effect had on her, until he was crying.

It's seems that at the very least, you would have to understand what you did effected another materially, emotionally, etc.

Nineveh
June 22nd, 2005, 01:45 PM
bean the buddhist,
I'm glad you are tying to expound on dave's teachings.

Poly
June 22nd, 2005, 01:51 PM
Do you feel any real satisfaction from revenge?
I never have. It never seems to be enough.
What you want is for things to be the way they were before it happened, and you can't get that back. You want to make the other person understand and feel what you feel, but that doesn't bring anything back.

You're awfully arrogant and give yourself way too much credit, making it out as if people are eaten up with the fact that you won't see things their way. I'm not stupid enough to think you're going to change. You're a filthy homo choosing to destroy yourself. That's just the way it is. It certainly isn't keeping me up at night.

beanieboy
June 22nd, 2005, 01:53 PM
bean the buddhist,
I'm glad you are tying to expound on dave's teachings.

And Nineveh the Christian isn't?

What do you think about what he said?
If the victim is to forgive, what of the perpetrator?

What do you believe that the Christian God calls for?

Let's be specific.
Poly burns your baby picture. It's the only one you have.
She does it in anger. She's sorry later.
You forgive her, because she has asked for forgiveness.

What do you think that God requires of Poly?
Any sort of restitution?

beanieboy
June 22nd, 2005, 02:02 PM
You're awfully arrogant and give yourself way too much credit, making it out as if people are eaten up with the fact that you won't see things their way. I'm not stupid enough to think you're going to change. That's just the way it is. It certainly isn't keeping me up at night.

To what do I give myself credit?

There was a movie that I watched where Jodi Foster played a high school girl who is gang raped. She wanted revenge, but when someone rapes the men in front of her, knowing what they were feeling, having been through the experience, she says, "stop! No more!" She didn't want to be what they were - rapists. She didn't find any sympathy or peace in taken vengence out on another.

In a Woody Allen movie, two characters talk about whether there is such a thing as a perfect murder. One says, "no, because even if you get away with it, you have changed, and are now a killer, never the same again."

I agree with that.

It has little to do with me.
I am simply not naturally an angry person, nor mean to people.
Since I was a kid I was always defending the ones people picked on.
It's just part of my upbringing or personality, a part of who I am.
I feel bad when I behave any other way.

As an adult, I understand that my brother, who was very destructive, was angry for a reason, and I sympathize now. It was difficult to then, but I do now.

But please don't think I see myself as being arrogant or proud.
Far from it.

Namaste

Nineveh
June 22nd, 2005, 02:02 PM
And Nineveh the Christian isn't?

No, I try not to clarify bad theology.


What do you think about what he said?

I'll refer to the first time I answered this question back on post 9.

beanieboy
June 22nd, 2005, 02:04 PM
Dave is in need of serious thrological help. What sounds good on the outside of his words usually winds up being extremely debased just underneath.

In this case, justice is restitution for a wrong, not "revenge" and not so the guilty will gain "empathy".

What is "justice" for someone burning your one and only baby picture?

Hasan_ibn_Sabah
June 22nd, 2005, 02:05 PM
beanie - Gods call to both, is peace. God wants the victimizer to cease, the victimizers is in a way hurting his/her self when they create victims. We are to do unto other as we would have done unto us, this is the formula for peace.

Poly
June 22nd, 2005, 02:07 PM
To what do I give myself credit?

There was a movie.... I'm blabbering and I can't shut-up!!!

:blabla:


Namaste

beanieboy
June 22nd, 2005, 02:10 PM
I don't see it.

I was mugged walking home one night, and my head was split open.
I was unable to go to work for 2 weeks, the entire hospital bill came to $7,000, and I was angry, I fantasized about killing the person because I was so angry, was freaked out for a long time to be out in public... It has a long term effect on me.

A simple, "Gee. Sorry. Won't do it again" doesn't seem like restituion.

Hasan_ibn_Sabah
June 22nd, 2005, 02:19 PM
Asking for restitution is not forgiveness

Ecumenicist
June 22nd, 2005, 02:37 PM
A scripture comes to mind, about Zacchaeus, was it, the tax collector? Jesus got through
to him and he restored double to everyone he had cheated. But he did it of his own free
will, Jesus didn't direct him to do so.

This matches nicely with OF's "turn the other cheek" and "give the cloak also" quotes.
Double back is like returning the coat that was stolen, and also giving another coat
in recompense.

Dave

beanieboy
June 22nd, 2005, 02:38 PM
What I'm saying is, I walk away with a head injury, being scared for some time, and a $7K bill, AND God would say that I should forgive, and the mugger should simply say, "wow. Sorry. I will "cease." Won't happen again. See you around."

That's it??

beanieboy
June 22nd, 2005, 02:40 PM
A scripture comes to mind, about Zacchaeus, was it, the tax collector? Jesus got through
to him and he restored double to everyone he had cheated. But he did it of his own free
will, Jesus didn't direct him to do so.

This matches nicely with OF's "turn the other cheek" and "give the cloak also" quotes.
Double back is like returning the coat that was stolen, and also giving another coat
in recompense.

Dave

This makes sense - to not only "cease" but to pay back what you stole (because it isn't yours) and give double (because that part is). In that way, Zaccheus understood what it was like to lose that money, and it benefits the person who was victimized.

Hasan_ibn_Sabah
June 22nd, 2005, 02:56 PM
I think what Zaccheus did was more than restitution, it was making peace.

wickwoman
June 22nd, 2005, 03:09 PM
The repayment is for the benefit of the victimizer, though the victim may receive some benefit from it. However, Jesus addressed his comments to the victim - give him your cloak as well. So, it seems when the victimizer gets around to paying the victim back, the victim should have already considered the debt paid. This is for the benefit of the victim. Attachment to the results causes pain for the victim. Wanting recompense causes pain for the victim. The original pain is in attachment to dignity and property. If there is no attachment to dignity of personhood/self or property, there is no pain when it is lost.

Hasan_ibn_Sabah
June 22nd, 2005, 03:23 PM
Forgiveness rather empowers the victim, forgiveness tranforms the victim, he is no longer a victim

Ecumenicist
June 22nd, 2005, 03:29 PM
I have a bumper sticker by Ghandi on my car that says "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Of course, it only makes everyone half blind, but anyway, it's catchy. But maybe it's time to get a new sticker since this makes sense to me Dave. And I liked on Fire's commentary too. It does put it into perspective.

Proverbs 26:27 (New International Version)

27 If a man digs a pit, he will fall into it;
if a man rolls a stone, it will roll back on him.

It doesn't say, someone will push him into the pit or someone will roll a stone over him. So it could be "the equal and opposite reaction" is what the "eye for an eye" scripture is referring to. And not a separate party executing judgment.

But, considering that, why God's need for a human sacrifice as repayment for our sin?

Great question, Wick...

My take on it is, before Christ the "eye for an eye" thing mandated physical
punishment, again to help sinners realize the impact they have on others.

I believe that in the act of self sacrifice, Christ takes on the physical punishment
on behalf of humanity.

But that doesn't leave us without accountability, we
still have the "conviction of the Holy Spirit," which may in some ways be more
painful than physical punishment. The conviction of the Holy Spirit reveals to
us the pain we cause others, and we experience that pain in the deepest
parts of our souls.

I believe that its more painful for someone to have to witness the cruel
punishment of another "just" person when we ourselves are the guilty parties,
than to experience the punishment ourselves. I think God knew that too, hence
the conviction of the Holy Spirit, Hence God's Wisdom in choosing self sacrifice
as a means of demonstrating the true wages of sin to humanity, and the
true depth of God's love for humanity, in self sacrifice on our behalf.

Dave

Ecumenicist
June 22nd, 2005, 03:35 PM
The repayment is for the benefit of the victimizer...

Exactly, and this whole discussion illustrates the depth of the conviction of the
Holy Spirit. The victim finds peace in forgiving the sinner, but the sinner has
a hard time finding peace after suffering true conviction. In search for peace
and reconcilliation, the sinner offers double. The victim may actually accept
recompense as an act of charity to the sinner, and may choose to give the second
coat to charity instead...

Dave

Ecumenicist
June 22nd, 2005, 03:38 PM
Forgiveness rather empowers the victim, forgiveness tranforms the victim, he is no longer a victim

Absolutely agree. Good comments throughout the thread, thanx.

Dave

Ecumenicist
June 22nd, 2005, 03:56 PM
Like I said, dave, you need some serious theological help. Do you realize you are advocting maiming people in the name of God for the sake of empathy? Probably. I'll just chalk this right up there with defining sin apart from God's standard and putting yourself in the position to forgive God, oh yeah, and God sins.

Once again quoting Captain Jack Sparrow:

"Sticks 'n stones luv."

billwald
June 22nd, 2005, 04:05 PM
The wise people who interpreted "eye for eye" used it as a maximum and converted physical injury to monetary penalty

wickwoman
June 23rd, 2005, 06:41 AM
The wise people who interpreted "eye for eye" used it as a maximum and converted physical injury to monetary penalty

Were they wise? I see a big problem with the idea of converting human suffering into money. Can you put a price tag on it?

The parents of dead or injured children seem to think that suing negligent doctors' insurance companies for money will take away their pain. Will it? I was involved in such lawsuits for years. And it is a very perverted concept. These same parents often have no interest in making complaints against so called negligent doctors' licenses. They just want the money. And its not just to cover medical expenses anymore. We have in this state awards for pain and suffering. Does a million dollars take away pain?

Now I wouldn't be in favor of a legal system that put out the eyes of offenders. But there must be some way to teach a purer lesson than "money cures all evils."

wickwoman
June 23rd, 2005, 06:43 AM
Hi Dave. In other words, if someone believed in karma, they could say, Jesus volunteered to take on the bad karma of others? Karma is a threatening word to some, but it's really just another way of saying "an eye for an eye."

Turbo
June 23rd, 2005, 01:09 PM
Hasan_ibn_Sabah,

Did Jesus go out of his way to avoid upsetting false teachers of his day?

According to Jesus, should we forgive those who refuse to repent?

billwald
June 23rd, 2005, 01:21 PM
>Did Jesus go out of his way to avoid upsetting false teachers of his day?

Yes

>According to Jesus, should we forgive those who refuse to repent?

Repent of what? Personal sins against us? Yes, forgive them but don't tell them.

Turbo
June 23rd, 2005, 01:29 PM
>According to Jesus, should we forgive those who refuse to repent?

Repent of what? Personal sins against us? Yes, forgive them but don't tell them.Note that I said According to Jesus... and not According to billwald.

Also, I was specifically asking Hasan_ibn_Sabah.

But thanks, anyway.

Hasan_ibn_Sabah
June 23rd, 2005, 01:31 PM
>Did Jesus go out of his way to avoid upsetting false teachers of his day?

Yes

>According to Jesus, should we forgive those who refuse to repent?

Repent of what? Personal sins against us? Yes, forgive them but don't tell them.

Yes, the Bible tells us to pray to the Father "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors", not should we forgive them but we should also do good to them. We are told to forgive the trepasses of other or God will not forgive our trespasses.

The Bible also say we have to let our anger cease. We are not to let the sun set on our anger.

Does a person have to repent in order to be forgiven? Jesus seems to take a more pro-active route, he forgives people fo their sins before they even ask. When he healed, he would tell people "Your sins are forgiven, go sin no more" and yet while we were his enemeis, he dies for us

billwald
June 23rd, 2005, 01:33 PM
" I see a big problem with the idea of converting human suffering into money. Can you put a price tag on it?"

The court system routinely puts a price tag on humam suffering. Any time anyone says, "It's the princple, not the money," you can be sure it's the money (principal <G>).

wickwoman
June 23rd, 2005, 01:47 PM
" I see a big problem with the idea of converting human suffering into money. Can you put a price tag on it?"

The court system routinely puts a price tag on humam suffering. Any time anyone says, "It's the princple, not the money," you can be sure it's the money (principal <G>).

This exactly what I am referring to. I believe it is at the root of the "human condition." The idea that money can bring happiness, solve problems, correct wrongs. It absolutely does none of these things. The heart of the matter is that there is nothing to be forgiven. Any attempt at retribution on the part of the victim is evidence of a sickness.

In the case of wrongs done against us, we are afraid to grieve. We immediately convert our pain for the loss into blame. Not truly grieving the loss, converting it into anger. Worse still, we feel justified in our anger. But our grief remains unsolved and hidden, avoided at all cost.

Hasan_ibn_Sabah
June 23rd, 2005, 01:57 PM
Any attempt at retribution on the part of the victim is evidence of a sickness.

The only form of retribution we should take is the exact opposite of the kind of retribution the world tell us to take, the world wants violent retribution but Jesus demands we take another route:

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

There is nothing wrong with anger, its good to get anger but the ager has to be righteous, when someone wrongs you grieve and get angry, grieve and get angry at the loss of fellowship and the loss peace, and that should move you to bless them that curse, to do good to those that hate you...that grief and anger can move you forward to become active in seeking peace and reconcilliation

Ecumenicist
June 23rd, 2005, 02:29 PM
Hi Dave. In other words, if someone believed in karma, they could say, Jesus volunteered to take on the bad karma of others? Karma is a threatening word to some, but it's really just another way of saying "an eye for an eye."

Karma implies nontheistic balance of the universe kind of mentality, so its
hard to translate to Theist concepts.

If one makes the move to expressing God's law as universal Karma, then
this would be a good way to express certain aspects of Crucifixion theology.

Another way, however, may be to express it in terms of Dharma, Jesus'
sacrifice serves to restore Dharma in a world that badly needs it.

Dave

PS, another "crossover" theological concept I love is in terms of Tao, "The Way,"
Jesus Christ being "Tao."

Dave

PureX
June 23rd, 2005, 03:26 PM
Hmmm... Lots of intelligent and wise comments on this thread. I think I'll just be quiet. *smile*

billwald
June 23rd, 2005, 08:18 PM
How many of you are willing to forgive your enemies because you think God will roast them in Hell?

Turbo
June 24th, 2005, 05:38 AM
Yes, the Bible tells us to pray to the Father "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors", not should we forgive them but we should also do good to them. We are told to forgive the trepasses of other or God will not forgive our trespasses.
Paul said we should forgive others because God has already forgiven us.


Ephesians 4:32
And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you.

Who was Jesus talking to? Who was Paul talking to? Their instructions conflict with each other. Which should you follow?

It sounds like you think works are required for salvation. Do you?


The Bible also say we have to let our anger cease. We are not to let the sun set on our anger.Withholding forgiveness has nothing to do with being angry.


Does a person have to repent in order to be forgiven? Jesus seems to take a more pro-active route, he forgives people fo their sins before they even ask. When he healed, he would tell people "Your sins are forgiven, go sin no more" and yet while we were his enemeis, he dies for usSo if someone dies having lived his entire life in rebellion against God and utterly rejecting the gospel, does God forgive him?

Here is what Jesus actually taught about forgiving others:

"Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, 'I repent,' you shall forgive him." Luke 17:3-4Jesus says to rebuke him, but to forgive him only if he repents.

But what if he doesn't repent. Should we forgive him anyway?

As if it weren't obvious enough in Luke 17:3-4, Matthew 18:15-17 removes all doubt:



Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear,...

...Forgive him anyway so that the sun won't set on your anger? Not quite:


...take with you one or two more, that "by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.' And if he refuses to hear them,...
...Go ahead and forgive him so you will not become bitter? Nope:


tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church,...
...Then announce that you've forgive him anyway to demonstrate to everyone how magnanimous and "Christlike" you are? Absolutely not:


...let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

When you teach that Christians should forgive everyone no matter what, you teach the world that they do not need to humble themselves before God. He'll forgive them anyway; after all, his followers forgive everyone no matter what.

(What's ironic is that this topic came up when you rebuked several Christians who you thought were doing wrong... but you didn't jump at the chance to forgive them. :think: )

PureX
June 24th, 2005, 06:01 AM
Looks to me like the bible is directly contradicting itself. On the one hand we are to love and forgive our enemies, on the other hand we are NOT to forgive them unless they are claiming to repent. So naturally, in the face of this contradiction, people will choose which of these views they will hold depending upon their own personalities. Unforgiving people will see an unforgiving God, and will reiterate the scriptures that promote this view. While people of a forgiving nature will see a forgiving God, and will reiterate the scriptures that promote this view. In the end, the God we "see" is the God we want to see. And the scriptures we reiterate are the scriptures that promote and justify our own spiritual nature.

So the question isn't really, "Who's right and who's wrong?". The question is; "Is this really who I want to be, and is this really how I want to see God?". We'll have to answer that question for ourselves.

wickwoman
June 24th, 2005, 06:45 AM
Right, Purex, there seems to be a contradiction. And which behavior will be the most healthy for us?

It seems even Jesus didn't follow his own advice, because, whenever anyone approached him, he did not wait for them to repent, he merely said "your sins are forgiven." Not, "I am forgiving you now," or "I will forgive you as soon as you repent."

What does that mean, Turbo?

billwald
June 24th, 2005, 09:20 AM
Forgiving a person has nothing to do with telling a person he is forgiven. It is two seperate problems. On many occasions the oppposite happens. A person says a pro forma "I forgive" while hating your guts.

Chileice
June 24th, 2005, 09:29 AM
:dog: :dog: "DOGVILLE!!!.... The Thread" :dog: :dog:

If any of you have seen the movie, you know what I mean.

Chileice
June 24th, 2005, 09:34 AM
I submit that the "eye for an eye" law was not meant to represent justice on
behalf of the injured party, for that would seem to endorse vengence or revenge
as a healing practice.

Rather, I submit that the wisdom of "eye for an eye," is from the perspective
of the one who inflicts injury. God has always held humanity accountable for
our actions, especially those which hurt others.

What better way to understand the pain inflicted upon another person than
to experience it yourself.

Eye for an eye, translated into the perspective of the perpetrator, becomes
Christ's golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

When asked about the perspective of the injured party, Jesus told us to
forgive, not seek revenge.

The nature of God has never changed. Christ fulfilled the law by drawing
proper focus to the intent, the Spirit, of the law...



Dave Miller

I can't see how Nineveh could go ballistic over this. This makes perfectly good biblical sense. Christ basically did that with the woman caught in adultery. He left the door open for them to throw stones and exact their revenge... if they didn't want to likewise be stoned. They all knew they were guilty of punishable offences and wound up walking away. Then the only one who could righteously castigate her, gave her a second chance. I don't imagine she ever got caught in adultery again. The undeserved forgiveness was more of a lesson than 40 lashes or a 100 stones would have been.

Rimi
June 24th, 2005, 09:42 AM
I can't see how Nineveh could go ballistic over this. This makes perfectly good biblical sense. Christ basically did that with the woman caught in adultery. He left the door open for them to throw stones and exact their revenge... if they didn't want to likewise be stoned. They all knew they were guilty of punishable offences and wound up walking away. Then the only one who could righteously castigate her, gave her a second chance. I don't imagine she ever got caught in adultery again. The undeserved forgiveness was more of a lesson than 40 lashes or a 100 stones would have been.

