The Concept of Forgiveness

[TruthSeeker]

tiassa,

About forgetting...:

This is what I meant:
When God forgive us, in His eyes we are sinless. In the same way, when we forgive someone, in our eyes that person is sinless.

Now, her mother and I have...

Did you mean "my mother and I"...?

It is not a matter of forgetting life, it is a matter of accepting that the mistake was done and that now you should forget the mistake and handle the circumstances. Do ya understand?

Philippians 3:12-14
"12 Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus.
13 Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead,
14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. "

 

[everneo]

This is what I meant:
When God forgive us, in His eyes we are sinless. In the same way, when we forgive someone, in our eyes that person is sinless.

It is not a matter of forgetting life, it is a matter of accepting that the mistake was done and that now you should forget the mistake and handle the circumstances. Do ya understand?

Please forgive me. Could u explain what is ur question again..

 

[TruthSeeker]

everneo,

Please forgive me. Could u explain what is ur question again..

Which question? "Do you understand?"? What do you mean. I was pretty clear there...

 

[firefighter]

1. Do you need to be forgiven?

If you are in a relationship with someone who continues to bring up the past, and you are miserable because of it, then you need to be forgiven if you want to feel better about yourself and get on with a healthier emotional life. If they won't forgive you, then forgive yourself and break off the relationship with the caustic individual.

2. Do you need to forgive someone?

If you are in a relationship with someone who you feel has done you wrong in the past, and you continue to bring it up because you still feel miserable because of it and you want them to feel as miserable as you do, then you need to be able to bring yourself to forgive if you want to feel better about yourself and get on with a healthier emotional life. Otherwise, you need to break off the relationship because your caustic emotional condition is not healthy for yourself or the other person.

3. What is REALLY forgiveness?

It's the ability to let go of the past and get on with your life.

 

[Raithere]

Re: It's simple

Originally posted by tiassa
I just remind myself that there's nothing to forgive. The only reason someone killing me should matter anymore than one asteroid banging into another is that I'm awake enough to be aware of it.
...
And besides, humans are such mumbling, blithering nimrods in general that I've discovered that nobody is guilty of anything. Seriously, no matter how offended I or someone is, there's always a reason why the offending party should be offended that others are offended.
...
it's not just a matter of forgiving for the sake of the future. There is nothing to forgive. I have a daughter now. What am I supposed to say? "It's okay, honey, I forgive you." I have a daughter. What the hell about that is to forgive? F--k. I have a daughter. I've never been able to say that before.
...
There is nothing to forgive, merely much to work out. Otherwise, my partner and I might spend the rest of our lives forgiving each other and forgetting to raise our daughter. Of course, watching her parents play for forgiveness is a little sickening. But they're ... twisted.

I find that forgiveness is more about understanding. I cannot wholly agree that there is never anything to be forgiven; as it seems to be a tacit assertion that there are no standards of universal human ethics. And while I can understand your argument from an absolute universal standpoint, still we are what we are and I find the wholesale abandonment of a frame of reference from which to perceive and weigh ethical considerations problematic. In short, I find it dangerous to ignore who and what we are and to completely abandon a practical definition of reality.

Certainly, there are times when it applies that there is nothing to be forgiven, harm perceived is not always actual harm. Thus, as in your case, how is it that the conception and birth of a child can be considered harmful? While one can recognize the attempt to manipulate you as being disingenuous on the surface such is born in the true emotions of the mother. Again, I think, understanding comes into play; particularly in understanding the motives of the 'offending' party.

Still there are times when understanding only reveals a malicious intent or despite understanding the actions of one are indeed harmful to another. Such might still be forgiven upon understanding the underlying motives of the behavior but in the case of actual harm I do believe a debt is incurred.

Escapes from this I find dangerous for they allow for a universally relativistic morality... a situation I find untrue and socially intolerable. While I do believe there is room for some relativism within ethics I feel that there is also a base line consideration that can be applied consistently.

To wit: Towards you oft given ethical position of "An it harm none, do what thou wilt." I ask; how do you rationally defend this position? Therein, I think, lies the answer.

~Raithere

 

[Tiassa]

I wouldn't go that far

it seems to be a tacit assertion that there are no standards of universal human ethics

I wouldn't go that far. Think of it a little like my theism

Specifically, it may be that any standards of universal human ethics are irrelevant, much the same as I treat the idea of God. What, after all, is the beating of my heart compared to the Universe around me? Morbid? Only if you choose to look at it that way. It is as valid as any other slightly-less-than-arbitrary juxtaposition. But the Universe doesn't get a sick feeling in its stomach when it reads a twisted story about a 9 year-old girl getting an abortion after being raped.

