Repentance, Redemption and Forgiveness [Archive]

Saint Fool

08-31-2009, 01:13 AM

semilargeintestine

08-31-2009, 01:34 AM

Public events of the past few months have set me to thinking about the process of repentance, redemption and forgiveness and how true forgiveness may be the hardest part of the process.

Not wanting to turn this into P&CE, I won't use politicians or sports figures but give a personal example instead.

Many years back, a good friend became an alcoholic. An alcoholic of the lying, cheating, stealing kind. Finally, after a betrayal of trust, I told her to get out of my life. Ten years ago, I received a letter from her apologizing for her actions. She'd gone to AA, straightened her life out and wanted to make amends. Part of me said OK, she's changed. But another part said, TOUGH! Look what she did to you!!!! I ended up giving her a sort of raggedy-ass forgiveness, which she was wise enough to see through and live with. Three years ago, I was in her neck of the woods and met up with her. Met her spouse. Her kids. Saw the change in her eyes and was finally able to let go of my resentments and feelings and feel real forgiveness. Are we good friends now? Not really. Our lives have gone in very different ways and we have little in common now. But I was able to accept that she had changed her life and regretted her action and true forgiveness got rid of the anger I felt for much too long.

I'm not particularly religious and I don't think it would have made a difference, but I'm curious.

What does your belief system say about repentance, redemption and forgiveness? How does someone repent and action? Who sets the standards for redemption? And is forgiveness the hardest part of the three or was I just being pig-headed stupid about it? Or is forgiveness the icing on the cake, something that doesn't compare to repentance and redemption?

Or do repentence, redemption and forgiveness even count in this day and age when a grudge cannot only be held but passed on to many more people through the click of a mouse, a letter to an editor, or a video on You-Tube?

Repentance, redemption, and forgiveness are related, but not the same thing. It is important to make the distinction between them.

When your story really discusses is repentance and forgiveness. Repentance is part of a greater act that is called teshuvah in Hebrew. In English, that translates a few ways, the most common being "return." The goal of teshuvah is to return to the way we once were--following G-d's will. There is a specific way to go about doing this. First, we must take responsibility for our sin. Second, we must regret the sin, for without regret there can be no desire to change. Third, we must reject that behaviour. If we make these first three steps, G-d will allow us an opportunity to take the fourth and final step: changing our behaviour. If we truly long for a change to make right, He will provide us with a chance to be faced with the same situation and do the right thing. Through this, we are able to see that in G-d's eyes, time is circular. We can return to a previous failure and replace it with success.

Forgiveness is a related, but separate issue. There are two general types of sins: sins against G-d and sins against man. While G-d can and wants to forgive us for sins commited against Him (except for a select few), there is nothing He can do about sins committed against our fellow man. We must first seek forgiveness from the person we wronged.

Redemption is rescue. The Jews were redeemed from the bonds of slavery Egypt and became Avdei Hashem--servants of G-d. Currently, we are in exile, but we will soon be redeemed; however, this will only come about through two things: performing teshuvah and acts of kindness. The three are different but interrelated.

Medievalist

08-31-2009, 02:00 AM

I'm hoping someone who's a practicing Catholic will talk about confession, contrition, and absolution as well.

I can talk about it from the perspective of a student of canon law, but for the Catholics I know it is a one of the more important aspects of their faith--that you can be contrite and indicate it and make recompense and be forgiven.

semilargeintestine

08-31-2009, 02:04 AM

I'm interested in that too. I don't understand the concept of confessing to another human being. I'm hoping someone can shed some light on that.

Saint Fool

08-31-2009, 05:22 AM

Thanks, Semi. I'm going to have to think about your definition of redemption. I'd always considered it the act of performing good works with a true purpose so that either a higher power or in the eyes of society would see you as having redeemed yourself.

I'd also like to hear someone talk about public confession of sins as practiced - at least in my experience - in independent Protestant churches primarily in the South. I've witnessed it twice. Neither time was in connection with an altar call, but just a general stand up and confess your sins if you need to moment. I grew up in the Episcopal church with its group prayer of general confession so it was quite bewildering.

semilargeintestine

08-31-2009, 06:35 AM

Thanks, Semi. I'm going to have to think about your definition of redemption. I'd always considered it the act of performing good works with a true purpose so that either a higher power or in the eyes of society would see you as having redeemed yourself.