You are mistaken. The offense of which they were guilty at this point was that, after having caught the woman in the act and so there must've been another person there, they only brought forth the woman to be executed and to test Jesus. They disregarded what God said about handling adulterers. Jesus did have authority because He is God. But it would've been interesting to see what He would've done had the leaders don't correctly by bringing forth both guilty parties.

Rimi
June 24th, 2005, 09:44 AM
Anybody ever noticed how beanie is always bragging about the good that he did/does?

YES! Every post he has he makes about him. But if we have a poll on what a turd he is, we get put down. Go figure.

PureX
June 24th, 2005, 09:45 AM
... The undeserved forgiveness was more of a lesson than 40 lashes or a 100 stones would have been.There are a lot of people who don't understand this, don't believe it, and/or don't want to believe it. And those people want vengeance, because for them, vengeance is the only solution they see.

wickwoman
June 24th, 2005, 10:00 AM
Bill, what was Jesus doing when he said "your sins are forgiven?" Was he doing it right then, stating a fact of something that happened in the past, or noting there was nothing to forgive. What do you think?

Chileice
June 24th, 2005, 10:05 AM
There are a lot of people who don't understand this, don't believe it, and/or don't want to believe it. And those people want vengeance, because for them, vengeance is the only solution they see.

It is kind of like a line in "The Interpreter": "Vengeance is the a lazy form of grief." i think that was almost worth the price of admission. People are lazy. It is always easier to hate than to love, to take vengeance than to forgive. The forgiven party might hurt us again. It is a chance we take. It is the same chance God takes with us 365 days a year. I wish we could see that. Here is a Bible passage from Matthew 20 that spoke to me in a recent personal devotional time with the Lord:

Jesus Again Predicts His Death
17Now as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside and said to them, 18"We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death 19and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!"
A Mother's Request
20Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.
21"What is it you want?" he asked.
She said, "Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom."

22"You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said to them. "Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?"
"We can," they answered.

23Jesus said to them, "You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father."

24When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. 25Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Wow! They didn't get it. In his moment of greatest angst, when they should have been concerned for His welfare, all they could think about was their own comfort and future well-being. That just about explains it today as well. No one wants to serve anyone. Oh sure, we give it lipservice because it makes us sound altruistic, but we really don't give a flip what happens to the next guy... especially if he is in some way a threat to our own perceived well-being. As Christians we often seek the right or left hand of Christ and some moral high ground against all comers, but we aren't willing to go through hell with Jesus. We want to fight the battle from the comfort of our own pious easy chairs.

And it isn't just Chrisitians. Most people throw their hands up and say what can we do about drugs, alcohol, crime, unwanted pregnancies, etc. etc. We just hope someone will legislate them out of existence without the need for us to do one single thing for them. It sure is easier that way. Vengeance is easy, and laziness leads to vengeance.

Hasan_ibn_Sabah
June 24th, 2005, 10:09 AM
Great post Chileice

Rimi
June 24th, 2005, 10:16 AM
Looks to me like the bible is directly contradicting itself. On the one hand we are to love and forgive our enemies, on the other hand we are NOT to forgive them unless they are claiming to repent. So naturally, in the face of this contradiction, people will choose which of these views they will hold depending upon their own personalities. Unforgiving people will see an unforgiving God, and will reiterate the scriptures that promote this view. While people of a forgiving nature will see a forgiving God, and will reiterate the scriptures that promote this view. In the end, the God we "see" is the God we want to see. And the scriptures we reiterate are the scriptures that promote and justify our own spiritual nature.

So the question isn't really, "Who's right and who's wrong?". The question is; "Is this really who I want to be, and is this really how I want to see God?". We'll have to answer that question for ourselves.



Call 1-888-8Enyart! And get The Plot today! And, no, I don't get a commission.

Turbo
June 24th, 2005, 10:24 AM
Hasan_ibn_Sabah, are you planning on replying?

Hasan_ibn_Sabah
June 24th, 2005, 10:39 AM
In due time

Turbo
June 24th, 2005, 10:44 AM
Ok. :up:

PureX
June 24th, 2005, 11:11 AM
Call 1-888-8Enyart! And get The Plot today! And, no, I don't get a commission.LOL! No likely.

Hasan_ibn_Sabah
June 24th, 2005, 12:22 PM
Paul said we should forgive others because God has already forgiven us.


Ephesians 4:32
And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you.

Who was Jesus talking to? Who was Paul talking to? Their instructions conflict with each other. Which should you follow?

You follow Christ, like Paul admonished us too. I don't like playing the "Jesus said this...but Paul said this..." Bible contradiction game, I know Jesus commanded us to love our enemies and do good to those who hate us, Jesus also said that we are to forgive others and when we forgive others, God will forgive us, Jesus seems to be saying that our forgiving others is a preresequite to accepting the forgiveness of the Father

"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses neither will your father forgive your trespasses."

If you cling to the wounds and injuries that the carnal man has recieved, you by no means are ready to enter into a new life. You cannot hold onto old resentment and hate and be born again. New wine for new wineskins


It sounds like you think works are required for salvation. Do you?

Yes, the work of Jesus and the Holy Spirit are required for salvation.


So if someone dies having lived his entire life in rebellion against God and utterly rejecting the gospel, does God forgive him?

Yes, while we were Jesus enemies He died for us, Jesus asked for the forgiveness of those who were in the very act of inflicting capital punishment upon Him, people who positively and utterly rejected His gospel. God is offering us forgiveness, whether we accept it or want it is up to us, but God obviously desires that all accept His forgiveness.


Here is what Jesus actually taught about forgiving others:

"Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, 'I repent,' you shall forgive him." Luke 17:3-4Jesus says to rebuke him, but to forgive him only if he repents.

But what if he doesn't repent. Should we forgive him anyway?

As if it weren't obvious enough in Luke 17:3-4, Matthew 18:15-17 removes all doubt:



Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear,...

...Forgive him anyway so that the sun won't set on your anger? Not quite:


...take with you one or two more, that "by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.' And if he refuses to hear them,...
...Go ahead and forgive him so you will not become bitter? Nope:


tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church,...
...Then announce that you've forgive him anyway to demonstrate to everyone how magnanimous and "Christlike" you are? Absolutely not:


...let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

When you teach that Christians should forgive everyone no matter what, you teach the world that they do not need to humble themselves before God. He'll forgive them anyway; after all, his followers forgive everyone no matter what.

(What's ironic is that this topic came up when you rebuked several Christians who you thought were doing wrong... but you didn't jump at the chance to forgive them. :think: )

We are to forgive, Jesus said if we want to experience the forgiveness that God has for us, we have to forgive others. Luke 17: 3-4 in no way contradicts Matthew 6:14-15 as you suggest. What it is saying is when someone repents and ask you fro forgiveness...forgive them. What you are trying to make it say is that only when they repent are we to frogive and the Bible isnt saying that. The Bible say we are to forgive, that we are to love our enemies, do good to those who hate us and pray for those who abuse us.

To withold forgiveness until someone ask for it is like holding something over peoples head, its a power manuever - a form of manipulation and vindictiveness. that is not in the Spirit of the Gospel of Peace, when someone sins and we bring it to their attention, it is for their benefit not ours, its to restore fellowship and peace that we should do these things.

Rimi
June 24th, 2005, 12:28 PM
Hasan Hyphen said:


To withold forgiveness until someone ask for it is like holding something over peoples head, its a power manuever - a form of manipulation and vindictiveness. that is not in the Spirit of the Gospel of Peace, when someone sins and we bring it to their attention, it is for their benefit not ours, its to restore fellowship and peace that we should do these things.

So you're saying that this is what God does, be vindictive? I mean, Scriptures clearly state that there can be no forgiveness without repentence. Or are you saying God forgives everyone no matter if they repent?

Also, could you or someone who thinks like you explain how forgiving someone who's not repentent is for the benefit of the forgiver. I'm not saying you said this, I'm not sure that you did, but your "side" tends to make this claim and I'd like it explained.

Chileice
June 24th, 2005, 02:25 PM
Hasan Hyphen said:



So you're saying that this is what God does, be vindictive? I mean, Scriptures clearly state that there can be no forgiveness without repentence. Or are you saying God forgives everyone no matter if they repent?

Also, could you or someone who thinks like you explain how forgiving someone who's not repentent is for the benefit of the forgiver. I'm not saying you said this, I'm not sure that you did, but your "side" tends to make this claim and I'd like it explained.

There are MANY evidences in the NT that repentance wasn't needed for forgiveness. In Mark 2 the paralytic never repented before Jesus forgave him. The man waiting by the pool was healed with no repentance mentioned or implied. Even the prodigal son was forgiven before he even had a chance to repent. So to say that is a clear scriptural teaching is wrong. What is clear is that Jesus desired mercy rather sacrifice. He quoted that 3 times from Hosea chapter 6. Very interesting. We want to force repentance because it fits better with the economic justice we desire the world to have. It fits well with the Levitical law, but it doesn't fit too well with Jesus or Paul. We have received grace upon grace, that which we NEVER merited or deserved, not as a result of works but as a result of the infinite love of the Father.

PureX
June 24th, 2005, 03:12 PM
....But if I can't hold my rightiousness over the sinner's head, how will I have any control over him??? How will he know that God is on my side and that he'd better do what I tell him to do?... (*shaking head and mumbling something unintelligably*)

Hasan_ibn_Sabah
June 24th, 2005, 03:24 PM
Well consider your righteousness as dross, as filthy rags, holding punishment over someones head in order to extract obedience to you is not grace, thats what the Pharisees did to people. We are to be ministers of grace, not seeking to control others but to seeking restore to fellowship and peace with God and neighbor. When a person does wrong to me, I don't want them to repent for my benefit, so I can feel morally superior to them , but so we may restore fellowship and peace, for their benefit.

PureX
June 24th, 2005, 03:33 PM
Well consider your righteousness as dross, as filthy rags, holding punishment over someones head in order to extract obedience to you is not grace, thats what the Pharisees did to people. We are to be ministers of grace, not seeking to control others but to seeking restore to fellowship and peace with God and neighbor. When a person does wrong to me, I don't want them to repent for my benefit, so I can feel morally superior to them , but so we may restore fellowship and peace, for their benefit.What religion are you? That doesn't sound like any version of religious Christianity I'm familiar with. If this were true, why are Christians always condemning gays, and unwed mothers, and abortion practitioners, and liberals, and everyone else they deem to be a sinner?

Rimi
June 24th, 2005, 04:59 PM
There are MANY evidences in the NT that repentance wasn't needed for forgiveness. In Mark 2 the paralytic never repented before Jesus forgave him. The man waiting by the pool was healed with no repentance mentioned or implied. Even the prodigal son was forgiven before he even had a chance to repent. So to say that is a clear scriptural teaching is wrong. What is clear is that Jesus desired mercy rather sacrifice. He quoted that 3 times from Hosea chapter 6. Very interesting. We want to force repentance because it fits better with the economic justice we desire the world to have. It fits well with the Levitical law, but it doesn't fit too well with Jesus or Paul. We have received grace upon grace, that which we NEVER merited or deserved, not as a result of works but as a result of the infinite love of the Father.


But that was JESUS. He can do whatever the heck He wants! HE knew the heart of the person he healed/forgave, even if they didn't speak. No, we don't want to force repentence. It must be given freely and truly or it's nothing at all. But we also don't want to run around forgiving those who don't give a rip, which would be just as bad. These fit very well with Jesus Christ and his scribe Paul. Yes, we received grace, and we will never be worthy of it. But we DID have to do ONE thing for it: repent. We had to realize our sins/crimes and run to God for forgiveness. Without THAT, we could have no part of Him. Manson, to my knowledge has never repented. Are you saying that Manson has received grace and forgiveness?? What about Stalin? What about Bundy? What about Hitler? I've heard of no record of these turds saying they were sorry for what they did and that they'd wished they hadn't done such things. You think God forgives them?

Why did Jesus say "Repent for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand"? And "If you brother sins against him, rebuke him. And IF he repents, forgive him."? Why did Jesus say things things?

Hasan_ibn_Sabah
June 24th, 2005, 05:58 PM
Rimi - so according to you, I am supposed to wait until someone who as wronged me to repent, so that I may forgive them. But Jesus tells us when we are praying, if we hold anything against anyone we should forgive them, so that our Father may forgive us.

So according to your beliefs, I have to wait for all my enemies to repent, before I can repent and pray to God.

I don't think so.

Rimi
June 24th, 2005, 07:15 PM
No, Hasan. According to Jesus in Luke 17:3. Problem with this, take it to Him.

You do not need to wait for your enemies to repent before you repent of your own sins and ask God for forgiveness. Maybe you do if you are still under the law. I am not.

julie21
June 24th, 2005, 08:11 PM
The words of Christ on the cross to His Father;
"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
Did that mean;
"Father forgive them, but only if they repent first. For they know not what they do."?
Interested in someone giving their idea on this. I am reading this thread with great interest.

SOTK
June 25th, 2005, 03:50 AM
The words of Christ on the cross to His Father;
"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
Did that mean;
"Father forgive them, but only if they repent first. For they know not what they do."?
Interested in someone giving their idea on this. I am reading this thread with great interest.

Personally, I don't think the scripture you cited above has anything to do with Biblical forgiveness. That Scripture purely had to do with Jesus asking God to forgive them for not realizing that they were killing God. I think we would be reading too much into it to take it any farther than that.

I think we should ask for forgiveness whenever we sin. If we have sinned against our brother, we need to ask for God's forgiveness and then for our brother's forgiveness. However, I do think it's Biblical to not forgive our brother for having sinned against us if our brother remains unrepentant. I think it's unloving to forgive someone who remains in their sin. What is that teaching your brother?

Look at it this way: If your son or daughter disobeyed you, which is clearly sin, would you just overlook this willfull disobedience and forgive them for it? Or, would you confront their sin, show them how what they did was sin and that it harmed you, and tell them that they needed to ask for your forgiveness?

Chileice
June 25th, 2005, 07:36 AM
No, Hasan. According to Jesus in Luke 17:3. Problem with this, take it to Him.

You do not need to wait for your enemies to repent before you repent of your own sins and ask God for forgiveness. Maybe you do if you are still under the law. I am not.

Rimi,
But you are not talking about forgiveness here. Hasan is talking about forgiveness of the other person and you are talking about getting your own forgiveness from God. I really think you learned some things very backward from someone or you are trying to justify grudges you are wanting to hold on to (I hope not).

You said,
"But we also don't want to run around forgiving those who don't give a rip,"

You feel it is non-biblical to forgive unless the person truly repents. Then you will never forgive. How can you forgive if the one who offended you doesn't repent (according to you)? And how can you KNOW he/she has repented if you are not the Holy Spirit? Are you going to wait 3 days, 3 months, 3 years and see if they do the same thing again? It kind of makes Jesus' talk with Peter meaningless. Jesus says forgive him 490 times. Do you think a person is TRULY repentant if we have to forgive him 490 times for the same stupid thing?

You asked,
"Also, could you or someone who thinks like you explain how forgiving someone who's not repentent is for the benefit of the forgiver."

The benefit is that the offender no longer holds power over me... even if he/she wants to. I see this all the time in the small towns where I work. Someone did something wrong to someone's family member so there is a conscious effort made to make sure that unrepentant so and so pays for their transgression. So they ignore the person on the street, gossip about them at the beauty parlour, etc., etc. Well that person holds all kinds of power over the offended person becacause the offended person is not free to do and say and go where they want for fear of appearing to approve the other person. But once a person forgives the other person... even if the other person doesn't want the forgiveness, the forgiver has ALL the power. He can go where he wants do what he wants and even speak well of the offender. The offender can hardly stand this and often (usually after trying to get the offended person to hate them again) they actually do repent.

So if you Don't forgive, you give the offender power in your life. And the Bible is clear that if we want to be forgiven we must likewise forgive.
Matthew 6 seems pretty clear:
12And forgive us our debts,
As we forgive our debtors.
13And do not lead us into temptation,
But deliver us from the evil one.
For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.[c]
14"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

I hope you will forgive. You will really like the freedom.

Chileice
June 25th, 2005, 07:40 AM
The words of Christ on the cross to His Father;
"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
Did that mean;
"Father forgive them, but only if they repent first. For they know not what they do."?
Interested in someone giving their idea on this. I am reading this thread with great interest.

Julie, you are right on. Jesus was always willing to forgive. Now those who were in the audience still needed to repent and as we see in Acts, many of them did. Many became followers of the Lord. There was actually a whole thread on this verse not too long ago. Maybe you can search for it and read it. It was an interesting thread. I'm not sure why it died out so soon.

Chileice
June 25th, 2005, 07:49 AM
Personally, I don't think the scripture you cited above has anything to do with Biblical forgiveness. That Scripture purely had to do with Jesus asking God to forgive them for not realizing that they were killing God. I think we would be reading too much into it to take it any farther than that.

I think we should ask for forgiveness whenever we sin. If we have sinned against our brother, we need to ask for God's forgiveness and then for our brother's forgiveness. However, I do think it's Biblical to not forgive our brother for having sinned against us if our brother remains unrepentant. I think it's unloving to forgive someone who remains in their sin. What is that teaching your brother?

Look at it this way: If your son or daughter disobeyed you, which is clearly sin, would you just overlook this willfull disobedience and forgive them for it? Or, would you confront their sin, show them how what they did was sin and that it harmed you, and tell them that they needed to ask for your forgiveness?

SOTK, I often find your posts thoughtful and interesting. But I guess I see in this post what I see in Rimi's. Unforgiven sin leads to more sin. It can not help but lead to some type of grudge or bitterness. If I do not forgive the one who has wronged me, how will he/she know that he has wronged me? Usually we make the displeasure known by avoiding them, shunning them, closing them out. That in itself is unChrist-like behaviour and exacerbates the sin.

Overlook and forgive are two very different things. Overlook (disculpar en español) and forgive (perdonar) are totally different concepts. In love we do confront the problem, but I can still choose to treat that person with love and respect "in spite of their sin". That is forgiveness. Overlooking just pretends they have never sinned. Could you forgive your homosexual daughter? (This is a hypothetical question) But this is a question many Christians face. Can you forgive a mate who lusts after someone else? Can we do the hard forgiveness or just the easy stuff? Forgiveness requires guts and it requires a tight relationship with the ONE who has forgiven me... even of the tough stuff.

Nineveh
June 25th, 2005, 08:04 AM
If I do not forgive the one who has wronged me, how will he/she know that he has wronged me?


By following the first part of Jesus's advice? "If your brother sins, rebuke him,...".

Rimi
June 25th, 2005, 08:09 AM
Chileice wrote:



But you are not talking about forgiveness here. Hasan is talking about forgiveness of the other person and you are talking about getting your own forgiveness from God. I really think you learned some things very backward from someone or you are trying to justify grudges you are wanting to hold on to (I hope not).