A standard of universal human ethics is, at present, an idea. Even if that idea becomes a reality, it's still as subjective as any religion, but there we land in that muddling nihilist zone that is almost as difficult to discuss as ideas of God.

As we've discussed before, I'm one of the arrogant ones who puts my ethical standards in terms of the species or the collective instead of the individual. So to me, there is seemingly a standard of Universal human ethics. However, like I've said of pacifism: I believe that war is bad for the species, but I cannot prove it objectively. So it is with ethics. I know generally why most things seem right or wrong to me, but when it comes to justifying those assessments, I've come to realize that it just doesn't matter.

I actually have a friend who knows me well enough to know several of my core principles, and as a result seems to live to cause me to violate them. But there's nothing technically unusual about what he's doing. Specifically, the only thing that makes it different is that he already knows why I'm looking at him strangely. But I don't care how many reports you wave under my nose that says you can't get contact high from the sweat of a cokehead. I still don't want him doing lines off my coffee table. Period.

I would take a swipe and say it's symptomatic of his atheism, but that's not nearly fair. However, what he does with anyone's principles is essentially what many of our atheists do with religions. Seriously, a drug conversation went approximately (in summary):

- Um, I thought I said I didn't want coke anywhere near my daughter, and especially in this house.
"Relax, I looked it up online. She can't get contact high from my sweat."
- And the residue on the coffee table?
"You've got Windex, right? I'll just clean it off."
- You know, I try to be reasonable about some things, but this is coke. It's illegal.
"Yeah but you smoke pot. It's all the same."
- I'll be happy to answer for my pot. Not your coke.
"Relax, it's all the same."
- No, it's not.
"Look, dude, do you want me to get the fucking coke off your table? Just shut up ..." (Snort)

And the thing is that it's not just drugs. If it was, I would give stronger consideration to my habits. But I am literally conditioned by this kind of behavior; it is the stock model of my childhood, adolescence, and now my adulthood. It's the kind of thing that makes me wish he would have kids so I could go sit in their bedrooms at night and chain smoke. "What? You drive an SUV!" I would say. "It's all the same."

And, furthermore, I would understand if this was an addict. But if this guy's an addict, then my mother is a drunk.

What I'm after is that people act this way. What is unethical about separating detrimental behaviors from children? Apparently I'm being unfair to drug users, the guy who likes speeding up and down the street, or the street preacher who tells children they're wicked. In Oregon, I was a tyrant because I insisted on equal rights for all.

People seem to look for any weakness in principle. Kind of like the way they look for weaknesses in God, economic theory, gender politics, &c.

Ideally speaking, yes there is a universal human ethical standard. Practically speaking, though, it is about as evident as God. And it may be irrelevant because of human diversity of character and endowment.

Judging and forgiving has proven too complex to be economic. It seems to lead to its own cycle, much like revenge.

Besides, there comes a point where, without such a standard for myself, I would refuse to forgive. I would rather pretend I have no interest than pretend I have the right to judge in those cases. It's also cultural reactionism.

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[TruthSeeker]

Posted by firefighter:I
It's the ability to let go of the past and get on with your life.

Posted by me:
To be forgiven is to forget the sins.

Aren't those two things equal? And I even explained it to tiassa anyways...

 

[Amie]

Hi everyone
I don't necessarily think one has to forget in order to forgive. After all it is not an easy task to "forget" something that has been done to us however forgiveness is not present if one is not able to "let it go", let go of the anger and so on and so forth. I would like to be able to forgive people for any transgressions but sometimes that takes some time. Recently I was really hurt by someone who is my best friend in the world, I love him but I am still so angry I am finding a hard time forgiving him as much as I would like to say "all is forgiven" until I am able to let it go then it really is not forgiveness at all...

I guess sometimes *time* is both the best and the worst. Its the best because it is always there and it does heal. it is the worst because it is always there and it is sometimes painful to have to endure...

(edit cuz i kant spel)

 

[firefighter]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
Aren't those two things equal? And I even explained it to tiassa anyways...