Yes, I am talking about forgiveness. What I've learned is stated clearly in Scriptures. Ask yourself this:

1. Why does God say vengeance is His, so do not repay? If I'm to forgive those who abuse me or rape me or kill me, why would God say He'd avenge me? hmmm?

2. Why does not God rebuke the saints under the alter in Revelations when they cry out for vengeance? They're saints and want Him to take care of business! So much for forgiveness.


You said,
"But we also don't want to run around forgiving those who don't give a rip,"

You feel it is non-biblical to forgive unless the person truly repents. Then you will never forgive. How can you forgive if the one who offended you doesn't repent (according to you)? And how can you KNOW he/she has repented if you are not the Holy Spirit? Are you going to wait 3 days, 3 months, 3 years and see if they do the same thing again? It kind of makes Jesus' talk with Peter meaningless. Jesus says forgive him 490 times. Do you think a person is TRULY repentant if we have to forgive him 490 times for the same stupid thing?

Correct, I will not forgive someone who has hurt me and thumbs his nose at what he's done. It would be mocking the whole concept of forgiveness. I can know only by how they present themselves. I've had people say they're sorry, but find that they lied. At the time I forgave. What! Am I to forgive them for mocking me and lying right to my face as well!? Even God needs proof of a contrite heart. Now, He can see the heart, I can't. So, here is some wisdom: wait to see how they back up their claims of repentence. God's not stupid, He knows that we are not supernatural. He understands the need for evidence . . . why, He left them all over the place so we can believe in Him! To be forgiven for no act of repentence the offenders now know that forgiveness means nothing and they can do as they please. When did Jesus forgive Peter 490 times??


You asked,
"Also, could you or someone who thinks like you explain how forgiving someone who's not repentent is for the benefit of the forgiver."

The benefit is that the offender no longer holds power over me... even if he/she wants to. I see this all the time in the small towns where I work. Someone did something wrong to someone's family member so there is a conscious effort made to make sure that unrepentant so and so pays for their transgression. So they ignore the person on the street, gossip about them at the beauty parlour, etc., etc. Well that person holds all kinds of power over the offended person becacause the offended person is not free to do and say and go where they want for fear of appearing to approve the other person. But once a person forgives the other person... even if the other person doesn't want the forgiveness, the forgiver has ALL the power. He can go where he wants do what he wants and even speak well of the offender. The offender can hardly stand this and often (usually after trying to get the offended person to hate them again) they actually do repent.

So, if my family member is raped, I shouldn't seek to have the rapist brought to justice. You are a fool. You would let the rapist go free, all forgiven. And the rapist is cleared to rape again because you have no affect on this pig. You would let a murderer murder again. A pedophile destroy little lives. But, hey, he has no "power" over you, so it's OK. You feel better because you've forgiven. If it feels good, do it? You'd be no better than the offender.


So if you Don't forgive, you give the offender power in your life. And the Bible is clear that if we want to be forgiven we must likewise forgive.

Matthew 6 seems pretty clear:
12And forgive us our debts,
As we forgive our debtors.
13And do not lead us into temptation,
But deliver us from the evil one.
For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.[c]
14"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Luke 17:3 is pretty clear too, but you don't see to like that one. But let's dissect Mt6 a bit . . . "forgive us our debts AS we forgive our debtors . . ."

HOW does God forgive us? What's the criteria for receiving forgiveness from God?


I hope you will forgive. You will really like the freedom.

I'll get personal with you here. I was molested as a child. I'd always been taught to forgiveforgiveforgive, much as you espouse here. This filth went on to molest countless others, lives destroyed. I felt responsible for the ones I found out about, because hey I'd forgiven him and this should've helped him out some way. He had control over me by way of guilt. But, hey, I forgive him! For everything because that's what I'd been taught! Forgive! Forgive! Forgive! Didn't make sense then when I was asked to take him to court, which I did, since if I'd forgiven him how could I possibly hold him accountable??? Very confusing. I mean, I'd been taught that forgiveness is a clean slate! I felt guilt over going to court for crying out loud! When I became a Christian, and read the Word of God, it all became clear. He's not forgiven because he's not repentent. This devil murdered souls. I should have been asking, crying for vengeance from a holy and awesome God. And THAT, Chileice, set me free. I am free in Jesus Christ. HE is my rest. HE is my comfort. And I trust that one day HE will avenge me. Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ ALONE, is my freedom. How I wish you had such freedom as do I.

Rimi
June 25th, 2005, 08:11 AM
Julie, you are right on. Jesus was always willing to forgive. Now those who were in the audience still needed to repent and as we see in Acts, many of them did. Many became followers of the Lord. There was actually a whole thread on this verse not too long ago. Maybe you can search for it and read it. It was an interesting thread. I'm not sure why it died out so soon.

YES! Jesus was always WILLING . . . BUT he didn't do it automatically, with nothing required of the offender. I cannot believe you wrote this and still don't see this!

Rimi
June 25th, 2005, 08:16 AM
Chileice wrote:


SOTK, I often find your posts thoughtful and interesting. But I guess I see in this post what I see in Rimi's. Unforgiven sin leads to more sin. It can not help but lead to some type of grudge or bitterness. If I do not forgive the one who has wronged me, how will he/she know that he has wronged me? Usually we make the displeasure known by avoiding them, shunning them, closing them out. That in itself is unChrist-like behaviour and exacerbates the sin.

Forgive me, SOTK, for cutting in, but I just couldn't stand by. . . . Chileice, the offender will know they sinned against you WHEN YOU REBUKE THEM!! Tell me: Did you know you'd sinned against God when He rebuked you with the truth of the Law or when He forgave you?? Yes, not rebuking and confronting sin is unChristlike.



Overlook and forgive are two very different things. Overlook (disculpar en español) and forgive (perdonar) are totally different concepts. In love we do confront the problem, but I can still choose to treat that person with love and respect "in spite of their sin".

How did Jesus treat Herod?


That is forgiveness. Overlooking just pretends they have never sinned.

How did Jesus treat Herod?


Could you forgive your homosexual daughter? (This is a hypothetical question) But this is a question many Christians face. Can you forgive a mate who lusts after someone else? Can we do the hard forgiveness or just the easy stuff? Forgiveness requires guts and it requires a tight relationship with the ONE who has forgiven me... even of the tough stuff.

If one repents (whether rebuked or not) then there is time and place for forgiveness. Ya know, like God does. Why did Jesus say to be perfect like our Father in Heaven? Oh, and I see now that you're talking about your OWN forgiveness. Your own forgiveness is based on your repentence. Yet you don't set the same standard for others? This makes no sense.

PureX
June 25th, 2005, 09:00 AM
I think it's odd that people believe their "rebuke" actually means something to anyone but themselves.

If I believe that the effect my actions had on you were justified, and you don't agree so you "rebuke" me for them, what will I care? And so you won't forgive me. What will I care? You have decided for yourself what you think is right and wrong. Other people have decided for themselves what they think is right and wrong. And there will inevitably be disagreement about these. My point is that someone you would call an "unrepentant sinner" isn't going to care at all about your "rebukes" or your lack of forgiveness. So the only person you're effecting by holding on to your righteous indignation is yourself. The "sinner" will either continue to sin, or he won't, depending on his own ideas about what's right and wrong. And your unforgiveness and rebukes have nothing to do with it. We aren't in charge of the hearts and minds of others, and we never will be.

Forgiveness is not a tool we use to control manipulate other people. It's something we do for ourselves, to keep peace within ourselves and between ourselves and God.

Rimi
June 25th, 2005, 09:12 AM
I think it's odd that people believe their "rebuke" actually means something to anyone but themselves.

If I believe that the effect my actions had on you were justified, and you don't agree so you "rebuke" me for them, what will I care? And so you won't forgive me. What will I care? You have decided for yourself what you think is right and wrong. Other people have decided for themselves what they think is right and wrong. And there will inevitably be disagreement about these. My point is that someone you would call an "unrepentant sinner" isn't going to care at all about your "rebukes" or your lack of forgiveness. So the only person you're effecting by holding on to your righteous indignation is yourself. The "sinner" will either continue to sin, or he won't, depending on his own ideas about what's right and wrong. And your unforgiveness and rebukes have nothing to do with it. We aren't in charge of the hearts and minds of others, and we never will be.

Forgiveness is not a tool we use to control manipulate other people. It's something we do for ourselves, to keep peace within ourselves and between ourselves and God.

So, forgiveness is something God does for Himself?? Just nutty.

Rimi
June 25th, 2005, 09:15 AM
Purex wrong:


Forgiveness is not a tool we use to control manipulate other people.

That is not what forgiveness is for. Repentence and forgiveness are because they are the right thing to do in the right time they are done (repentence first, then forgiveness). You've already indicated that it probably wouldn't manipulate the offender, so inherently you already know that is not what forgiveness is for.

Chileice
June 25th, 2005, 09:32 AM
Romans 12:14-21 The context of the verse you quoted out of context:

14Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. 16Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion.

17Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. 18If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. 19Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,"[a] says the Lord. 20Therefore
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
If he is thirsty, give him a drink;
For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head."[b]



21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.






1. Why does God say vengeance is His, so do not repay? If I'm to forgive those who abuse me or rape me or kill me, why would God say He'd avenge me? hmmm?
HE will avange so that you don't have to. HE wants us to bless those who curse us, even those who rape us or shoot at us. But that does NOT mean we overlook their sin. Those who do evil to us ARE evil. The evil they do is evil. We can rebuke them. But then we can also say..."In spite of that, I am going to treat you the way Christ has treated me. Your sin is still sin and you still need to repent and seek forgiveness, but I forgive you. I will not let your actions make me bitter."



2. Why does not God rebuke the saints under the alter in Revelations when they cry out for vengeance? They're saints and want Him to take care of business! So much for forgiveness.

Once again, I think you should go take the whole passage in context and think it through. I don't think it puts forgiveness out the window. If we say, "so much for forgiveness", Christianity is a sham. We might as well just be some moralists seeking to balance punishments with actions the best we can. And you will never be safe in your Christianity either because you will never know if you are really forgiven, because you might slip up again. Forgiveness is the :em: heart of the Gospel. Without it we are just another Islam with a mean-spirited capricious god who may or may not let us into his heaven.




Correct, I will not forgive someone who has hurt me and thumbs his nose at what he's done. It would be mocking the whole concept of forgiveness. I can know only by how they present themselves. I've had people say they're sorry, but find that they lied. At the time I forgave. What! Am I to forgive them for mocking me and lying right to my face as well!? Even God needs proof of a contrite heart. Now, He can see the heart, I can't. So, here is some wisdom: wait to see how they back up their claims of repentence. God's not stupid, He knows that we are not supernatural. He understands the need for evidence . . . why, He left them all over the place so we can believe in Him! To be forgiven for no act of repentence the offenders now know that forgiveness means nothing and they can do as they please. When did Jesus forgive Peter 490 times??

You will be waiting all your life to forgive. I feel sorry for you. Here is the evidence you asked for. Here is the whole passage in its context. Kind of scarey if we don't forgive, I'd say. Please read it, it is germain to the point.

Forgiveness
21Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?"
22Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.

23"For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves.

24"When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him.

25"But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made.

26"So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, 'Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.'

27"And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt.

28"But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, 'Pay back what you owe.'

29"So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, 'Have patience with me and I will repay you.'

30"But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed.

31"So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened.

32"Then summoning him, his lord said to him, 'You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.

33'Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'

34"And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.

35"My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart."



So, if my family member is raped, I shouldn't seek to have the rapist brought to justice. You are a fool. You would let the rapist go free, all forgiven. And the rapist is cleared to rape again because you have no affect on this pig. You would let a murderer murder again. A pedophile destroy little lives. But, hey, he has no "power" over you, so it's OK. You feel better because you've forgiven. If it feels good, do it? You'd be no better than the offender.

First of all, Rimi, I will rebuke you. It is not godly to call a fellow believer a fool. But, next, I'm going to forgive you because I don't want to have some long-standing feud or grudge with you. I hope that I can treat you as I would anyone who has not insulted me and put words in my mouth.

As you can see from all previous posts, I have never advocated letting rapists go free and acting like they never sinned. Sin carries consecunces and the sin of rapre has its consecuences, not the least of which is a jail term. But I think families who have come to forgive those who have wronged them do live a more productive, less bitter life.




I'll get personal with you here. I was molested as a child. I'd always been taught to forgiveforgiveforgive, much as you espouse here. This filth went on to molest countless others, lives destroyed. I felt responsible for the ones I found out about, because hey I'd forgiven him and this should've helped him out some way. He had control over me by way of guilt. But, hey, I forgive him! For everything because that's what I'd been taught! Forgive! Forgive! Forgive! Didn't make sense then when I was asked to take him to court, which I did, since if I'd forgiven him how could I possibly hold him accountable??? Very confusing. I mean, I'd been taught that forgiveness is a clean slate! I felt guilt over going to court for crying out loud! When I became a Christian, and read the Word of God, it all became clear. He's not forgiven because he's not repentent. This devil murdered souls. I should have been asking, crying for vengeance from a holy and awesome God. And THAT, Chileice, set me free. I am free in Jesus Christ. HE is my rest. HE is my comfort. And I trust that one day HE will avenge me. Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ ALONE, is my freedom. How I wish you had such freedom as do I.

I am very sorry that you were molested. I am. I think it is a terrible crime and the criminal should not go unpunished. But what someone taught you as forgiveness was wrong. Pretending it didn't happen is not forgiveness. Calling it what it is: SIN, and then forgiving the person IN SPITE of their action is real forgiveness. You are right, He still has an unpaid debt with God. If he will not admit his sin and does not want forgiveness, he won't experience it. But you can experience the forgiveness and freedom of not letting his actions define YOUR life. Totally leave the vengeance in God's hands and move on. You are not the only one to have gone through crap like that. Most of us have experiences that could mar us forever if we don't deal with them properly. I know that writing in a forum is not the best way to judge attitude. But it sounds to me that you are still bitter. If I have read something into your writing that is NOT there, please forgive me. But I don't see how you can say you have freedom when what I read sounds like bitterness.

Chileice
June 25th, 2005, 09:34 AM
I think it's odd that people believe their "rebuke" actually means something to anyone but themselves.

If I believe that the effect my actions had on you were justified, and you don't agree so you "rebuke" me for them, what will I care? And so you won't forgive me. What will I care? You have decided for yourself what you think is right and wrong. Other people have decided for themselves what they think is right and wrong. And there will inevitably be disagreement about these. My point is that someone you would call an "unrepentant sinner" isn't going to care at all about your "rebukes" or your lack of forgiveness. So the only person you're effecting by holding on to your righteous indignation is yourself. The "sinner" will either continue to sin, or he won't, depending on his own ideas about what's right and wrong. And your unforgiveness and rebukes have nothing to do with it. We aren't in charge of the hearts and minds of others, and we never will be.

Forgiveness is not a tool we use to control manipulate other people. It's something we do for ourselves, to keep peace within ourselves and between ourselves and God.

Very well said. Thanks!

Turbo
June 25th, 2005, 02:58 PM
Personally, I don't think the scripture you cited above has anything to do with Biblical forgiveness. That Scripture purely had to do with Jesus asking God to forgive them for not realizing that they were killing God. I think we would be reading too much into it to take it any farther than that.

I think we should ask for forgiveness whenever we sin. If we have sinned against our brother, we need to ask for God's forgiveness and then for our brother's forgiveness. However, I do think it's Biblical to not forgive our brother for having sinned against us if our brother remains unrepentant. I think it's unloving to forgive someone who remains in their sin. What is that teaching your brother?

Look at it this way: If your son or daughter disobeyed you, which is clearly sin, would you just overlook this willfull disobedience and forgive them for it? Or, would you confront their sin, show them how what they did was sin and that it harmed you, and tell them that they needed to ask for your forgiveness? :first: POTD! (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=793616#post793616)

Rimi
June 25th, 2005, 03:38 PM
Chileice made my case:


Romans 12:14-21 The context of the verse you quoted out of context:

14Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. 16Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion.

Hardly out of context. To rebuke is to bless with the truth. To not rebuke would be a curse. To forgive without repentence is misrepresenting God's way of doing things and would be a curse. For both parties.


17Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. 18If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.

Not forgiving when it is not asked for is NOT repaying evil for evil. Forgiving when someone admits their sins/crimes is having regard for good things. It is a good thing to repent. Yes, as much as it depends on you, live peaceably. But if it is not possible, do the right thing and confront and rebuke those who sin.


19Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,"[a] says the Lord. 20Therefore
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
If he is thirsty, give him a drink;
For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head."[b]

Not forgiving is not avenging one's self. Seeking justice is not avenging one's self. To kill my rapist would be evil in God's sight, but to not forgive him is righteous when he is not repentent. Do good, sure, but do not give him what he does not deserve (forgiveness) unless he repents.



21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Not forgiving is NOT being overcome by evil, else God would have rebuked the saints under the alter. Correction is good. Repentence is great as it paves the way for forgiveness.





HE will avange so that you don't have to.

Why did Jesus say, "If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." .. .. If I forgive them, why should God need to avenge? Isn't forgiveness a clean slate? Isn't that what God does for us when we repent and then He forgives?


HE wants us to bless those who curse us, even those who rape us or shoot at us. But that does NOT mean we overlook their sin.

Rebuking is blessing them. Forgiving them when they do not repent does not bless them. Bless, yes; forgive without cause, no. Forgiving without repentence IS overlooking their sin.


Those who do evil to us ARE evil. The evil they do is evil.

ya think?


We can rebuke them. But then we can also say..."In spite of that, I am going to treat you the way Christ has treated me.

Christ did not forgive me until I repented of my sins, so you are not forgiving the way Christ did/does.


Your sin is still sin and you still need to repent and seek forgiveness, but I forgive you. I will not let your actions make me bitter."

You are not forgiving as Christ forgives. And not forgiving someone does not make me bitter. The culprit not repenting makes me bitter.




Once again, I think you should go take the whole passage in context and think it through.

I was just thinking the same about you.


I don't think it puts forgiveness out the window. If we say, "so much for forgiveness", Christianity is a sham.

Forgiving when it is not merited is a sham.


We might as well just be some moralists seeking to balance punishments with actions the best we can.

Only if we seek vengence . . . not justice or repentence from the culprit, but vengence.


And you will never be safe in your Christianity either because you will never know if you are really forgiven, because you might slip up again.

I am safe in my faith in Christ, because I know that when I turn from my sin and with a contrite heart ask for forgiveness I am given it. I KNOW I will fail as I am only human. God knows that too. But if I can overcome my human desire to make excuses and just be honest and ask for forgiveness when I fail, I know that God will forgive.


Forgiveness is the :em: heart of the Gospel. Without it we are just another Islam with a mean-spirited capricious god who may or may not let us into his heaven.

You don't know your Scriptures.




You will be waiting all your life to forgive.

If the offender doesn't repend, I'm ok with that.


I feel sorry for you.

Irrelevant.


Here is the evidence you asked for. Here is the whole passage in its context. Kind of scarey if we don't forgive, I'd say. Please read it, it is germain to the point.

It IS germain to the point. And with it you make my whole case. Let's break it down, shall we.