No, TruthSeeker. They are not always equal. As some people have already pointed out, it is sometimes not wise to "forget" because it could end up being detrimental to your health or safety at some future time should the offender repeat the "sinful" action.

 

[Tiassa]

Raithere

Further Considerations

Raithere, returning to some points I didn't address ....

I find that forgiveness is more about understanding.

This is a relevant consideration, but I set a standard for myself that I understand that there is a reason this happened. It doesn't have to be a good reason, but I recognize that much of human behavior is inexplicable without getting ultimately grim. Are we really, as a species, as stupid as we make ourselves out to be not only by the bottom of the curve, but also by the majority?

In individual matters, people offend each other daily, and merely for convenience. Many people simply do not realize that they are being insensitive or otherwise offensive.

I've learned from experience: If you follow the justifications offered for the perceived offense, it often makes sense. But most people won't do that, as they fear that looking at a situation objectively somehow forfeits their presumed right of judgment. It's one of the reasons, for instance, that generalized condemnations about child molesters and murderers disturb me so. But even in smaller matters--words said, lovers taken and lost, &c.--this habit persists to the point that people generally don't understand each other.

Now, if I demand the toll of repentance and correction before forgiving, on what basis do I establish the propriety of that standard? It's as individualized as anything else, and makes the notion of a universal standard human ethic difficult.

I find the wholesale abandonment of a frame of reference from which to perceive and weigh ethical considerations problematic

I can see how it seems problematic. That's why I make education a centerpiece of much of my writing: Before people will "do their part" they have to be educated enough to understand objectively what that part is and why it is important.

And it's never utter abandonment; my species-level considerations sometimes look that way. But if Saddam Hussein was smarter, he wouldn't be doing this. If Americans in general were smarter we wouldn't have let our politicians get us into this mess. Or told them to, by some standards. If Tigger and I were smarter, our lives over the last seven years would be vastly different, and our future as well.

In short, I find it dangerous to ignore who and what we are and to completely abandon a practical definition of reality.

The presumption of judgment, though, asserts a priori the authority of the individual ethical perspective to judge. As we've argued round and round in the Religion forum, there is no absolute objectivity in the Universe; or, at least, humans are not yet capable of understanding it. Recognition of this fact forces me to look at the situation in terms of its barest factors. Like the guy in Mannassas with 13--whoops, make that 12--kids. People examining the story tend to make early associations "negligent father does this or that". But to me, what we actually have here is a testimony to birth control. First off, nature will balance one way or another (nobody promised that "nature" would "be kind"). And secondly, people can only organize so much according to their priorities. If he was smarter, he would have stopped at 2 kids. But what we have is parent making error of judgment in leaving child in custody of eldest teen and the most severe consequences. We can castigate him all we want, but it really is extraneous. The judge wants him to symbolically acknowledge what he has done and what he has failed to do, but also wants him to get on with the business of doing a better job with the other 12 kids. The guy's not a monster, just an idiot. And idiocy is a fact of being human, and therefore a fact of life. It would be at least extraneous to bother with moral or ethical judgment on my part. Can his children trust him? That's more a practical matter than a spiritual one. But if it appears that you're stuck together, everyone needs to bail water, and forgiveness will only be significant to those who deem it necessary to forgive. Otherwise, unfortunately, pucky happens, and the best we can do is learn from it. Forgiving is almost diversionary.

Still there are times when understanding only reveals a malicious intent or despite understanding the actions of one are indeed harmful to another.

This malice is only artificial in the sense that I would exclude humanity from nature. A deep-seeded malice ought to be avoided; forgiveness means nothing to it.

Think of either the psychopath that won't be brought down alive or a rabid dog. In either case, you do what you have to. Forgiveness of a psychopath is irrelevant. We tend to forgive dogs, though. But both are natural circumstances by virtue of being part of nature. I know this has broad implications, but the Universe doesn't collapse under their weight.

Such might still be forgiven upon understanding the underlying motives of the behavior but in the case of actual harm I do believe a debt is incurred.

Yes but there is a difference between the forgiveness of a legal debt and forgiveness between people. However, in smaller matters as well, forgiveness is an association, even a transaction. What is the coin which buys it? Repentance? Expression of regret? Full-blown alterations of behavior? How foolish would I be to forgive someone when I know he's just going to move on and do the same thing to someone else?