Forgiveness
21Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?"
22Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.

First of all, you said Jesus forgave Peter 490 times. You misstated.


23"For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves.

The king is Jesus Christ, right?


24"When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him.

25"But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made.

Aw, look, the rebuke. Caught in his sin.


26"So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, 'Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.'


Aw, look, repentence.



27"And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt.


NOW we see forgiveness of debt.



28"But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, 'Pay back what you owe.'


Like Christ, the rebuke. Aw.



29"So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, 'Have patience with me and I will repay you.'


Aw, look, REPENTENCE.



30"But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed.

And this is where the 1st dude messes up, because after rebuking and repentence, he didn't forgive. THIS is wrong.



31"So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened.

32"Then summoning him, his lord said to him, 'You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.

Are you getting this? "BECAUSE YOU PLEADED WITH ME" THAT's why the lord forgave the slave. He did NOT forgive without the slave pleading.



33'Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'

Hear this?? ". . .IN THE SAME WAY that I had mercy on you" And how was that way? By rebuking, receiving repentence, and THEN forgiving.


34"And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.

35"My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart."

IF we do not forgive WHEN there has been repentence, then God will be moved to react badly It's like you're reading this without really seeing it. You've read it so many times that it means nothing to you. Read it again.



First of all, Rimi, I will rebuke you.


Whuddevah blows yore skirt up.


It is not godly to call a fellow believer a fool.

It would be worse if I'd said nothing. Hey, here's one for ya: Was it nice of Jesus to call fellow Jews swine? sons of the devil? brook of vipers?


But, next, I'm going to forgive you because I don't want to have some long-standing feud or grudge with you. I hope that I can treat you as I would anyone who has not insulted me and put words in my mouth.


Your forgiveness means nothing to me as I didn't ask for it. It's a sham. You HOPE you can treat me as you would anyone else??? And here I'd thought you'd forgiven me. See, it's not real, you don't mean it, and it's worthless. THAT's why we are not to forgive without REPENTENCE.


As you can see from all previous posts, I have never advocated letting rapists go free and acting like they never sinned. Sin carries consecunces and the sin of rapre has its consecuences, not the least of which is a jail term. But I think families who have come to forgive those who have wronged them do live a more productive, less bitter life.

You are mistaken. They want desparately to be free of it, but they cannot because either the culprit is still running around and not turning himself in (ya know, like, repenting) or he's sitting in a cell AT THEIR EXPENSE and laughing at them. I was watching a special on the Tate/LaBiano murders by the Manson clan. Sharon Tate's mother was filmed confronting the guy (can't think of his name, but he claims to be a Christian now and has a website and guess who pays for it -- have been meaning to write to him that he would've likely been saved sooner if he'd had a death sentence hanging over his head so he shouldn't advocate life sentences!). He sat there rolling his eyesk, wouldn't look at her. He murdered her daughter and grandchild, and he sat there sullen like she had some nerve speaking to him that way. No repentence. Nothing. She was wise in not forgiving him. The irony of this: she was prolly not saved and is in hell now (died in the 80s I think) and he's saved. But he was not repentence then, and she was right in not forgiving him.




I am very sorry that you were molested. I am. I think it is a terrible crime and the criminal should not go unpunished. But what someone taught you as forgiveness was wrong. Pretending it didn't happen is not forgiveness.

I was not taught to pretend it didn't happen. I was taught to forgive. As you are saying in this thread. And it is wrong.


Calling it what it is: SIN, and then forgiving the person IN SPITE of their action is real forgiveness.


It is sin and it was not forgivable becasuse he's not repentent. Re-read above breakdown of wicked slave.


You are right, He still has an unpaid debt with God.

True. And God knows that he has an upaid debt with those he abused. And God will avenge because of his lack of repentence.


If he will not admit his sin and does not want forgiveness, he won't experience it.

THAT'S RIGHT!!!!!

You've managed to make my whole point. Again.



But you can experience the forgiveness and freedom of not letting his actions define YOUR life.

MY freedom is in Christ, as I've already explain. For you to say this now offends the very person of Jesus Christ. And calls me a liar. I'll forgive if you repent. The pedophile's actions affect my live, but do not define it. You need to talk with Christ on this.


Totally leave the vengeance in God's hands and move on.

D.u.h. I did not seek vengeance. I sought justice. I did move on, affected. I do move on in Christ now, freed, blessed and defined by Christ.


You are not the only one to have gone through crap like that. Most of us have experiences that could mar us forever if we don't deal with them properly.

True, which initially I didn't do well. But in Christ, now I do. The pig didn't repent, he is dispicable. And God Himself will avenge me.


I know that writing in a forum is not the best way to judge attitude. But it sounds to me that you are still bitter.

Yes, as you are completely wrong about me. If anything, I am bitter towards Christians like you who mislead.


If I have read something into your writing that is NOT there, please forgive me. But I don't see how you can say you have freedom when what I read sounds like bitterness.[/QUOTE]


As so againk, you infer that I am lying. Again, you give no credit to my freedom in Christ Jesus.

I rebuke YOU, Chileice. How dare you insult the joy of Christ in my life! How dare you. I rebuke YOU, Chileice. I do not forgive you, however, unless you repent.

PureX
June 25th, 2005, 04:22 PM
Look at it this way: If your son or daughter disobeyed you, which is clearly sin, would you just overlook this willfull disobedience and forgive them for it? Or, would you confront their sin, show them how what they did was sin and that it harmed you, and tell them that they needed to ask for your forgiveness?The problem with this analogy, and with the attitude that fosters it, is that other people are NOT YOUR CHILDREN. We aren't in charge of other people's moral or spiritual education. And it's only our own blind arrogance that makes us suppose that we are. And of course it's this same blind arrogance that causes others to resent and reject our trying to play "parent" to them. And rightly so. In fact, we would do the same were they to try to arrogantly force their imagined "parent-like" authority on us.

Chileice
June 25th, 2005, 04:28 PM
Rebuking is blessing; hating is loving, etc. etc. People who believe that are living in some kind of self-made parallel universe. That's truly scarey.

Agape4Robin
June 25th, 2005, 04:37 PM
Chileice made my case:



Hardly out of context. To rebuke is to bless with the truth. To not rebuke would be a curse. To forgive without repentence is misrepresenting God's way of doing things and would be a curse. For both parties.



Not forgiving when it is not asked for is NOT repaying evil for evil. Forgiving when someone admits their sins/crimes is having regard for good things. It is a good thing to repent. Yes, as much as it depends on you, live peaceably. But if it is not possible, do the right thing and confront and rebuke those who sin.



Not forgiving is not avenging one's self. Seeking justice is not avenging one's self. To kill my rapist would be evil in God's sight, but to not forgive him is righteous when he is not repentent. Do good, sure, but do not give him what he does not deserve (forgiveness) unless he repents.




Not forgiving is NOT being overcome by evil, else God would have rebuked the saints under the alter. Correction is good. Repentence is great as it paves the way for forgiveness.






Why did Jesus say, "If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." .. .. If I forgive them, why should God need to avenge? Isn't forgiveness a clean slate? Isn't that what God does for us when we repent and then He forgives?



Rebuking is blessing them. Forgiving them when they do not repent does not bless them. Bless, yes; forgive without cause, no. Forgiving without repentence IS overlooking their sin.



ya think?



Christ did not forgive me until I repented of my sins, so you are not forgiving the way Christ did/does.



You are not forgiving as Christ forgives. And not forgiving someone does not make me bitter. The culprit not repenting makes me bitter.





I was just thinking the same about you.



Forgiving when it is not merited is a sham.



Only if we seek vengence . . . not justice or repentence from the culprit, but vengence.



I am safe in my faith in Christ, because I know that when I turn from my sin and with a contrite heart ask for forgiveness I am given it. I KNOW I will fail as I am only human. God knows that too. But if I can overcome my human desire to make excuses and just be honest and ask for forgiveness when I fail, I know that God will forgive.



You don't know your Scriptures.





If the offender doesn't repend, I'm ok with that.



Irrelevant.



It IS germain to the point. And with it you make my whole case. Let's break it down, shall we.



First of all, you said Jesus forgave Peter 490 times. You misstated.



The king is Jesus Christ, right?



Aw, look, the rebuke. Caught in his sin.




Aw, look, repentence.





NOW we see forgiveness of debt.





Like Christ, the rebuke. Aw.





Aw, look, REPENTENCE.




And this is where the 1st dude messes up, because after rebuking and repentence, he didn't forgive. THIS is wrong.




Are you getting this? "BECAUSE YOU PLEADED WITH ME" THAT's why the lord forgave the slave. He did NOT forgive without the slave pleading.




Hear this?? ". . .IN THE SAME WAY that I had mercy on you" And how was that way? By rebuking, receiving repentence, and THEN forgiving.



IF we do not forgive WHEN there has been repentence, then God will be moved to react badly It's like you're reading this without really seeing it. You've read it so many times that it means nothing to you. Read it again.





Whuddevah blows yore skirt up.



It would be worse if I'd said nothing. Hey, here's one for ya: Was it nice of Jesus to call fellow Jews swine? sons of the devil? brook of vipers?




Your forgiveness means nothing to me as I didn't ask for it. It's a sham. You HOPE you can treat me as you would anyone else??? And here I'd thought you'd forgiven me. See, it's not real, you don't mean it, and it's worthless. THAT's why we are not to forgive without REPENTENCE.



You are mistaken. They want desparately to be free of it, but they cannot because either the culprit is still running around and not turning himself in (ya know, like, repenting) or he's sitting in a cell AT THEIR EXPENSE and laughing at them. I was watching a special on the Tate/LaBiano murders by the Manson clan. Sharon Tate's mother was filmed confronting the guy (can't think of his name, but he claims to be a Christian now and has a website and guess who pays for it -- have been meaning to write to him that he would've likely been saved sooner if he'd had a death sentence hanging over his head so he shouldn't advocate life sentences!). He sat there rolling his eyesk, wouldn't look at her. He murdered her daughter and grandchild, and he sat there sullen like she had some nerve speaking to him that way. No repentence. Nothing. She was wise in not forgiving him. The irony of this: she was prolly not saved and is in hell now (died in the 80s I think) and he's saved. But he was not repentence then, and she was right in not forgiving him.





I was not taught to pretend it didn't happen. I was taught to forgive. As you are saying in this thread. And it is wrong.




It is sin and it was not forgivable becasuse he's not repentent. Re-read above breakdown of wicked slave.



True. And God knows that he has an upaid debt with those he abused. And God will avenge because of his lack of repentence.



THAT'S RIGHT!!!!!

You've managed to make my whole point. Again.




MY freedom is in Christ, as I've already explain. For you to say this now offends the very person of Jesus Christ. And calls me a liar. I'll forgive if you repent. The pedophile's actions affect my live, but do not define it. You need to talk with Christ on this.



D.u.h. I did not seek vengeance. I sought justice. I did move on, affected. I do move on in Christ now, freed, blessed and defined by Christ.



True, which initially I didn't do well. But in Christ, now I do. The pig didn't repent, he is dispicable. And God Himself will avenge me.



Yes, as you are completely wrong about me. If anything, I am bitter towards Christians like you who mislead.




As so againk, you infer that I am lying. Again, you give no credit to my freedom in Christ Jesus.

I rebuke YOU, Chileice. How dare you insult the joy of Christ in my life! How dare you. I rebuke YOU, Chileice. I do not forgive you, however, unless you repent.[/QUOTE]
:BRAVO: :BRAVO: :BRAVO: :BRAVO: :BRAVO: :BRAVO: :BRAVO:

SOTK
June 25th, 2005, 05:23 PM
SOTK, I often find your posts thoughtful and interesting. But I guess I see in this post what I see in Rimi's. Unforgiven sin leads to more sin. It can not help but lead to some type of grudge or bitterness. If I do not forgive the one who has wronged me, how will he/she know that he has wronged me? Usually we make the displeasure known by avoiding them, shunning them, closing them out. That in itself is unChrist-like behaviour and exacerbates the sin.

Chileice,

It is actually quite easy for me to forgive. I have forgiven much in my life and have been given forgiveness much more. I have done many stupid things. Sometimes I knew that I did wrong and sometimes I did not. Either way, having the affected party confront me on my sin and/or behavior was absolutely necessary, beneficial, and Biblical. I don't believe true forgiveness can occur until this process occurs. You say grudge and bitterness occurs by not forgiving. I say grudge and bitterness occurs when attempting to forgive occurs with someone who remains unrepentant. I don't believe Christians are being truly honest with themselves if they say that they can forgive someone who is unrepentant. Enmity still exists between the two no matter how small that enmity may appear. It just doesn't work.

It's easier for me to let go of a wrong committed against me than it is to pretend to forgive it. Let me explain what I mean. If a brother sins against me and remains unrepentant after I've softly rebuked them, I let it go. I give it to God. I don't forgive. What I do is give the harm caused by my brother to God. I trust that God will cause the offending brother to have a heavy heart and move Him. I can't make someone be repentant, however, God can move someone to become repentant. If a person remains unrepentant after being rebuked, it's a matter between them and God. I've done my part. All I have to do is let it go and give it to Him.



Overlook and forgive are two very different things. Overlook (disculpar en español) and forgive (perdonar) are totally different concepts. In love we do confront the problem, but I can still choose to treat that person with love and respect "in spite of their sin". That is forgiveness. Overlooking just pretends they have never sinned. Could you forgive your homosexual daughter? (This is a hypothetical question) But this is a question many Christians face. Can you forgive a mate who lusts after someone else? Can we do the hard forgiveness or just the easy stuff? Forgiveness requires guts and it requires a tight relationship with the ONE who has forgiven me... even of the tough stuff.

Chileice,

I always treat the offending party with love and respect; hence my parent/child analogy. What makes you think I wouldn't? As I said above, I have been forgiven much. I have had a tremendous amount of grace extended to me. I thoroughly enjoy extending grace back, believe me! I just don't believe I can extend grace back until the person repents. I can not truly extend the grace until that occurs. Before becoming a Christian and accepting Christ's atoning blood and forgiveness, I had to repent. How could I have accepted Grace from Christ until then?



The problem with this analogy, and with the attitude that fosters it, is that other people are NOT YOUR CHILDREN. We aren't in charge of other people's moral or spiritual education. And it's only our own blind arrogance that makes us suppose that we are. And of course it's this same blind arrogance that causes others to resent and reject our trying to play "parent" to them. And rightly so. In fact, we would do the same were they to try to arrogantly force their imagined "parent-like" authority on us.

PureX,

See my response to Chileice above. I think what I wrote addresses your points as well.

Agape4Robin
June 25th, 2005, 05:27 PM
Chileice,

It is actually quite easy for me to forgive. I have forgiven much in my life and have been given forgiveness much more. I have done many stupid things. Sometimes I knew that I did wrong and sometimes I did not. Either way, having the affected party confront me on my sin and/or behavior was absolutely necessary, beneficial, and Biblical. I don't believe true forgiveness can occur until this process occurs. You say grudge and bitterness occurs by not forgiving. I say grudge and bitterness occurs when attempting to forgive occurs with someone who remains unrepentant. I don't believe Christians are being truly honest with themselves if they say that they can forgive someone who is unrepentant. Enmity still exists between the two no matter how small that enmity may appear. It just doesn't work.

It's easier for me to let go of a wrong committed against me than it is to pretend to forgive it. Let me explain what I mean. If a brother sins against me and remains unrepentant after I've softly rebuked them, I let it go. I give it to God. I don't forgive. What I do is give the harm caused by my brother to God. I trust that God will cause the offending brother to have a heavy heart and move Him. I can't make someone be repentant, however, God can move someone to become repentant. If a person remains unrepentant after being rebuked, it's a matter between them and God. I've done my part. All I have to do is let it go and give it to Him.



Chileice,

I always treat the offending party with love and respect; hence my parent/child analogy. What makes you think I wouldn't? As I said above, I have been forgiven much. I have had a tremendous amount of grace extended to me. I thoroughly enjoy extending grace back, believe me! I just don't believe I can extend grace back until the person repents. I can not truly extend the grace until that occurs. Before becoming a Christian and accepting Christ's atoning blood and forgiveness, I had to repent. How could I have accepted Grace from Christ until then?




PureX,

See my response to Chileice above. I think what I wrote addresses your points as well.
SOTK

I wish I had learned about this a while ago. I had to learn this truth the hard way. Thank you for this post. God bless you!

Rimi
June 25th, 2005, 05:33 PM
Rebuking is blessing; hating is loving, etc. etc. People who believe that are living in some kind of self-made parallel universe. That's truly scarey.

Yes, hating that which is evil is loving. God does it. You must have some real issues with Him. Gooooooood luck.

Rimi
June 25th, 2005, 05:46 PM
The problem with this analogy, and with the attitude that fosters it, is that other people are NOT YOUR CHILDREN. We aren't in charge of other people's moral or spiritual education. And it's only our own blind arrogance that makes us suppose that we are. And of course it's this same blind arrogance that causes others to resent and reject our trying to play "parent" to them. And rightly so. In fact, we would do the same were they to try to arrogantly force their imagined "parent-like" authority on us.


This analogy is very appropriate. We ARE our brother's keeper. We can legislate morality: i.e., do not kill.

They can resent this, but so what. Are police to stop investigating murders because it'll upset a murderer when he's caught? If we fail in our endeavors to correct behavior, then his blood is on his own head and not ours.

PureX
June 25th, 2005, 05:57 PM
This analogy is very appropriate. We ARE our brother's keeper.We are not our brother's moral authority (judges or teachers).

We can legislate morality: i.e., do not kill.No, we can't. Which is why people kill each other every day regardless of our legislation. People don't refrain from murder just because there is a law against it.

They can resent this, but so what.If you don't care how other people feel about your presuming yourself to be their moral superior, why on Earth should anyone else care about your moral opinions?

Are police to stop investigating murders because it'll upset a murderer when he's caught? If we fail in our endeavors to correct behavior, then his blood is on his own head and not ours.You are confusing crime with "sin". They are not the same thing. Crimes are behaviors that the collective society have agreed can't be tolerated for the good of the collective society. "Sins" are behaviors deemed unacceptable according to a religious perspective.

Agape4Robin
June 25th, 2005, 06:04 PM
You are confusing crime with "sin". They are not the same thing. Crimes are behaviors that the collective society have agreed can't be tolerated for the good of the collective society. "Sins" are behaviors deemed unacceptable according to a religious perspective.
Name a crime that is not associated with sin, Purex. :think:

Chileice
June 25th, 2005, 06:13 PM
It is actually quite easy for me to forgive. I have forgiven much in my life and have been given forgiveness much more. I have done many stupid things. Sometimes I knew that I did wrong and sometimes I did not. Either way, having the affected party confront me on my sin and/or behavior was absolutely necessary, beneficial, and Biblical. I don't believe true forgiveness can occur until this process occurs. You say grudge and bitterness occurs by not forgiving. I say grudge and bitterness occurs when attempting to forgive occurs with someone who remains unrepentant. I don't believe Christians are being truly honest with themselves if they say that they can forgive someone who is unrepentant. Enmity still exists between the two no matter how small that enmity may appear. It just doesn't work.