The idea of forgiving and forgetting, or even forgiveness in itself, do not provide an accurate history to compare in any remotely objective sense. For instance, Tigger has a consistent history of certain behavioral patterns which are offensive to me for their inequity according to the allegedly-agreed social paradigm. Now, if I've forgiven her past offenses, what right do I have to compare them to current offenses? Yet her behavior is a pattern, and predictable. In the end, if I forgive, I can't actually help alleviate the situation because I'm allegedly foregoing my right to revisit the subject; it's a curious quirk of human associations, and subject to human diversity.

So what to make then if we examine an expunged history in order to assess the current situation and consider the future? Regardless of the act of contrition and forgiveness, I personally am not going to omit history in my considerations just to be nice. What if one of those omissions comes back to haunt my daughter's wellbeing?

In the end it comes down to assessing a situation practically and doing what you need in relation to it. Forgiveness is the insertion of the editorial comment into the (relatively) objective considerations of any particular situation.

Escapes from this I find dangerous for they allow for a universally relativistic morality... a situation I find untrue and socially intolerable.

Unfortunately, it's six of one, a half-dozen of the other.

While I do believe there is room for some relativism within ethics I feel that there is also a base line consideration that can be applied consistently.

A matter of education. We cannot expect people to apply what they do not understand or know exists conceptually. My baseline is the collective in its immediately-applicable context according to any given situation.

To wit: Towards you oft given ethical position of "An it harm none, do what thou wilt." I ask; how do you rationally defend this position? Therein, I think, lies the answer.

In which context? In general, or in a specific context related to this topic?

In general it's nothing more than the idea that some express here at Sciforums that you ought to be free to do anything that does not impinge the freedom of others.

In terms of this topic, which seems the more important consideration, it's a matter of how far you wish to extend the rhetoric. There are Buddhist strains of harm and suffering which acknowledge that you can't avoid hurting others and seek methods of minimizing unnecessary suffering. Other than that, I have to ask for clarification. It seems a simple enough question, but I've started a response to it six times and find myself presuming your context in all of them.

- I'm harming others by demanding forgiveness instead of seeking to right an error.
- I cannot force others to believe what I believe, and while I think the Rede is a strong reflection of truth, it is only Law if you choose to make it such in your own life.
- In terms of immediate combat, the idea gets sticky, but if I'm serious about it, I can always go to the local Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu school and learn how to neutralize individual combatants without harming them.
- Generally it is my obligation to seek non-combative resolutions to situations. Failing this, life generally compels me to fail my own standards and deal with it afterward. So I suppose there is a valid forgiveness--forgiving oneself in honest consideration.
- Okay, maybe not six ... but you see what I mean, I hope. I'd rather answer the question than presume it

Don't get me wrong. There are still bad things in the world that we must guard against, but when it comes to forgiveness, it seems a better option to not presume the necessity of judgment.

Again, Tigger--we're still having our first fight, after seven years of it. It's simple: I asked her once to not show me photographs and tell me stories about people I don't know when I was watching television with her at her request; I do admit it was annoying how she would shut up suddenly and watch the commercials. But she agreed and said, "Makes sense." And then went right back to it. I never got mad at her, but just kept reminding her that I would rather do this some other time instead of during the program. And after several weeks of having this discussion once a week I got the temper tantrum: "I'm tired of you always bashing me and calling my friends stupid!" (Point A does not, in this particular argument, lead to Point B.) By the time I got her to explain what I meant, it turns out she was pissed that I never wanted to look at her pictures. Which isn't true. I just didn't want to look at them at the only time she seemed to want to show them, which was while I was watching television.

If I tried to forgive her for it, she might resort to bloodshed.

Or the time my best friend and I nearly came to blows in the middle of the street in Salem. He was upset because I kept getting a story wrong, and I finally had to ask him, "Why did you tell it to me this way, then?" And he just looked at me and said, "Oh." And then he told me the revised version.

Or the boss who would come in five minutes before the restaurant opened, change the production method from what was trained and expected, and then start citing workers for not being able to overhaul all the food in the joint in five minutes. Seriously, he would just walk in and tell someone to do a two-hour process in five minutes, and then write them up for it. I wouldn't bother forgiving that offense because he seriously believes that such is a manager's right in the workplace. On the other hand, during our second stint together (I quit once in a fight over that) we got along great, and continued to fight about that point; it became a joke between us, and he never did it to me again. Life goes on. The criteria of the "transaction" of forgiveness--even according to a standard adapted from the Bible--are impossible in that situation to fulfill.