If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.Romans 12.18
I appreciate your thoughtful response and I agree that our sins may well need to be pointed out to us through the rebuke of a well-meaning brother or sister or even by an unbeliever. Perhaps we are looking at two sides of the coin or different sides of a triangle even. I see bitterness in the lives of many whom I counsel and most of it comes from a root of bitterness that springs up where unforgiveness was planted.

The writer of Hebrews put it this way in chapter 12:
14Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. 15See to it that no one misses the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many.
You and I may not agree on the next point. I DO think we can forgive, even the unrepentant, as long as we are not turning a blind eye to their sin. We have to see it the way it is. If you can find a copy of C.S. Lewis' essay "Forgiveness" written in 1947, please read it. He explains it so much better than I could. But the idea is that we can only forgive when the person DOESN?T deserve it. If their action is excusable, they don't need forgiveness.





It's easier for me to let go of a wrong committed against me than it is to pretend to forgive it. Let me explain what I mean. If a brother sins against me and remains unrepentant after I've softly rebuked them, I let it go. I give it to God. I don't forgive. What I do is give the harm caused by my brother to God. I trust that God will cause the offending brother to have a heavy heart and move Him. I can't make someone be repentant, however, God can move someone to become repentant. If a person remains unrepentant after being rebuked, it's a matter between them and God. I've done my part. All I have to do is let it go and give it to Him.


Maybe the problem is the "letting it go" like it never happened. Forgiveness chooses to make a conscious effort to respect even when respect may not be deserved. It is an action of mercy, not an action of justice. Now the person may still need to be dealt with in a judicial sense. They may have to go to jail or pay a civil fine or make reparations, but forgiveness is not concerned with the judicial but rather the merciful. And we can't show true mercy if we are constantly reserving judgement, wondering if the person will sin again. If that is the case, we never truly forgive because the person might (and probably will) fail.



I always treat the offending party with love and respect; hence my parent/child analogy. What makes you think I wouldn't? As I said above, I have been forgiven much. I have had a tremendous amount of grace extended to me. I thoroughly enjoy extending grace back, believe me! I just don't believe I can extend grace back until the person repents. I can not truly extend the grace until that occurs. Before becoming a Christian and accepting Christ's atoning blood and forgiveness, I had to repent. How could I have accepted Grace from Christ until then?


Perhaps we are on a similar wavelength. I enjoy extending grace as well. And often exteding it to the undeserving has led to their repentance. I hope you will take a closer look at what I have to say and the Biblical injuctions on forgiveness and see if there might be some room for you to grow in your understanding.

Respectfully,
Chileice

PureX
June 25th, 2005, 06:15 PM
Ummm, ... slavery, ... bigamy, ... animal sacrifice, ... I'm sure there are more.

Also, "sins" according to what religion? Christianity does not consider slavery and bigamy sins, but other religions don't consider incest, or bodily mutilation a sin. "Sins" depend on what religious rules are being applied to what behavior.

Hasan_ibn_Sabah
June 25th, 2005, 06:20 PM
In Hollywood California, it is illegal to drive more than two thousand sheep down Hollywood Boulevard at one time. Now that may be a crime, but you could not construe that as a sin.

But there are sins not are not consider crimes, like gambling, overeating and laziness

Agape4Robin
June 25th, 2005, 06:24 PM
Ummm, ... slavery, ... bigamy, ... animal sacrifice, ... I'm sure there are more.

Also, "sins" according to what religion? Christianity does not consider slavery and bigamy sins, but other religions don't consider incest, or bodily mutilation a sin. "Sins" depend on what religious rules are being applied to what behavior. :doh:
Try to keep up, Purex. This is a Christian Forum, so we are discussing Christian perspectives. Ok?

Since when is bigamy not a sin, as it pertains to Christian Theology? Animal sacrifice? Sin. Remember, Christ is now the only atoning sacrifice made for sin.

Slavery? :darwinsm:

Agape4Robin
June 25th, 2005, 06:25 PM
In Hollywood California, it is illegal to drive more than two thousand sheep down Hollywood Boulevard at one time. Now that may be a crime, but you could not construe that as a sin.

But there are sins not are not consider crimes, like gambling, overeating and laziness
:rolleyes:

Oh, you two!!!!!!!! :darwinsm:

PureX
June 25th, 2005, 06:43 PM
SOTK,

I guess we have different ideas about what a "rebuke" is.

For example, I have a boss that doesn't seem to know or care about the proper boundries between human beings, and continually tries to belittle and humiliate his employees whenever he's feeling frustrated, himself. He doesn't understand or respect the fact that his emotions are not his employees' responsibility.

I refuse to accept such behavior from him, or from anyone else in my life. As an adult, I have learned that it's not appropriate for me to vent my emotions on other people regardless of whether I feel they've offended me in some way or not. And I believe that I have a right to stop anyone else who thinks they can do this to me. When he forgets to mind proper boundries, I will remind him in no uncertain terms that this is not acceptable adult behavior.

Is this "chastizing" him? I don't believe it is, because I'm not aproaching it from a position of assumed moral superiority. I'm simply establishing a boundry that I want and believe should be enforced for the good of everyone. I'm not doing it because I'm "right" and he's "wrong". I'm doing it because this is who I am and what I believe I should do in this situation. I'm not doing it because I believe I'm his moral keeper and that I need to "teach him the right way" to behave.

Can you see the difference? It's subtle, but important, I think.

julie21
June 25th, 2005, 08:32 PM
SOTK: Personally, I don't think the scripture you cited above has anything to do with Biblical forgiveness. That Scripture purely had to do with Jesus asking God to forgive them for not realizing that they were killing God. I think we would be reading too much into it to take it any farther than that.

This is the instance that set Biblical forgiveness...
Christ was physically placed on the cross by a limited few, but He was put on the cross by the sins of ALL..that is you and me and our next door neighbour all,and it was ALL of these groups that He asked the Father to forgive as He hung there.
Christ set the precedent for forgiveness, the pattern we as Christians who have had since that death, His grace extended to us through His forgiveness, that we are to follow. That is if our 'Christian hearts' are responsive to His leading through His example.

Rimi
June 25th, 2005, 08:42 PM
PureX wrote:


We are not our brother's moral authority (judges or teachers).

So you have a real problem with laws, and judicial procedures of any kind. Anarchist?


No, we can't. Which is why people kill each other every day regardless of our legislation. People don't refrain from murder just because there is a law against it.


Irrelevant. Just because people don't obey the law doesn't mean the law shouldn't exist and be enforced.


If you don't care how other people feel about your presuming yourself to be their moral superior, why on Earth should anyone else care about your moral opinions?

Because what is right and what is wrong doesn't really change because someone doesn't like it. They might think killing is OK, but that doesn't make it right.



You are confusing crime with "sin". They are not the same thing. Crimes are behaviors that the collective society have agreed can't be tolerated for the good of the collective society. "Sins" are behaviors deemed unacceptable according to a religious perspective.

Most if not all crimes are sins. Not all sins are crimes. True. You had a point here somewhere.

SOTK
June 25th, 2005, 09:24 PM
This is the instance that set Biblical forgiveness...
Christ was physically placed on the cross by a limited few, but He was put on the cross by the sins of ALL..that is you and me and our next door neighbour all,and it was ALL of these groups that He asked the Father to forgive as He hung there.
Christ set the precedent for forgiveness, the pattern we as Christians who have had since that death, His grace extended to us through His forgiveness, that we are to follow. That is if our 'Christian hearts' are responsive to His leading through His example.

No, this is the instance where Biblical forgiveness was set:

"Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, 'I repent,' you shall forgive him." Luke 17:3-4

Isn't the above scripture pretty cut and dry? I don't understand why so many people in this thread are overlooking this. The above scripture is a direct quote from Jesus Himself.

The reason why I stated that "we are reading too much into the words of Christ to the Father" is because Christ was directly asking for forgiveness for particular peoples at that particular time. I do not think that Jesus was asking the Father to forgive everyone who existed in the World at that point in time nor was He asking the Father to forgive people who didn't exist. He was asking for "real time" forgiveness. Jesus was asking for direct forgiveness for the people who were directly responsible for His death.

Julie, was Mary, His mother, responsible for His actual death? Were the Apostle's directly responsible for His death? Were all the people He healed and performed miracle's on directly responsible for His death? How about John the Baptist? Was he responsible for His death?

Jesus did indeed die for my sins! You are absolutely correct! He died for me, you, and our neighbors. I am not disputing that. What I am saying is that I was not directly responsible for murdering Him. There were certain people who did do this and Jesus asked the Father to "forgive them because they did not know what they were doing". He was asking the Father for something particular.

I am "responsive" to what He said in Luke 17:3-4. This is the scripture where we were instructed on how to forgive.

Julie, did you or did you not repent of your sins before accepting the Grace of Jesus Christ? In other words, didn't you more than likely face the Lord in repentance before becoming a Born Again Christian? Or, did you feel like this was not necessary because you had already been forgiven and didn't need to repent of anything?

PureX
June 26th, 2005, 06:38 AM
So you have a real problem with laws, and judicial procedures of any kind. Anarchist?Now you're using that very tired old 'trick' of re-characterizing the other person's position in the most absurd extreme, so as to justify dismissing it without ever actually understanding it. "Prejudice prior to investigation" is basically a definition of bigotry. Are you a religious bigot?

I have no problem with societal law. Society's need laws to function. What I'm talking about is the difference between writing and enforcing laws based on social function, and writing and enforcing laws to promote a moral agenda. In America, killing other people is not against the law because it's morally "wrong". It's against the law because the society can't function without a law against killing people. When we have a trial, and someone is convicted of murder, we aren't locking them up because they're "bad", we're locking them up because they're a danger to society. Or at least this is how it's supposed to work. Unfortunately, since America no longer teaches basic civics in it's schools, the general public is completely ignorant about how and why the government is supposed to work as it does. And this is why it's not working very well, these days.

The United States is not a Christian, religious, or even moral autocracy. It's laws and functions are not the product of any religious or moral agenda. The purpose of government in America is to establish and protect the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness through equal rights, equal freedom, and equal justice for all.

You may deem this "morally right" or "religiously inspired" or you may not, depending on your moral or religious beliefs. That's your own business. You may consider a murderer "bad" if you want to. That's also your own business. But these are not why we try and convict people of the crime of murder, and it's not why we lock them up. Or at least it's not supposed to be why. Unfortunately, as Americans become more and more ignorant, they also become more and more confused about this. And the confusion has now spread to all levels of the government and justice system. As a result, the system is in danger of being dismantled by our own ignorance.

aikido7
June 26th, 2005, 09:49 AM
No, bean, you are going to hell for rejecting Christ.Yeah--right. Did you notice that when he talked about Buddhism and the Buddha and said something about "karma" and that what goes around comes around (typical new-age liberal drivel....)

Everyone knows that it should be "As you sow, so shall you reap!"

Rimi
June 26th, 2005, 01:32 PM
Now you're using that very tired old 'trick' of re-characterizing the other person's position in the most absurd extreme, so as to justify dismissing it without ever actually understanding it. "Prejudice prior to investigation" is basically a definition of bigotry. Are you a religious bigot?

I have no problem with societal law. Society's need laws to function. What I'm talking about is the difference between writing and enforcing laws based on social function, and writing and enforcing laws to promote a moral agenda. In America, killing other people is not against the law because it's morally "wrong". It's against the law because the society can't function without a law against killing people. When we have a trial, and someone is convicted of murder, we aren't locking them up because they're "bad", we're locking them up because they're a danger to society. Or at least this is how it's supposed to work. Unfortunately, since America no longer teaches basic civics in it's schools, the general public is completely ignorant about how and why the government is supposed to work as it does. And this is why it's not working very well, these days.

The United States is not a Christian, religious, or even moral autocracy. It's laws and functions are not the product of any religious or moral agenda. The purpose of government in America is to establish and protect the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness through equal rights, equal freedom, and equal justice for all.

You may deem this "morally right" or "religiously inspired" or you may not, depending on your moral or religious beliefs. That's your own business. You may consider a murderer "bad" if you want to. That's also your own business. But these are not why we try and convict people of the crime of murder, and it's not why we lock them up. Or at least it's not supposed to be why. Unfortunately, as Americans become more and more ignorant, they also become more and more confused about this. And the confusion has now spread to all levels of the government and justice system. As a result, the system is in danger of being dismantled by our own ignorance.


Wonder why, then, it's called the JUSTICE system. :idea:

aikido7
June 26th, 2005, 02:01 PM
Wonder why, then, it's called the JUSTICE system. :idea:Divine justice or the other, imperfect kind?

Rimi
June 26th, 2005, 02:46 PM
Divine justice or the other, imperfect kind?


I responding to PurX who said:


When we have a trial, and someone is convicted of murder, we aren't locking them up because they're "bad", we're locking them up because they're a danger to society.

He is mistaken. It's called a justice system because the victims require justice served on the perpetrator. One might steal hubcabs (do they do that anymore?) and isn't necessarily hurting someone. But justice must be served NOT because this hubcab theft is a danger but because he stole and it was wrong. Justice is justice.

billwald
June 26th, 2005, 03:43 PM
>People don't refrain from murder just because there is a law against it.

"Law without penalty is merely advice." Many people refrain from murder because they are afraid of getting caught.

billwald
June 26th, 2005, 03:46 PM
It is called a justice system for political reasons. Follow the money trail. Many laws and "systems" are wrongly named. Consider the current arguments over SS, which always was a welfare system plus a payroll tax.

aikido7
June 26th, 2005, 06:32 PM
Justice is not only "served on the perpetrator." In a perfect world, the victim, too, must "get served." The Greek ideal is iconically expressed in the blindfolded statue with a set of scales in one hand.

Justice is balance. We can talk about revenge, but if we are to do so we are talking about something entirely different from justice.

Rimi
June 26th, 2005, 06:52 PM
Revenge is God's, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't seek justice from government.

aikido7
June 26th, 2005, 07:03 PM
Revenge is God's, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't seek justice from government.As a Christian, I believe that revenge is no part of the God incarnated in Jesus. At the same time, I know that revenge is an all-too-human tendency, and much of the time we project those traits onto the god we want to believe instead of taking accountablity for the revenge fantasies we harbor.

Hasan_ibn_Sabah
June 26th, 2005, 07:37 PM
If you guys keep bringing up the subject of justice in this thread, with all fairness I will warn you I will bringing up the subject of mercy. Which God requires of us.

aikido7
June 26th, 2005, 08:02 PM
If you guys keep bringing up the subject of justice in this thread, with all fairness I will warn you I will bringing up the subject of mercy. Which God requires of us.I believe that divine justice IS merciful. And I also realize that this is not the orthodox (i.e., popular) position. But I believe it is consistent with the Jesus I see in the gospels.

PureX
June 26th, 2005, 08:17 PM
There is no justice in this life. The best we can get is compensation, and/or vengeance, but neither of these make life just. And when we think they will, we usually end up making life even more unfair and violent than it already is.

Chileice
June 26th, 2005, 08:39 PM
There is no justice in this life. The best we can get is compensation, and/or vengeance, but neither of these make life just. And when we think they will, we usually end up making life even more unfair and violent than it already is.


You just won the Chileice "Quote of the week award". :first:

Life is unfair. It happens... but thankfully, so do blessings!
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. That is about the highest thing anyone can hope to attain. I choose mercy, because Heaven knows I need it!

Rimi
June 26th, 2005, 08:42 PM
As a Christian, I believe that revenge is no part of the God incarnated in Jesus. At the same time, I know that revenge is an all-too-human tendency, and much of the time we project those traits onto the god we want to believe instead of taking accountablity for the revenge fantasies we harbor.


Jesus could have but didn't or He would not have fulfilled His mission. But Jesus is God, and God said, "Vengeance is Mine." Vengeance ain't so bad afterall.

Rimi
June 26th, 2005, 08:43 PM
If you guys keep bringing up the subject of justice in this thread, with all fairness I will warn you I will bringing up the subject of mercy. Which God requires of us.

Just as vengeance was not given for the individual to act out, mercey was not given to the authorities to act out.

Rimi
June 26th, 2005, 08:44 PM
I believe that divine justice IS merciful. And I also realize that this is not the orthodox (i.e., popular) position. But I believe it is consistent with the Jesus I see in the gospels.


I agree that divine justice is merciful to the victims.

Hasan_ibn_Sabah
June 26th, 2005, 08:51 PM
Just as vengeance was not given for the individual to act out, mercey was not given to the authorities to act out.

Mercy is required by all by God's own word. God requires us to act mercifully.

Rimi
June 26th, 2005, 08:56 PM
Was Jesus merciful to Herod?

Hasan_ibn_Sabah
June 26th, 2005, 09:06 PM
Was Jesus merciful to Herod?

Jesus was merciful to everyone, while we were his enemies he died for us all. If you don't want to show mercy, if you don't want to be forgiving, that is up to you. But let be warn you, whatsoever you sow, you shall reap. You can make all the excuses you want not to follow the commands of Christ to love you enemies, but its not going to help you one bit.

Because one day you are going to answer before God, if you sowed hatred before, then His justice will make sure you reap hatred, if you sow unforgiveness before Him, like you have been doing...surely you will reap unforgiveness, since you embrace unmercifullness so much you are going to reap it - in abundance - your cup filled and overflowing.

You will face God, i dont know what game you think you are playing, I think you are using God to justisfy your own hatred, your own wrath, your own unforgiving nature - but someday if you keep this up - you are going to face an unforgiving and wrathful God yourself.

billwald
June 26th, 2005, 09:09 PM
One out of every 100 people in the USofA is in the slammer and people still claim that they are not safe. Would we be safe if it was 2 out of 100? Maybe we have a risk perception problem, not a crime problem. "Crime" is big business. In Washinton State most police officers make over $50,000 and we are unionized. Areas are fighting to get prisons because of the jobs.

We can no longer afford revenge or justice. I suggest a system that better seperates the civilized people from the savages. Everybody gots to be someplace. I suggest self governing "Cities of Refuge."

Rimi
June 26th, 2005, 09:23 PM
Jesus was merciful to everyone, while we were his enemies he died for us all. If you don't want to show mercy, if you don't want to be forgiving, that is up to you. But let be warn you, whatsoever you sow, you shall reap. You can make all the excuses you want not to follow the commands of Christ to love you enemies, but its not going to help you one bit.

Because one day you are going to answer before God, if you sowed hatred before, then His justice will make sure you reap hatred, if you sow unforgiveness before Him, like you have been doing...surely you will reap unforgiveness, since you embrace unmercifullness so much you are going to reap it - in abundance - your cup filled and overflowing.

You will face God, i dont know what game you think you are playing, I think you are using God to justisfy your own hatred, your own wrath, your own unforgiving nature - but someday if you keep this up - you are going to face an unforgiving and wrathful God yourself.

You reeeeeally need to study Revelations. Don't have Scriptures right in front of me, but I think it's Chapter 6 wherein the saints under the altar cry out for vengeance, and by implication not mercy. Please read this. Then consider. . . there are are in Heaven! In the very presence of God Almighty!! And what are they doing? What are they saying?? Go on! Read it! OK, now, read a little further. Read God's reaction. He does not rebuke them! He does not reap what they have sown, calling down curses of no mercy on them! He calms them down, hushes them, and assures them that in a little while more He will repay! He'll get the bad guys who killed them! . . . . if you read this and still don't get it, then you're hopeless. You are lacking in wisdom, joy and discernment. Your warning to me is of absolutely NO value because you do not speak with knowledge or authority. If you still don't get it with those verses in Revelation, then you are a fool.

Rimi
June 26th, 2005, 09:24 PM
One out of every 100 people in the USofA is in the slammer and people still claim that they are not safe. Would we be safe if it was 2 out of 100? Maybe we have a risk perception problem, not a crime problem. "Crime" is big business. In Washinton State most police officers make over $50,000 and we are unionized. Areas are fighting to get prisons because of the jobs.

We can no longer afford revenge or justice. I suggest a system that better seperates the civilized people from the savages. Everybody gots to be someplace. I suggest self governing "Cities of Refuge."


Yeah, and they can all be in France.

wickwoman
June 27th, 2005, 07:15 AM
Name a crime that is not associated with sin, Purex. :think:

Speeding
Copywright infringement
insider trading


What isn't a sin and is now a crime:

marrying a child
polygamy

wickwoman
June 27th, 2005, 07:20 AM
SOTK,
Can you see the difference? It's subtle, but important, I think.

I see it. It's an excellent example. You take responsibility for yourself alone. And do not run his life in any manner except to the extent his behavior infringes on your happiness. And this is the way all should behave towards one another. Otherwise, keeping out of other's business. If we all understood this, then we would see our own business is plenty to keep us busy. But many who would like to tell others how to behave have total chaos in their own lives and they prefer to run other people's lives than manage their own.

wickwoman
June 27th, 2005, 07:24 AM
Jesus was merciful to everyone, while we were his enemies he died for us all.

I am not the enemy of anyone.

Chileice
June 27th, 2005, 08:17 AM
You reeeeeally need to study Revelations. Don't have Scriptures right in front of me, but I think it's Chapter 6 wherein the saints under the altar cry out for vengeance, and by implication not mercy. Please read this. Then consider. . . there are are in Heaven! In the very presence of God Almighty!! And what are they doing? What are they saying?? Go on! Read it! OK, now, read a little further. Read God's reaction. He does not rebuke them! He does not reap what they have sown, calling down curses of no mercy on them! He calms them down, hushes them, and assures them that in a little while more He will repay! He'll get the bad guys who killed them! . . . . if you read this and still don't get it, then you're hopeless. You are lacking in wisdom, joy and discernment. Your warning to me is of absolutely NO value because you do not speak with knowledge or authority. If you still don't get it with those verses in Revelation, then you are a fool.


I think you have shown what kind of Christian you are. I am quite sure Hasan has a handle on the scriptures. I know I do. Yet you chose to call us fools for wanting what Jesus came for: mercy, grace and forgiveness. You are vengeful and if you think your vegeful attitude glorifies your god, your god is not the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Chileice
June 27th, 2005, 08:22 AM
By the way, Where's Dave Miller? He gets us all off on this rather interesting topic and then disappears. Anybody heard from him lately?

billwald
June 27th, 2005, 09:26 AM
A crime not associated with sin? Marijuana used by dying people.

Ecumenicist
June 27th, 2005, 09:52 AM
I'm back, thanx for asking Chil. I'll be out for a week + starting Friday, doing our
annual "northern arc" visiting relatives in Mich, Wis, and Ind...

Lots of good "justice," "rebuke," and "forgiveness" discussions going on.

As always, we're lobbing scripture at each other, and trying to defend our positions
based on "our" fav scriptures. What we're not doing is looking for understanding that
accommodates "all" scripture.

Demand mercy and not sacrifice, this is scriptural. Rebuke is scriptural as well. So is
the story of the good Samaritan. So is Jesus forgiving those who were nailing Him to
the Cross. So is "love your enemies," So is "eye for an eye." Hence this discussion.

I proposed a scenario where "eye for an eye" fits with the "mercy and not sacrifice,"
picture of God presented through Christ. If the sacrifice of an eye is required of the
offender such that the offender understands the suffering that he / she causes
another, this scenario seems to fit all scripture.

Should we rebuke, such that those that hurt us, offend us, hurt others, sin, are made
aware of the hurt they are causing themselves and others? Absolutely.

If someone offends me, offense is a burden I carry. Forgiving helps me to unburden
myself. Then, rebuking does not serve to make me feel better, I don't turn
to vengence to resolve my issues. If I forgive first, then rebuke is left solely for the
purpose of helping the offender understand how (s)he is hurting (her)himself and others.
And that's what its meant for. Not a grudge to carry for a lifetime, but a loving
admonision to stop hurting self and others, to stop sinning.

Hey, I'm not perfect, when I'm hurt, I carry grudges for awhile. Sometimes I lash back
in hurt and anger as well. But its my experience that when I do this, it never serves
to heal, it only makes things worse.

However, when I can let the hurt go, when I can forgive, then I can rationally tell an
offender how they hurt me, and how they are hurting themselves, then there is a chance
for understanding, a chance for healing.

If we seperate the concepts of forgiveness and rebuke, we can find understanding
which accomodates all scripture. Rebuke offerred in love is meant to help the offender,
rebuke offerred out of defensiveness just furthers sin, 2 wrongs don't make anything
right...

Dave

Chileice
June 27th, 2005, 10:39 AM
I'm back, thanx for asking Chil. I'll be out for a week + starting Friday, doing our
annual "northern arc" visiting relatives in Mich, Wis, and Ind...

Lots of good "justice," "rebuke," and "forgiveness" discussions going on.

As always, we're lobbing scripture at each other, and trying to defend our positions
based on "our" fav scriptures. What we're not doing is looking for understanding that
accommodates "all" scripture.

Demand mercy and not sacrifice, this is scriptural. Rebuke is scriptural as well. So is
the story of the good Samaritan. So is Jesus forgiving those who were nailing Him to
the Cross. So is "love your enemies," So is "eye for an eye." Hence this discussion.

I proposed a scenario where "eye for an eye" fits with the "mercy and not sacrifice,"
picture of God presented through Christ. If the sacrifice of an eye is required of the
offender such that the offender understands the suffering that he / she causes
another, this scenario seems to fit all scripture.

Should we rebuke, such that those that hurt us, offend us, hurt others, sin, are made
aware of the hurt they are causing themselves and others? Absolutely.

If someone offends me, offense is a burden I carry. Forgiving helps me to unburden
myself. Then, rebuking does not serve to make me feel better, I don't turn
to vengence to resolve my issues. If I forgive first, then rebuke is left solely for the
purpose of helping the offender understand how (s)he is hurting (her)himself and others.
And that's what its meant for. Not a grudge to carry for a lifetime, but a loving
admonision to stop hurting self and others, to stop sinning.

Hey, I'm not perfect, when I'm hurt, I carry grudges for awhile. Sometimes I lash back
in hurt and anger as well. But its my experience that when I do this, it never serves
to heal, it only makes things worse.

However, when I can let the hurt go, when I can forgive, then I can rationally tell an
offender how they hurt me, and how they are hurting themselves, then there is a chance
for understanding, a chance for healing.

If we seperate the concepts of forgiveness and rebuke, we can find understanding
which accomodates all scripture. Rebuke offerred in love is meant to help the offender,
rebuke offerred out of defensiveness just furthers sin, 2 wrongs don't make anything
right...

Dave

Thanks Dave. Glad you are still around. Good word.

Ecumenicist
June 27th, 2005, 12:17 PM
I am not the enemy of anyone.


Not sure how you can say this, since its others who define whether we
are their enemies or not.

You can say that you don't consider Jesus Christ, or anyone else an
enemy, but that doesn't mean others might not consider you an enemy,
whether you are aware of it or not.

Dave

Hasan_ibn_Sabah
June 27th, 2005, 12:23 PM
You reeeeeally need to study Revelations. Don't have Scriptures right in front of me, but I think it's Chapter 6 wherein the saints under the altar cry out for vengeance, and by implication not mercy. Please read this. Then consider. . . there are are in Heaven! In the very presence of God Almighty!! And what are they doing? What are they saying?? Go on! Read it! OK, now, read a little further. Read God's reaction. He does not rebuke them! He does not reap what they have sown, calling down curses of no mercy on them! He calms them down, hushes them, and assures them that in a little while more He will repay! He'll get the bad guys who killed them! . . . . if you read this and still don't get it, then you're hopeless. You are lacking in wisdom, joy and discernment. Your warning to me is of absolutely NO value because you do not speak with knowledge or authority. If you still don't get it with those verses in Revelation, then you are a fool.

You are going to take a passage about Christian matyrs (which in itself is a reference to the Cain and Abel story) and you are going to apply it to yourself? So are you now a matyr? You suffering presecution in the United States?

Christian matyrdom is not a subject one should take lightly, these people have suffered in ways that none of know or want to know, and yet you dare take something sacred and profane it with your own personal vendettas, your own bitterness - asking others to drink from the same cup of bitterness and wrath you do.

You want to justify your hatred by making believe that God justifies your hatred, that what you are wrathful against is what God is wrathful against, That God is going to take vengence against everyone you have something personal against. Like God is you own personal heavenly hitman. I admonish you to think again.

This is a case of you taking your own personal views and ascribing them to God - it is idolatry.

Like Huxley once wrote:
"A long religious training had not abolished or even mitigated his self-love; it had served only to provide the ego with a theological alibi. The untutored egoist merely wants what he wants. Give him a theological education, and it becomes obvious to him, it becomes axiomatic, that what he wants is what God wants."

I believe this is the case with you.

Rimi
June 27th, 2005, 01:15 PM
Chileice said:


I think you have shown what kind of Christian you are.

Nicest thing anyone's said to me today. Thanks.



I am quite sure Hasan has a handle on the scriptures. I know I do. Yet you chose to call us fools for wanting what Jesus came for: mercy, grace and forgiveness.

No, neither of you has a clue. Oh, and Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law. You know, the law that has that pesky death penalty in it and all.


You are vengeful and if you think your vegeful attitude glorifies your god, your god is not the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Sorry, didn't know the word fool offended you. You're both booger eating morons. Anything I can do to help, ya know!

Rimi
June 27th, 2005, 01:19 PM
Then, rebuking does not serve to make me feel better, I don't turn
to vengence to resolve my issues. If I forgive first, then rebuke is left solely for the
purpose of helping the offender understand how (s)he is hurting (her)himself and others.
And that's what its meant for. Not a grudge to carry for a lifetime, but a loving
admonision to stop hurting self and others, to stop sinning.

Rebuking is for letting that person know that they hurt you.
IF they respond with sorrow and repentence, then you can forgive.

Rimi
June 27th, 2005, 01:24 PM
You are going to take a passage about Christian matyrs (which in itself is a reference to the Cain and Abel story) and you are going to apply it to yourself? So are you now a matyr? You suffering presecution in the United States?

Christian matyrdom is not a subject one should take lightly, these people have suffered in ways that none of know or want to know, and yet you dare take something sacred and profane it with your own personal vendettas, your own bitterness - asking others to drink from the same cup of bitterness and wrath you do.

You want to justify your hatred by making believe that God justifies your hatred, that what you are wrathful against is what God is wrathful against, That God is going to take vengence against everyone you have something personal against. Like God is you own personal heavenly hitman. I admonish you to think again.

This is a case of you taking your own personal views and ascribing them to God - it is idolatry.

Like Huxley once wrote:
"A long religious training had not abolished or even mitigated his self-love; it had served only to provide the ego with a theological alibi. The untutored egoist merely wants what he wants. Give him a theological education, and it becomes obvious to him, it becomes axiomatic, that what he wants is what God wants."

I believe this is the case with you.

Could you put the bong down long enough to make some freakin sense? When did Cain and Abel get brought in?? No, I'm not a martyr, but a saint as are all followers of Christ. WHICH you would know if you'd but use that brain God gave you and read the Scriptures. You reeeeally should refrain from admonishing because you have no authority and you're just not very good at it. :loser:

Ecumenicist
June 27th, 2005, 02:19 PM
Sorry, didn't know the word fool offended you. You're both booger eating morons. Anything I can do to help, ya know!


:chuckle:

I think the King James uses "booger munching" morons.

:crackup:

Rimi
June 27th, 2005, 02:20 PM
Can't never get the King's English just right.

beanieboy
June 27th, 2005, 02:21 PM
Technically, It's "moron who doth muncheth on thine own boogers."

Ecumenicist
June 27th, 2005, 02:23 PM
:chuckle:

I think the King James uses "booger munching" morons.

:crackup:


In keeping with the thread theme, perhaps you could munch some boogers
yourself and experience the pain you've caused others ;)

Let us know how it all comes out (collective groan)


Dave

Rimi
June 27th, 2005, 02:23 PM
Mixing body fluids now, bean?

Ecumenicist
June 27th, 2005, 02:25 PM
Technically, It's "moron who doth muncheth on thine own boogers."

Yeah, verily...

beanieboy
June 27th, 2005, 02:30 PM
So, Dave - i mentioned that I got mugged. It was pretty violent.
I forgive, and the mugger does what?
I suppose that they have to come to some conclusion of being sorry, of understanding what I did, but how does that happen when it is a stranger crime? (I don't think he was ever caught, but it happened to someone else an hour earlier.)

So, now what?

or better - were I to wrong someone, what should I do, other than ask forgiveness?
How does the Eye for an Eye theory of yours work out?
Let's say that I stole money from a roommate.
Now what?

Rimi
June 27th, 2005, 02:47 PM
Or say you molested someone?

Hasan_ibn_Sabah
June 27th, 2005, 02:52 PM
Don't confuse forgiveness with legal clemency, we forgive sinners, but crimes must be payed for. Its sinful to let a criminal continue in their acts against the social order.

beanieboy
June 27th, 2005, 02:54 PM
I agree, Hasan, but what of things that are not punishable, like lying?

Say a poster constantly falsely accuses another of child molestation.
Should the false accuser be false accused of something as well, or be required to see how their actions effected the other, or what?

I'm still trying to understand the Eye for an Eye philosophy from a practical sense.

Ecumenicist
June 27th, 2005, 03:49 PM
So, Dave - i mentioned that I got mugged. It was pretty violent.
I forgive, and the mugger does what?
I suppose that they have to come to some conclusion of being sorry, of understanding what I did, but how does that happen when it is a stranger crime? (I don't think he was ever caught, but it happened to someone else an hour earlier.)

So, now what?

or better - were I to wrong someone, what should I do, other than ask forgiveness?
How does the Eye for an Eye theory of yours work out?
Let's say that I stole money from a roommate.
Now what?

You forgive and you are not burdened with hatred and vengence coloring your
soul, and that's a good thing.

But, if the mugger were caught and you were called to witness, you do so
honestly, so he stops hurting people. And, given the "safe" opportunity, you
tell him honestly how his behavior has affected your life.

As I said before, in this day and age we are not called to inflict physical pain,
but we rely on the Holy Spirit to convict.

Someday he'll see the pain he has caused you and others, and he'll repent.

If you steal money from your roommate, you try to understand the pain you've
caused him. Did he miss his rent payment? Did he have to work overtime
to compensate? More devastatingly, was his trust in you sacrificed? How
about his ability to trust in general?

Of course you try to restore things with him, perhaps by paying back double, but
he may or may not accept, given the emotional devastation you may have caused
to him and your relationship, that's probably a much larger mountain to
overcome.

If and when you really get the far reaching consequences your sins have
caused against him, and even more devastatingly, against yourself, for I
truley believe that with every sin, the impact on the sinner has more far
reaching consequences, if you get all this and feel the deep contrition, brokenness
associated with your actions, you have received the conviction of the Holy
Spirit. And with that realization of truth and judgement, you find your ticket
to repentence, forgiveness, and freedom.

Dave

Ecumenicist
June 27th, 2005, 04:00 PM
BB,

Remember that when Jesus was falsly accused, He said nothing in reply, because He
knew there was no justice available. Instead He relied on the Holy Spirit to witness
on His behalf. And remember how the Holy Spirit did so, through the witness of others,
Roman soldiers, even Pilate, saying "this is an innocent person."

You're not a child molester, but a child of God, worthy of love and respect and dignity,
like all children of God. :)

Dave

beanieboy
June 27th, 2005, 04:08 PM
Thanks, Dave. Both posts are very valued.
And of the first one, I often realize that although it happened 2 years ago, and the scar healed surprisingly well, it stays with you, and that forgiveness means you have to work your weigh through a really long tunnel to get through to the other side.

Humble thanks.

Ecumenicist
June 28th, 2005, 11:55 AM
Thanks, Dave. Both posts are very valued.
And of the first one, I often realize that although it happened 2 years ago, and the scar healed surprisingly well, it stays with you, and that forgiveness means you have to work your weigh through a really long tunnel to get through to the other side.

Humble thanks.

Remember that in the resurrection, Jesus continued to bear the scars of
the Crucifixion. Long after the burden of anger and pain is left behind,
our scars remain to bear witness to our experience, and our
wisdom which stems from that experience.

God bless BB,

Dave

eccl3_6
June 28th, 2005, 05:08 PM
Rebuking is for letting that person know that they hurt you.
IF they respond with sorrow and repentence, then you can forgive.

How about forgiving them regardless, telling the offender that they hurt you and then learning from the mistake?

I put my arm in the lion cage.

The lion bites my arm off.

It hurts.

I forgive the lion.

I explain to him that my arm hurts.

Dont put your other arm in the cage.


Its called being the bigger man. Do you really mean that just because somebody else fails to repent I have to keep rebutting him....too much hard work. Forgive and move on.

aikido7
June 28th, 2005, 05:26 PM
Like Jesus demonstrated, forgiveness is reciprocal. We are forgiven to the extent we forgive others....

Frank Ernest
June 29th, 2005, 05:49 AM
Like Jesus demonstrated, forgiveness is reciprocal. We are forgiven to the extent we forgive others....

You forgot something.

Luke 17:3-4 "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him."

Chileice
June 29th, 2005, 05:54 AM
You forgot something.

Luke 17:3-4 "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him."

You forgot to read the thread. That verse has been proof-texted at least a dozen times by people wanting to avoid their Christ-given responsibility to forgive.

eccl3_6
June 29th, 2005, 06:10 AM
You forgot something.

Luke 17:3-4 "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him."

This kinda sounds like putting your limbs back into the lion's cage! If your brother tresspasses against you seven times in a day; forgive him and then move house. And dont leave a forwarding address.

Ecumenicist
June 29th, 2005, 06:27 AM
You forgot something.

Luke 17:3-4 "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him."

Hi Frank,

Lets look at this closely. The first thing to notice is that this applies to brothers,
fellow disciples, fellow Christians.