I mean, given the number of offenses that people endure daily, why bother with issues of forgiveness at all? Some that shouldn't demand forgiveness will demand it anyway, and some that should ask forgiveness will not. Those who get up and go to a job day after day that they hate--why? You're miserable because of your employer yet you seem to forgive the company every day. But since there's no real act of forgiveness, it becomes essentially that there's nothing to forgive.

The statistical majority of offenses in anyone's life will go without inspiring them to demand forgiveness. It is only within the bounds of certain relationships that people would expect it or demand it.

There is a theological assertion that says the Devil can't be purely evil, else it would destroy itself. I bear that in mind when dealing with individuals and collectives.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

No, I'm pretty sure it's correct

TruthSeeker

Did you mean "my mother and I"...?

No, I'm as positive as I can be that I intended "her mother and I".

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[Nehushta]

What I've learned about Christians from my former Christian friends

From what I've seen, Christians are not particularly forgiving people. They like to see people really sweat over any mistakes that they may have made in life, and will make sure others are aware of those mistakes regardless of the cost. Don't even think about revealing a deep, dark secret to a Christian "friend" - unless you'd particularly like to see it on the 6:00 news. They don't forgive you when they have put you on a pedestal that you never asked to be put on, and then you make the fatal mistake of revealing to them that you are indeed human (even though you never did anything to hurt them in any way). And above all, they don't forgive you for not knuckling under to their attempts to convert you to their religion. They can and will send you proselytizing material and e-mails of the "hell-fire" brand that you didn't ask for, but as soon as you respond to their efforts in what they perceive to be a negative way (although you try to be as gentle with their feelings as you can, while not compromising on what you believe to be the truth), they will cut off the friendship then and there, and never speak to you again.

So what I've learned from Christians is that they do not make good friends and confidants. I will never again attempt a friendship with someone I know is a Christian. That has nothing to do with whether or not I'm capable of forgiving others myself - it's more of an issue of having been burned too many times by people in one particular category. I've learned my lesson.

 

[TruthSeeker]

You can be my friend...

That's what I really want and valorize in a friendship:

Philipians 2:3-5
"3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;
4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,"

That is one of the main reasons why I'm a Christian. Unfortunatly, some "Christians" that label themselves as "Protestants" and "Catholics" are not like that. In fact, they are exactly like you described them. And, once again, unfortunatly they are a majority. True Christians usually don't even label themselves. They don't say "I'm a... Christian." Sometimes they don't even say they are Christians. It is also written:

1 Corinthians 1:12-13
"12 What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? "

True Christians won't divide themselves. True Christians will want the whole. True Christians will follow Christ's example:

John 15:12-13
"12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. "

That's the kind of friendship I look for. A serving, loving and caring True Christian friendship...

 

[Amie]

Re: What I've learned about Christians from my former Christian friends

Originally posted by Nehushta
From what I've seen, Christians are not particularly forgiving people. They like to see people really sweat over any mistakes that they may have made in life, and will make sure others are aware of those mistakes regardless of the cost.

I kind of feel the same way about atheists lately. sad but true, although I am deeply in love with a "good" one

I am sorry to hear you have been burned by Christians, I am sincere...

 

[Nehushta]

Re: You can be my friend...

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
Unfortunatly, some "Christians" that label themselves as "Protestants" and "Catholics" are not like that. In fact, they are exactly like you described them. And, once again, unfortunatly they are a majority.

Thank you for your post, TruthSeeker. I know that not all Christians are that way, but as you say - it seems that most are. It is heartbreaking to make friends with someone who later turns out to be anything but a friend. Even though that has been my experience every time I've made friends with Christians, I know I shouldn't paint them all with the same brush, and I apologize for that. Thanks again.

 

[Nehushta]

Re: Re: What I've learned about Christians from my former Christian friends

Originally posted by Amie
I kind of feel the same way about atheists lately. sad but true, although I am deeply in love with a "good" one

I am sorry to hear you have been burned by Christians, I am sincere...

Thanks, Amie. I'm sorry to hear you've had similar experiences with atheists - it hurts to be treated that way by anyone you considered a friend - but I'm glad to hear you're in love with a "good" one.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Nehushta

Even though that has been my experience every time I've made friends with Christians, I know I shouldn't paint them all with the same brush, and I apologize for that.

I forgive you

Next time you find one of those "Christians", give them these :

Romans 8:1
"1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. "

1 Peter 3:18
"18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; "

And, if you are interested, I can tell you more about True Christianity, the "religion" of Love and friendship...

 

[Nehushta]

Re: Nehushta

Truthseeker,

Thank you for your response. Please don't be offended, but I'm not sure that we agree on the meaning of the scriptures you posted, or their effectiveness in the situations I mentioned.

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
Next time you find one of those "Christians", give them these :

Romans 8:1
"1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. "

This doesn't seem to be of any help to the non-Christian who is being condemned by Christians. In fact, it seems to put even more of a barrier between the two groups by implying that non-Christians should be condemned.

1 Peter 3:18
"18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; "

This seems to give Christians all the more reason to proselytize their non-Christian friends, rather than to simply accept them as they are.

And, if you are interested, I can tell you more about True Christianity, the "religion" of Love and friendship...

It is interesting to note that every Christian I've ever spoken to seems to have a different notion of what represents "True Christianity". As long as you don't attempt to convert me, please feel free to share your version of Christianity with me.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Thank you for your response. Please don't be offended, but I'm not sure that we agree on the meaning of the scriptures you posted, or their effectiveness in the situations I mentioned.

I don't get offended easily...

This doesn't seem to be of any help to the non-Christian who is being condemned by Christians. In fact, it seems to put even more of a barrier between the two groups by implying that non-Christians should be condemned.

The scripture is to be given to Christians, not to unbelievers. It actually means not to condemn anyone, not just Christians. But since it can be misunderstood, try those ones:

Luke 6:37
"37 Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned. "

Colossians 3:12-14
"12 So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience;
13 bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you.
14 Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. "

And, of course, you can just say that it is written "Love one another" and "Love your enemies".

This seems to give Christians all the more reason to proselytize their non-Christian friends, rather than to simply accept them as they are.

You can see it that way, but the above ones are not. About those scriptures that seem to condemn, it is important to meditate on them and see wheter it is God condemning people or people condeming themselves. Remember that there is a whole lot of people in this world that feel guilty and/or repented for something that they did in the past.

It is interesting to note that every Christian I've ever spoken to seems to have a different notion of what represents "True Christianity". As long as you don't attempt to convert me, please feel free to share your version of Christianity with me.

A crucial thing to learn about Christianity is that the kingdom of heavens and hell are not just out there when you die, but it is also inside us, while we live. It is written:

Luke 17:20-21
"20 Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed;
21 nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst."

This is a very important thing in Christianity and it is not talked about very much. In fact, Catholics deny that! Do you know why they used to use Latin at church in the old times? So that people wouldn't understand those scriptures! Because they wanted them to feel condemned in order to win money from them. They would basically say: "Give me money, and you will go to Heaven." Their greed and hipocrisy really screwed things up. But thank God this is changing... The True Christianity will prevail.

True Christianity is all based in one verse, in one commandment:

John 13:35
"35 By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

We also don't have a set of rules. Instead...
Romans 13:8
"8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. "

Christ didn't come to bring us a set of rules that we should follow. In the Old Commandment, God tried to make us follow the Law, which was based in His image so that we may be with Him, but because of our sinful nature we couldn't follow the rules. Not even Christians always follow the rules, since we are not perfect, like God is. That's why God sent Christ for us, so that we may be like Him! Since we cannot do it ourselves, He did it for us!

Ephesians 4:20-14
"20 But you did not learn Christ in this way,
21 if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus,
22 that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit,
23 and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind,
24 and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth. "

Colossians 3:9-11
"9 Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices,
10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him--
11 a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all. "

1 John 3:24
"24 The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. "

1 John 4:4
"4 You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world."

So Christ is in us, and the kingdom of heavens too! By "heavens" and "eternal life" Jesus was talking about the great peace and Love that God brings to us. Since we are in Him and He in us, it is Him who live through us. One of the reasons why God sent Christ here is to help us to become perfect like Him. Not that we will attain perfection here, on earth, but we can get close to that if we work and keep drawing near Him.