In this regard, we are absolutely called to exhort, rebuke, encourage our Christian
brothers and sisters to not sin, and remain strong in the faith. All scripture agrees
with this.

Now the second thing to ask is, who is Jesus directing this to? Well, it says in Luke 17-1
that He's addressing the disciples as a group. Based on this, one may ask the
question, is Jesus telling them how to act as individuals in relationship with one
another, or as a group, a Church? From the group perspective, this would seem to
be an instruction answering the question, if a member of the Church sins, how should it
be handled by the group?

Now think about the Sermon on the Mount. It is addressed to everyone, not just the
disciples, not just the church, and it describes a code / conduct for personal behavior.
In that code, Jesus speaks of forgiving enemies, turning the other cheek, all
unconditionally.

The challenge continues to be to find an understanding of scripture that makes sense
for all the scripture we are given. For Christ to say "forgive unconditionally" in
Matthew, but say "forgive conditionally" in Luke doesn't make sense. At this juncture,
many people throw up their hands, choose one scripture over another, or give up on
scripture altogether. But for the faithful, the diligent, continuing to struggle with
the scripture "as is," digging deeper, yields deeper truths.

If in Matthew Jesus is saying "as individuals, forgive unconditionally," but in Luke
Jesus is saying "as a Church, care for one another, nurture one another, protect one
another, rebuke out of love and then with repentence forgive, but don't tolerate sin within
the group," this seems more consistant, with Matthew, Luke, and with Paul's writings.

Dave

Chileice
June 29th, 2005, 06:40 AM
Hi Frank,

Lets look at this closely. The first thing to notice is that this applies to brothers,
fellow disciples, fellow Christians.

In this regard, we are absolutely called to exhort, rebuke, encourage our Christian
brothers and sisters to not sin, and remain strong in the faith. All scripture agrees
with this.

Now the second thing to ask is, who is Jesus directing this to? Well, it says in Luke 17-1
that He's addressing the disciples as a group. Based on this, one may ask the
question, is Jesus telling them how to act as individuals in relationship with one
another, or as a group, a Church? From the group perspective, this would seem to
be an instruction answering the question, if a member of the Church sins, how should it
be handled by the group?

Now think about the Sermon on the Mount. It is addressed to everyone, not just the
disciples, not just the church, and it describes a code / conduct for personal behavior.
In that code, Jesus speaks of forgiving enemies, turning the other cheek, all
unconditionally.

The challenge continues to be to find an understanding of scripture that makes sense
for all the scripture we are given. For Christ to say "forgive unconditionally" in
Matthew, but say "forgive conditionally" in Luke doesn't make sense. At this juncture,
many people throw up their hands, choose one scripture over another, or give up on
scripture altogether. But for the faithful, the diligent, continuing to struggle with
the scripture "as is," digging deeper, yields deeper truths.

If in Matthew Jesus is saying "as individuals, forgive unconditionally," but in Luke
Jesus is saying "as a Church, care for one another, nurture one another, protect one
another, rebuke out of love and then with repentence forgive, but don't tolerate sin within
the group," this seems more consistant, with Matthew, Luke, and with Paul's writings.

Dave


You are right on here, Dave. I believe that IS where Jesus is coming from in the Luke context. It does fit with the rest of scripture which is why it is so important not to take verses out of context (one of my peeves if you follow my posts) and why it is important to interpret scripture by scripture and through the finished work of Christ on the cross of Calvary. Many weird cultic groups have deveolped over the years by pulling out one or two favourite verses and transforming them into the watchword for their group. They exclude other scripture that doesn't go along with their pet scripture and they deviate from the historical Christian message in the process. Once again, nice post.

aikido7
June 29th, 2005, 12:38 PM
The most profound message of divine forgiveness is embedded in Jesus' own parabolic story we have come to know as "The Prodigal Son." The son does not "repent" but instead "comes to himself."

The story is found only in Luke, whose concern for all things repentant is made abundantly clear throughout the rest of his gospel. So why did he neglect that fact in his telling of this complex parable? Could it be that the story goes back to the historical Jesus?

There is much, much more in the parable than we have been led to believe.

(my italics)

wickwoman
June 29th, 2005, 01:39 PM
Yes. Who was the angry, jealous son who stayed at home but was sour grapes when his brother returned? And, there was no sacrifice required for the return of the prodigal son. His father met him halfway and welcomed him with a party.

justchristian
June 29th, 2005, 01:50 PM
The most profound message of divine forgiveness is embedded in Jesus' own parabolic story we have come to know as "The Prodigal Son." The son does not "repent" but instead "comes to himself."
Is it just me but isnt the repenting turning from his life as a slave and coming home?

"When he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.' 20So he got up and went to his father. "

aikido7
June 29th, 2005, 03:18 PM
Is it just me but isnt the repenting turning from his life as a slave and coming home?

"When he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.' 20So he got up and went to his father. "You are able to allow meaning of the specific word "repent" to go beyond its literal boundaries. That is commendable and necessary.

As to the structure of the parable itself, Luke uses the word "repent" quite often in his gospel; a concordance might even show Luke uses the word most often. My observation is that substituting "coming to himself" is a curious substitute in the context of his gospel.

"Repent" actually comes from the Greek metanoia which describes a complete transformation of being--a "turning away" from the past. It is a much more revolutionary concept than merely "having regrets and saying you are sorry."

The church's spin on repentance seems to emphasize forced admission before a sound thrashing. I believe it is much more than that. We have become too accustomed to our take on Jesus rather than Jesus himself.

Hasan_ibn_Sabah
June 29th, 2005, 03:23 PM
You are able to allow meaning of the specific word "repent" to go beyond its literal boundaries. That is commendable and necessary.

As to the structure of the parable itself, Luke uses the word "repent" quite often in his gospel; a concordance might even show Luke uses the word most often. My observation is that substituting "coming to himself" is a curious substitute in the context of his gospel.

"Repent" actually comes from the Greek metanoia which describes a complete transformation of being--a "turning away" from the past. It is a much more revolutionary concept than merely "having regrets and saying you are sorry."

The church's spin on repentance seems to emphasize forced admission before a sound thrashing. I believe it is much more than that. We have become too accustomed to our take on Jesus rather than Jesus himself.

Thats why the forgiveness of other is preresequite to repentance and accepting the forgiveness of God, one must wipe the slate clean and turn away from your present course of action before embarking on a new life.

aikido7
June 29th, 2005, 03:28 PM
Thats why the forgiveness of other is preresequite to repentance and accepting the forgiveness of God, one must wipe the slate clean and turn away from your present course of action before embarking on a new life...new wine in new wineskins!

Frank Ernest
June 29th, 2005, 03:40 PM
You forgot to read the thread. That verse has been proof-texted at least a dozen times by people wanting to avoid their Christ-given responsibility to forgive.

Luke 13:2-5 "And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

aikido7
June 29th, 2005, 05:25 PM
Luke 13:2-5 "And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."Calling sinners to repentance was a common theme in the preaching of the early church. Was Luke trying to make Pilate into a prosecutor? Or trying to predict the destruction of Jerusalem in the 70s?

Frank Ernest
June 30th, 2005, 05:59 AM
Calling sinners to repentance was a common theme in the preaching of the early church. Was Luke trying to make Pilate into a prosecutor? Or trying to predict the destruction of Jerusalem in the 70s?
Huh? :darwinsm: I see you've managed to veer off into yet another universe of your own creation.

Hasan_ibn_Sabah
June 30th, 2005, 09:22 AM
Huh? :darwinsm: I see you've managed to veer off into yet another universe of your own creation.

So whats Jesus saying if we dont repent buildings are going to fall on us? What does that verse have to do with the topic? Please stay on topic.

aikido7
June 30th, 2005, 02:11 PM
Huh? :darwinsm: I see you've managed to veer off into yet another universe of your own creation.You're welcome to come on in and help me re-arrange the furniture....

Rimi
July 2nd, 2005, 08:17 PM
How about forgiving them regardless, telling the offender that they hurt you and then learning from the mistake?

I put my arm in the lion cage.

The lion bites my arm off.

It hurts.

I forgive the lion.

I explain to him that my arm hurts.

Dont put your other arm in the cage.


Its called being the bigger man. Do you really mean that just because somebody else fails to repent I have to keep rebutting him....too much hard work. Forgive and move on.

If you feel better forgiving the rapist, murderer, child molester, fag and Leo the lion, have at it. You're foolish to do so. Except in the case of the Leo. The lion is not a human, doesn't make or understand laws. I'm sure it doesn't understand much but maybe his name, and that's doubtful. All Leo might get is "blah blah blah, Leo, blah blah blah, Leo." Sorry rebuking someone to show them their sin against you is too much like work. Maybe you're right: maybe you're just not worth it.

Rimi
July 2nd, 2005, 08:19 PM
You forgot to read the thread. That verse has been proof-texted at least a dozen times by people wanting to avoid their Christ-given responsibility to forgive.

You mean like yourself, right? You forgive at the drop of a hat because you feel better instead of doing what God says. You must really have a low opinion of the way He's running things.

Hasan_ibn_Sabah
July 2nd, 2005, 08:25 PM
You mean like yourself, right? You forgive at the drop of a hat because you feel better instead of doing what God says. You must really have a low opinion of the way He's running things.

You must have a low opinion of Christ and His teachings...Christ commanded us to love our enemies, do you have any problem with that command?

Rimi
July 2nd, 2005, 08:30 PM
Love OUR enemies. Doesn't say nuttin about loving GOD's enemies.

SOTK
July 2nd, 2005, 08:32 PM
Let's look at logic for a minute. Doesn't it make sense to all of you that one should repent before being forgiven? For example, can any of you forgive someone that sins against you on a daily basis? Let's say you have a co-worker that is just nasty and goes out of his way to sin against you on a daily basis. Are you guys saying that it's logical to forgive him on a daily basis. In other words, you forgive him for the same thing day after day. That just doesn't make sense and it's also dishonest. It's impossible to really and truly forgive someone when they continue to remain in their sin and are harming you.

In the above scenario, the loving and logical thing to do is to softly rebuke the person and give him the opportunity to repent. If he doesn't, you treat him as nicely as you can and give the matter to God.

Seriously, some of you are completely missing the boat on this. The way I'm laying it out is Biblical, logical, and loving.

Hasan_ibn_Sabah
July 2nd, 2005, 08:42 PM
Love OUR enemies. Doesn't say nuttin about loving GOD's enemies.

God doesn't have any enemies.

aikido7
July 2nd, 2005, 10:54 PM
Let's look at logic for a minute. Doesn't it make sense to all of you that one should repent before being forgiven? For example, can any of you forgive someone that sins against you on a daily basis? Let's say you have a co-worker that is just nasty and goes out of his way to sin against you on a daily basis. Are you guys saying that it's logical to forgive him on a daily basis. In other words, you forgive him for the same thing day after day. That just doesn't make sense and it's also dishonest. It's impossible to really and truly forgive someone when they continue to remain in their sin and are harming you.

In the above scenario, the loving and logical thing to do is to softly rebuke the person and give him the opportunity to repent. If he doesn't, you treat him as nicely as you can and give the matter to God.

Seriously, some of you are completely missing the boat on this. The way I'm laying it out is Biblical, logical, and loving.The wayward son in Jesus' parable we have called "The Parable of the Prodigal Son" was forgiven without repenting. We are talking about grace. If you want to bring in a set of requirements in order to be forgiven, you may do that. But then you are talking about something other than grace....

SOTK
July 2nd, 2005, 10:58 PM
The wayward son in Jesus' parable we have called "The Parable of the Prodigal Son" was forgiven without repenting. We are talking about grace. If you want to bring in a set of requirements in order to be forgiven, you may do that. But then you are talking about something other than grace....

aikido7,

Before you received grace from Jesus, did you repent of your past sins? Or, did you feel that you didn't have to repent of anything?

aikido7
July 2nd, 2005, 11:14 PM
aikido7,

Before you received grace from Jesus, did you repent of your past sins? Or, did you feel that you didn't have to repent of anything?To be an "insider" in the kigndom one must be an "outsider." That requirement is never rescinded.

A sinner is an "outsider"--from the standpoint of those who thought they were insiders.

In Jesus' vision of the Kingdom of God, Christians may be insiders but they are without privelege. Christians (insiders) are never superior to non-Christians (outsiders).

Christains are not the exclusive brokers of God's grace. The irony is that many Christians claim superiority and monopoly in the name of Jesus who never claimed anything for himself--and who insisted that his disciples ask nothing for themselves.

Jesus did not dispense grace, but spoke of a Father who shed grace on all equally. And Jesus did not demand a quid pro quo for salvation.

"The Father makes the sun to shine on both the evil and the good and sends the rain upon the just and the unjust."

Rimi
July 3rd, 2005, 05:37 AM
God doesn't have any enemies.


Yeah, Satan's His best bud.

:loser:

Rimi
July 3rd, 2005, 05:41 AM
To be an "insider" in the kigndom one must be an "outsider." That requirement is never rescinded.

A sinner is an "outsider"--from the standpoint of those who thought they were insiders.

In Jesus' vision of the Kingdom of God, Christians may be insiders but they are without privelege. Christians (insiders) are never superior to non-Christians (outsiders).

Christains are not the exclusive brokers of God's grace. The irony is that many Christians claim superiority and monopoly in the name of Jesus who never claimed anything for himself--and who insisted that his disciples ask nothing for themselves.

Jesus did not dispense grace, but spoke of a Father who shed grace on all equally. And Jesus did not demand a quid pro quo for salvation.

"The Father makes the sun to shine on both the evil and the good and sends the rain upon the just and the unjust."

God willnot forgive without repentence. Period.
If unrepentent is still unrepentent, he will not receive forgiveness because he doesn't want it, or else he wants it with no change on his part (ya know, like repentence) He gads about say, "Hey, God, I'm gonna rape/kill/sodomize/steal and You just forgive me. See ya in heaven!" He is still in his sin and enjoys it if he thinks God must forgive no matter what.
The repentent is still "outside" until God forgives and not a moment before.

Step 1.: Repent
Step 2 : Receive forgiveness.

aikido7
July 3rd, 2005, 06:48 AM
God willnot forgive without repentence. Period.
If unrepentent is still unrepentent, he will not receive forgiveness because he doesn't want it, or else he wants it with no change on his part (ya know, like repentence) He gads about say, "Hey, God, I'm gonna rape/kill/sodomize/steal and You just forgive me. See ya in heaven!" He is still in his sin and enjoys it if he thinks God must forgive no matter what.
The repentent is still "outside" until God forgives and not a moment before.

Step 1.: Repent
Step 2 : Receive forgiveness.The authentic Jesus behind the gospels teaches a Rule (Kingdom) of God in which rewards and punishments are inherent in the acts and thoughts to which they are related. Jesus seems to be unlike John the Baptizer, who called for repentance and threatened with God's wrath.

Make no mistake--Jesus could be highly critical, sometimes caustically so. But he did not condemn. He advised his disciples to beg God to forgive obligations to the same extent that they forgive the debts owed to them--"Forgive and you'll be forgiven."

In the everyday secular world--now and in the first century--people expect reward for good behavior and punishment for bad. Notions of reward and punishment are all-too-human, and the themes have a fairly prominent role in Matthew--and in Revelations.

The two approaches stand side-by-side--in strong contrast to each other--throughout the Bible. Both cannot represent the same wise mind.

Which one stems from the real Jesus?

Rimi
July 3rd, 2005, 07:00 AM
The authentic Jesus behind the gospels teaches a Rule (Kingdom) of God in which rewards and punishments are inherent in the acts and thoughts to which they are related. Jesus seems to be unlike John the Baptizer, who called for repentance and threatened with God's wrath.

Make no mistake--Jesus could be highly critical, sometimes caustically so. But he did not condemn. He advised his disciples to beg God to forgive obligations to the same extent that they forgive the debts owed to them--"Forgive and you'll be forgiven."

In the everyday secular world--now and in the first century--people expect reward for good behavior and punishment for bad. Notions of reward and punishment are all-too-human, and the themes have a fairly prominent role in Matthew--and in Revelations.

The two approaches stand side-by-side--in strong contrast to each other--throughout the Bible. Both cannot represent the same wise mind.

Which one stems from the real Jesus?

They seem to work quite nicely in the mind of Jesus who is God, side by side:

Rewards for good behavior: Deut 26:1-13
Punishment for bad bahavior: Deut 26:14-46

aikido7
July 3rd, 2005, 07:06 AM
They seem to work quite nicely in the mind of Jesus who is God, side by side:

Rewards for good behavior: Deut 26:1-13
Punishment for bad bahavior: Deut 26:14-46I don't know the mind of Jesus or God, and I don't claim to. As a Christian, I can only believe what I see of the God incarnated by Jesus in the gospels.

Rimi
July 3rd, 2005, 07:08 AM
Well, there's your problem.

aikido7
July 3rd, 2005, 07:17 AM
Well, there's your problem.Whoever said taking up a cross is easy?

It can be the hardest, most frustrating struggle of a life.

Rimi
July 3rd, 2005, 07:30 AM
Why would you bother if you don't know where God's coming from. The Bible is full to overflowing with His thoughts on many things. Yet, you claim to not know the mind of God. I believe it.

Hasan_ibn_Sabah
July 3rd, 2005, 04:51 PM
Yeah, Satan's His best bud.

:loser:
Satan in comparision to God is as significant as an flea to the Sun, even less so. Satan can't do squat without God, problem is people tend to over-estimate Satan and under-estimate God. All God has to do is say the word and the Satan problem would be over faster than lightning hitting the ground.

aikido7
July 3rd, 2005, 09:38 PM
Why would you bother if you don't know where God's coming fromCreation is astounding and humbling because God often comes from a guise where you least expect Him. For example, the Samaritans were seen as unclean and unrepentant sinners.

Rimi
July 4th, 2005, 07:57 AM
Satan in comparision to God is as significant as an flea to the Sun, even less so. Satan can't do squat without God, problem is people tend to over-estimate Satan and under-estimate God. All God has to do is say the word and the Satan problem would be over faster than lightning hitting the ground.

Irrelevant, moron. Just because Satan isn't on even footing with God doesn't mean he is not and cannot be God's enemy. Little tiny nations hate the USA: they're not on equal footing because they can't even figure that wearing bedsheets is a fashion risk, but that doesn't diminish their hatred for US much.

Rimi
July 4th, 2005, 07:59 AM
Creation is astounding and humbling because God often comes from a guise where you least expect Him. For example, the Samaritans were seen as unclean and unrepentant sinners.

OHHHHKAAAAY. .. . Step away from the bong and go hug a tree. While God's creation is incredible even after leaving it in our hands all this time, it is not His word. You can know what He thinks and feels about things in His Scriptures. What the samaritans have to do with this, well ya lost me.

aikido7
July 4th, 2005, 08:23 AM
OHHHHKAAAAY. .. . Step away from the bong and go hug a tree. While God's creation is incredible even after leaving it in our hands all this time, it is not His word. You can know what He thinks and feels about things in His Scriptures. What the samaritans have to do with this, well ya lost me.I start with recognizing in much humility that God is infinite and cannot be perfectly contained in a book.