Here are some of God's promises for those who come to Him:

Ephisians 3:14-19
"14 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father,
15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name,
16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man,
17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love,
18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth,
19 and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God. "

Galatians 5:22-25
"22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. "

Philippians 2:1-4
"1 Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion,
2 make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.
3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;
4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. "

Phippians 4:4-9
"4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice!
5 Let your gentle spirit be known to all men. The Lord is near.
6 Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.
7 And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
8 Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.
9 The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you. "

Mark 11:24
"24 Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you. "

John 16:24
"24 Until now you have asked for nothing in My name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be made full. "

PS: There is only one limitation to what we can receive:

James 4:3
"3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures. '

If there is no Love in your request, it will not be granted to you.

2 Peter 1:2-4
"2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord;
3 seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.
4 For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust. "

And of course, always remember that God is Love...

1 Corinthians 13

John 15:7-11
"7 "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.
8 "My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples.
9 "Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love.
10 "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.
11 "These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full. "

John 13:35
"35 By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

So, what you have to lose by being a Christian? Nothing! Unless you become Catholic or Protestant...

But that is what True Christianity is all about: Love. If you become a Christian, Christ will help you becoming like Him, full of Love and compassion towards others. And joy, peace and Love will be more and more in your heart as you grow to become like Him.

It is your chocie to become a Christian or not. I can't convince you on doing so, and it is not worth to discuss it that way. Always remember that you have a free will, and if you concider becoming a Christian to have all this Love and friendship, then I will be happy to help you.

 

[Tiassa]

On the concept of love

Two verses worth adding to that list:

"You have heard that it was said, `An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. "You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5.38-ff, RSV)

"When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew 25.31-ff, RSV)

This Was Your Life (Chick)

ibid

So what do we mean, anyway, when we say "forgiveness"? Obviously, there are those whom the Lord does not forgive, and apparently the reason is that they have not corrected the problem yet:

ibid

Repentence involves the act of turning away from sin, something which is not entirely possible for a human being, as per God's will. In demanding that turning from sin, the Chick tract is not far off the mark. As to its KJV affinity and its stern and unforgiving message, that's an interpretation. And we could always disqualify this kind of thinking, but that kind of thinking is amazingly prevalent.

While I would agree that it is the goal of a proper Christian to behave in a manner that reflects love and compassion, I must contest the assertion that "True Christianity is Love". The faith is not loving--millions of those tracts and similar pieces go out to the world each year, distributed in the guise of love by alleged Christians who haven't the pride to stand for their God in their evangelism. And they reflect a specific point:

- God's love is "earned". God does not "love" his creations, which he wills to a dependent state. But God does "reward" obedience with "love", and all else is cast aside.

I might have to start a topic in response to your post about hell in the Islam thread, Nelson ....

- "Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth." (Matthew 8.10-12)

- "He who sows the good seed is the Son of man; the field is the world, and the good seed means the sons of the kingdom; the weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear. "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it. "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net which was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind; when it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good into vessels but threw away the bad. So it will be at the close of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth." (Matthew 13.37-50, RSV)

- "Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the householder has risen up and shut the door, you will begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, `Lord, open to us.' He will answer you, `I do not know where you come from.' Then you will begin to say, `We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.' But he will say, `I tell you, I do not know where you come from; depart from me, all you workers of iniquity!' There you will weep and gnash your teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves thrust out. And men will come from east and west, and from north and south, and sit at table in the kingdom of God. And behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last." (Luke 13.24-30, RSV)

The problem, Nelson, is that "love" means different things to different people.

I hear you knocking with the all-is-love. But it has a fundamental problem in the fact that love has diverse manifestations.

For instance, I was just reading through the Chick tract propaganda in defense the King James Version of the Bible. It provides an excellent example for reflection.

The King James Bible is grossly inaccurate. Its language is modernized in terms of what was modern for its day. And in discussing the advent of KJV, the Chick tract can do nothing but call Catholics "Satanic". And of course, the Catholics lived up to the role, persecuting the KJV crowd. But here's the thing: Imagine that you are a superstitious, nearly-primitive Christian facing the spectre of a new translation of the Bible for the masses that is, in fact, innacurate. Now consider Matthew 25 (above): If you fail to correct your brethren led astray? And, of course, according to the primitive ideals of religions, killing people seems the thing to do. But that's just it--the persecutions were, by the rhetoric, acts of love.

Now, you and I might agree that there's nothing loving about persecution, but we hear the same thing from various people about raising their children. To me, it's wrong to hit a child, period. To others, I don't love my daughter enough if I'm not willing to smack her around from time to time. There is a point in Christian faith when love fails: Will the Devil be redeemed?

:m:,
Tiassa