I can certainly read what the many evangelists and unknown authors in the Bible wrote about God and their relationship with Him, but I still can't know what God thinks and feels about things. I have my faith, but that is not worldly "knowing." You can drag me kicking and screaming to your heresy trial all you want, but that's the way it is.

Jesus' parable about the Samaritan stopping to minister to the beaten traveller on the Jericho road was told in a cultural context in which the Samaritan was seen by other Jews as an untouchable, the illegitimate heir to the Davidic line. For Jesus' listeners to entertain the thought that a Samaritan could be "good" was like expecting them to love their enemies.

In the story, if God's care and love can be made manifest in the actions of the unclean and the unrighteous, where else in creation might we find it?

Rimi
July 4th, 2005, 09:09 AM
Well, you said you didin't know the mind of God. Certainly His parable can't make any sense to you either.

When's this trial you're halucinating about? Wear a tie.

aikido7
July 4th, 2005, 07:51 PM
Well, you said you didin't know the mind of God. Certainly His parable can't make any sense to you either.

When's this trial you're halucinating about? Wear a tie.Why do you believe that?

wickwoman
July 5th, 2005, 06:36 AM
I haven't seen many of Akido's posts until recently. And, I've wondered what he/she did to deserve to many red boxes. So now, I'm ashamed I don't have more red boxes myself. Because it seems all you need to do around here is to speak the truth in love and you will have plenty of red boxes.

Rimi, you are deluded and think that forgiveness is easy and bearing a grudge is hard work. You have turned your life into opposite world, to cover up your own bad behavior - unforgiveness. It is the ultimate denial on your part and will cause you nothing but heartache and pain.

There, I've rebuked you lovingly as you advised and now I will leave it to God. I know I feel better. What about you?

Rimi
July 5th, 2005, 06:52 AM
Glad you feel better . . . since that's your operating force, isn't it. If it feels good, do it, nevermind that it might not be what God explained. What's really the most pitiful is how little value I place on anything you say, but you just had to chime in because it made you feel better. Whatever.

Rimi
July 5th, 2005, 06:54 AM
One more thing, WW, I don't bear a grudge against you any more than I do Aikido. You're just not worth it. I feel great.

wickwoman
July 5th, 2005, 06:55 AM
Glad you feel better . . . since that's your operating force, isn't it. If it feels good, do it, nevermind that it might not be what God explained. What's really the most pitiful is how little value I place on anything you say, but you just had to chime in because it made you feel better. Whatever.

Rimi, it is apparent you care not what many of us say to you. It is also apparent that you rarely listen. So, yes, "telling you off" feels good for a season, a very short one. But then I see that you are unchanged and I am sad. So, you can see that telling someone off as you advise is really just a temporal earthly pleasure, not as high and noble as you hoped to demonstrate.

So, you go on with your illusions. Close your ears and eyes very tight whenever someone approaches you with advice. And when they almost reach you, tell yourself, their opinion doesn't matter. But, sooner or later truth will find you.

Peace.

servent101
July 5th, 2005, 07:05 AM
Wickwoman to Rumi
It is the ultimate denial on your part and will cause you nothing but heartache and pain.

So true, and such good comprehension of the person Rumi - but I find that these people have helped me to understand what is happening in religion today, so I am grateful for them, though still sad, and still left with no way to reach them - but the cause I have found is that they for the most part try to worship this diabolical monster of the Written Word, taking that which is metaphore and adhereing to it literally - trying to worship the god of the eternal pain and torture in hell of anyone who does not have the same orthodox mindset and literalism they do - it simply drives them insane, but being insane people - how does one reach them?

With Christ's Love

Servent101

Rimi
July 5th, 2005, 07:48 AM
OH, this is getting good. I'm getting some popcorn.

beanieboy
July 5th, 2005, 08:38 AM
Let's look at logic for a minute. Doesn't it make sense to all of you that one should repent before being forgiven? For example, can any of you forgive someone that sins against you on a daily basis? Let's say you have a co-worker that is just nasty and goes out of his way to sin against you on a daily basis. Are you guys saying that it's logical to forgive him on a daily basis. In other words, you forgive him for the same thing day after day. That just doesn't make sense and it's also dishonest. It's impossible to really and truly forgive someone when they continue to remain in their sin and are harming you.

In the above scenario, the loving and logical thing to do is to softly rebuke the person and give him the opportunity to repent. If he doesn't, you treat him as nicely as you can and give the matter to God.

Seriously, some of you are completely missing the boat on this. The way I'm laying it out is Biblical, logical, and loving.

Saul killed Christians repeatedly. One would think that God would just not forgive Saul, would just pull a Rimi and say, "you are not worth it," or kill him, as ordered in Leviticus - that he would simply strike him dead. But he didn't. He used him to become a leader within the church. Because God still cared, Saul was able to come to God.

Zaccheus was a tax collector, known for cheating people in their taxes for their own gain. He did so repeatedly. Jesus should have said, "I'm not going to forgive you." But instead, when Zaccheus was inspired by this man who showed everyone love, and climbed a tree to see him, Jesus called to him, and told him to come eat with him BEFORE Zaccheus repented of anything. It was Jesus reaching out to him that inspired Zaccheus to change.

Any sinner can say, "You have wronged me. I won't forgive you."
Any sinner can demand an apology before forgiveness begins.
And any sinner can say, "You say you are sorry, but you are a liar!!!" which I have seen from the saved as well.

As a Buddhist, I find it difficult to forgive those who have wronged me, but do so, because others have done so to me. I ask for others to forgive me first, and in realizing my own ability to harm, intentionally or none, find more compassion to forgive others.

But at the heart of not forgiving is pride.
Your pride allows anger to rule your life, living your life unhappily. Rimi, for example, has spoken of how people forgive to make themselves feel better, instead of following what God wants. Does God want us to live angry, resentful lives? Or does he want us to live happy lives, productful lives, reaching out to one another? Does God want us to be weighted down with the wrongs of others, or let go of the pain, and move on?

We don't need to condone, forget, or provide cheap grace in forgiveness. What we do need is to let go of the pain, the anger, the resentment, all of which holds us down. As a Christian, it may help you understand that God used Christ to "get even", not demand our deaths.

It comes down to a choice of which is more important to you - living a happy life where you can rejoice and be exceedingly glad, or living one of anger, misery, and resentment.

Rimi
July 5th, 2005, 08:50 AM
When God struck Saul with blindness he wasn't forgiving him. He was asking him why Saul was persecuting him? THAT WAS A REBUKE. Saul repented. and then AND ONLY THEN could God use Saul for any good thing.

Zaccheus (whom you seem to have a crush on) was in the tree and not out cheating. Zaccheus didn't wait to be rebuked and FIRST REPENTED by saying he would there and then give h alf of his possessions to the poor and if he'd cheated anybody out of anything he'd pay them back. THEN Jesus forgave by saying that salvation had come to his house. BTW, it doesn't that Zaccheus was known for cheating people, only that he was a tax collector and very wealthy. Zaccheus said IF he'd cheated anybody he would repay.

You will never be forgiven until you learn that you must repent. The opportunity is always there to repent. Zaccheus wasn't too proud to climb a tree. It comes down to a choice of which is more important to you - loving your sin, or loving God more.

beanieboy
July 5th, 2005, 09:41 AM
When God struck Saul with blindness he wasn't forgiving him. He was asking him why Saul was persecuting him? THAT WAS A REBUKE. Saul repented. and then AND ONLY THEN could God use Saul for any good thing.

Zaccheus (whom you seem to have a crush on) was in the tree and not out cheating. Zaccheus didn't wait to be rebuked and FIRST REPENTED by saying he would there and then give h alf of his possessions to the poor and if he'd cheated anybody out of anything he'd pay them back. THEN Jesus forgave by saying that salvation had come to his house. BTW, it doesn't that Zaccheus was known for cheating people, only that he was a tax collector and very wealthy. Zaccheus said IF he'd cheated anybody he would repay.

You will never be forgiven until you learn that you must repent. The opportunity is always there to repent. Zaccheus wasn't too proud to climb a tree. It comes down to a choice of which is more important to you - loving your sin, or loving God more.

Why didn't God just say, "you're not worth it!" and just kill him?

Why did Jesus invite Zach to eat with him before he asked for forgiveness?

You have a strange way of seeing the Bible. Zach didn't have too much pride to climb a tree? He was short and couldn't see. I think it had little to do with pride.
Zaccheus wasn't out cheating people when Jesus passed by?
Isn't that like saying, "the adulterous wasn't committing adultery at the time she was brought to Jesus"?

Did God send his son after the world had repented, or while we were yet sinners?

Rimi
July 5th, 2005, 01:13 PM
Because being God, He can do that if He likes. Judgment call. It coulda turned out differently, like it did with Adam and Cain, and Saul (OT), Judas, and . . . . I think you get the picture.

Zaccheus coulda turned his back and been too embarrassed with his small stature. He coulda let his emotions be bitter. He coulda just walked away. Instead, he risked having people see him in that tree, knowing why he had to climb it, and been laughed at. He risked being made a spectacle of by people who were very hostile towards tax collectors anyway. . . , yet he went up in that tree to see Jesus anyway. hmmm, now that I'm thinking on this, it sounds like a heart that was wanting to repent and knowing Who to go to.

I have a strange way . . ?? . . . pot, kettle, black. You're the idiot who thinks God will let sodomites like you have their own bathhouse in His kingdom!

beanieboy
July 5th, 2005, 01:25 PM
You're the idiot who thinks God will let sodomites like you have their own bathhouse in His kingdom!

Thou shalt not bear false witness.

Or is it okay to lie if you are a Christian, because a Buddhist can't use the scripture to call you on it?

Rimi
July 5th, 2005, 01:28 PM
Beanie is a fag. Beanie loves other fags. Fags tend to love bathhouses. Not false witness so much as logical conclusion. Look, it's not like you actually have to take a bath. Yeesh, what a drama queen.

beanieboy
July 5th, 2005, 01:37 PM
You're the idiot who thinks God will let sodomites like you have their own bathhouse in His kingdom!

If you haven't made false witness and lied about me, then prove yourself, and quote me where I said this.

Rimi
July 5th, 2005, 01:55 PM
You truly are sperm addled. I've already said it was a logical conclusion. Oh, but you did infer God was a fag because He's a designer. If you can make conclusions like that, that I can apply logic to my conclusions and say what I said.

beanieboy
July 5th, 2005, 01:57 PM
You truly are sperm addled.


Sperm addled?

Moderators???

Rimi
July 5th, 2005, 02:07 PM
Sorry, precious, didn't know sperm would offend you. How about "you're addled by body fluids not belonging to yourself"?

Rimi
July 5th, 2005, 02:33 PM
This is precious. Beaniebutt bad repped me for post #222. He wrote: "Please watch your mouth." Beaniebutt, you reeeeeeally need to take your own advise. And I don't mean on these threads but in your own deranged life. This is too funny. Beanie, what a big butt you have!

beanieboy
July 5th, 2005, 03:18 PM
I also reported your post to the moderators.
You were out of line.
Little kids read these threads. You need to watch your mouth.

wickwoman
July 5th, 2005, 03:25 PM
I did too.

Everyone on here should do the same. I never give bad rep points but I did this time.

Rimi
July 5th, 2005, 03:29 PM
I also reported your post to the moderators.
You were out of line.
Little kids read these threads. You need to watch your mouth.

Yes, they might and they need to see how dispicable you really are. You need to watch your mouth. If you were really so concerned with kids, you'd leave here and never return. But you don't really care, so abuse away!

beanieboy
July 5th, 2005, 03:29 PM
I did too.

Everyone on here should do the same. I never give bad rep points but I did this time.

Same. I'm not going to give bad rep points to a point I disagree with.
But "sperm addled", and suggesting that I "watch my mouth" as a sexual innuendo is just over the line, and so I bad repped you, and I rebuked you openly, just like you preach it.
It goes directly against TOL standards.

Please save your sewer talk for someplace else, Rimi.

Rimi
July 5th, 2005, 03:30 PM
Too bad your rebuke doesn't mean anything buttboy.

WW, it's so easy to say you've never bad repped anyone . . . now.

beanieboy
July 5th, 2005, 03:30 PM
Yes, they might and they need to see how dispicable you really are. You need to watch your mouth. If you were really so concerned with kids, you'd leave here and never return. But you don't really care, so abuse away!

You are accusing me of abusing children, while you are using foul language and sexual innuendo.

Rimi
July 5th, 2005, 03:32 PM
I did too.


Everyone on here should do the same. I never give bad rep points but I did this time.


From the "Let's be different . . . all together!" department. Based on that, I'm guessing you were born about 1945-1952?

Rimi
July 5th, 2005, 03:34 PM
You are accusing me of abusing children, while you are using foul language and sexual innuendo.

FeeFee, you abuse everyone just being a fag, which is by its nature a sexual innuendo.

aikido7
July 5th, 2005, 03:47 PM
THE VISION OF CHRIST that thou dost see
Is my vision’s greatest enemy...
Both read the Bible day and night,
But thou read’st black where I read white.

--William Blake (1757-1827), from The Everlasting Gospel

Hasan_ibn_Sabah
July 5th, 2005, 04:36 PM
Aikido - Great quote, I agree often another person picture of God is a total opposite of our own, but I realize that my picture of God and the other person's picture of God aren't God, the moment you try to define or fit God into your own personal little box, you are wrong.

Beanie - is it in your best interest to argue with a person who is obviously "non compos mentis", if you know what I mean. The person I am refering too has obviously exhibited some sort of emotional disorder -I betting sociopathy

beanieboy
July 5th, 2005, 04:44 PM
Beanie - is it in your best interest to argue with a person who is obviously "non compos mentis", if you know what I mean. The person I am refering too has obviously exhibited some sort of emotional disorder -I betting sociopathy

Yez. I zink ze zubject haz a deep zygosis.

Point well taken.

Namaste.

Rimi
July 5th, 2005, 06:04 PM
If that's what it takes to get the little freak to leave ME alone, then ALRIGHT!

Hasan_ibn_Sabah
July 5th, 2005, 06:27 PM
Yez. I zink ze zubject haz a deep zygosis.

Point well taken.

Namaste.

Deep rooted sociopathy brought on by childhood trauma, also including narcissisitic personality disorder brought by on corporate narcissism of the group the subject belongs to

wickwoman
July 6th, 2005, 06:42 AM
Hi Rimi. Thanks for asking but I was born about 10 years later than that. Don't think I didn't notice your little accident was meant to be insulting, since my picture is right in my avatar and I know I don't look like I'm 50's. But, since that sort of thing really doesn't matter to me, it was amusing at best.

julie21
July 6th, 2005, 07:43 AM
Rimi in post #225: This is precious. Beaniebutt bad repped me for post #222. He wrote: "Please watch your mouth."
I think it was well deserved.
Someone has to remind you to act in a more Christian manner than you have been in this thread and in others Rimi.I do not care where the rebuke of your foul language useage or your dirty remarks about BB in particular, but others as well come from, as long as they come. Though I believe that you will not take the rebukes as they have been given...out of love...in some case Christian, and non- Christian in others.
The Moderators seem to be giving you free reign with the language and inuendos that you have laid out re BB, without proof of some I might add, but if they want new people coming to the board, that will carry the party line that you are on, then I guess they will run with that objective in mind. And it might be a good ploy to get a general 'clearing' of those they don't want from the board. Is that how it goes?

wickwoman
July 6th, 2005, 07:49 AM
Julie I think you're onto something.

beanieboy
July 6th, 2005, 08:42 AM
I also think it is baiting. It goes like this:

A: You are a ****ing ******er that *******s every night with *******s. You digusting ******ing pile of ****.
B: What the hell are you babbling about?
A: Moderator!!! B used the word hell!

Moderator: B, this is your one and final warning....

TOL is a place to foster a conservative belief, but as long as you tow the party line, you can be sexually graphic, use innuendo, be vulgar, arrogant, rude, etc.

If you don't tow the party line, and question these tactics, you are held to a higher standard.

I see the latter as a blessing. Better to have strictness applied to you, than to have free reign, digging oneself into the pits of hell, and even being lent a hand.

Mathew 15:
17"Anything you eat passes through the stomach and then goes out of the body. 18But evil words come from an evil heart and defile the person who says them. 19For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, all other sexual immorality, theft, lying, and slander.

Buddhism teaches that one should have purity of thought, because from there, will come purity of speech, and purity of action. But if one has filthy thoughts, it will come out of their mouth in unpure speech, and hateful action.

I am convinced that while posters such as julie21 have clearly stated that they oppose homosexuality, they are still attacked for the rebuke of not acting Godly by false christians who choose their behavior over the rebuke, who do not reflect on what they are rebuked for. Their goal is to maintain their hostility at the world, to bring discord over peace, to exhalt themselves over sinners, to justify hatred and contempt. Any challenge to that causes a threat, and the person is therefore attacked, called a fool or crazy, called "too nice," or any other lie that falls off their tongue. And that should be expected. Darkness does not like to be brought into the light.

In a world that is cold and selfish, should one ever worry about being "too loving"? Are we all so full of love, that we act overly loving? Is it possible to be overly loving?

If anything, this place shows me the cruelty of the world, some of the sickness of the church, and the pockets of goodness that can be found amongst it. It strengthens those who suffer for righteousness sake, challenges you to turn to the bible to see when verses are being misused by the saved, and to really seek The Light. For all of those things, I am very grateful.

wickwoman
July 6th, 2005, 08:52 AM
I am for the separation of church and hate.

beanieboy
July 6th, 2005, 08:55 AM
I am for the separation of church and hate.

That rocks!!

julie21
July 6th, 2005, 08:56 AM
I am for the separation of church and hate.
I prefer that over the usual line used. ;)

wickwoman
July 6th, 2005, 08:57 AM
Currently my fave bumper sticker.

A former favorite: "straight but not narrow."

julie21
July 6th, 2005, 09:03 AM
I vote for the current as best. :) Well, the eyelids are dropping and it is gone past midnight here in Oz so I am off to catch some sleep. You will all be in my prayers in various ways.
Goodnight.

wickwoman
July 6th, 2005, 09:12 AM
Sweet dreams, Julie.

Rimi
July 6th, 2005, 01:32 PM
Deep rooted sociopathy brought on by childhood trauma, also including narcissisitic personality disorder brought by on corporate narcissism of the group the subject belongs to


BB's getting awards now, huh. Afraid to imagine what the award is in the shape of.

Rimi
July 6th, 2005, 01:33 PM
Hi Rimi. Thanks for asking but I was born about 10 years later than that. Don't think I didn't notice your little accident was meant to be insulting, since my picture is right in my avatar and I know I don't look like I'm 50's. But, since that sort of thing really doesn't matter to me, it was amusing at best.


Little touchy about the age thing, eh. Actually, I had no idea that was you. How you look is a matter of opinion, eye of the beholder and all that.