Part of warranting redemption is service of G-d; however, we cannot redeem ourselves. It is a partnership. We have to warrant it, but it can only come from Him.

I'd also like to hear someone talk about public confession of sins as practiced - at least in my experience - in independent Protestant churches primarily in the South. I've witnessed it twice. Neither time was in connection with an altar call, but just a general stand up and confess your sins if you need to moment. I grew up in the Episcopal church with its group prayer of general confession so it was quite bewildering.

Who are they confessing to? G-d or the group?

Saint Fool

08-31-2009, 08:45 AM

As I said, it was quite bewildering. Since I was a visitor, I don't feel qualified to answer your question. Hopefully, someone will come along who can enlighten us both.

Medievalist

08-31-2009, 08:48 AM

The idea of auricular confession was rather important in terms of Anglican/Episcopalian history. Google Tractarian movement.

I'm also hoping we might get a Quaker opinion too; it's rather different.

Gehanna

08-31-2009, 10:41 AM

To semilargeintestine,

In this thread you wrote:
If we make these first three steps, G-d will allow us an opportunity to take the fourth and final step: changing our behaviour. If we truly long for a change to make right, He will provide us with a chance to be faced with the same situation and do the right thing. Through this, we are able to see that in G-d's eyes, time is circular. We can return to a previous failure and replace it with success.

In the thread on reincarnation you wrote:
If a soul goes to Gehenna and has not completed its mission and fulfilled all the commandments of the Torah, it will be sent back to this world to try again. As it says in the book of Job:

Originally Posted by Job 33:29
Behold, all these things does God do -- twice, even three times with a man -- to bring his soul back from the pit that he may be enlightened with the light of the living.

Once the mission is fulfilled, the soul can ascend to Gan Eden.

Are the two directly related or do they each refer to separate understandings? If separate, would you please elaborate on them by means of contrast?

Gehanna

ColoradoGuy

08-31-2009, 07:03 PM

. . . I'm also hoping we might get a Quaker opinion too . . .
Reporting for duty -- I've been away for awhile.
. . . it's rather different. Indeed -- Quakers do regard the matters of confession and absolution differently than do most other Christians. On this question (and most others) Quakers will differ from each other, too; although we share what we call Testimonies (simplicity, peace, truth, community, equality, service), we have no formal liturgy or dogma. We also have no clergy, although this is often turned around into the statement that we have no laity -- in effect, all are clergy. This diffuseness means that 100 Quakers will probably give you nearly 100 different answers. Still, a few generalizations are possible.

I think the key point is that Quakers do not accept the notion of original sin. Whereas a typical Protestant or Catholic would regard sin as a lapse back into our innate fallen state, a Quaker sees the same act as a turning away from our intrinsic goodness. These are quite opposite views of human nature.

Even though we believe people are innately good, sometimes we do bad things. Quakers traditionally have dealt with that problem as we do all others -- communally. The errant Quaker can be confronted by the Meeting and advised to search within for guidance. There is a formal process for helping someone do this, called a Committee for Clearness. If the Meeting believes a person has strayed too far -- has ignored that of God within -- he or she can be expelled from the Meeting (termed disownment). This is rare today, but was once more common.

A disowned Quaker could ask for reinstatement in the meeting. If merely chastised, but not disowned, a Quaker also might apologize for the act in a letter to the Meeting. This would be the nearest thing to public confession and request for absolution you will find in Quakerism, and it was also common centuries ago. Here is an example of this from colonial times:

Dear Friends:
I hereby condemn my conduct in having been active in procuring a substitute to serve in the Militia [Quakers are pacifists] although by indirect means also removed and left some accounts unsettled, all which has given trouble and uneasiness to Friends which I have been made sensible of and sorry for. Hoping my future conduct may be more consistent I desire Friends may accept this my acknowledgment and continue me under their care.
William Betts (1798)

semilargeintestine

08-31-2009, 07:37 PM

To semilargeintestine,

In this thread you wrote:

In the thread on reincarnation you wrote:

Are the two directly related or do they each refer to separate understandings? If separate, would you please elaborate on them by means of contrast?

Gehanna

Well, on the surface, they are separate. The first refers to something that must be done in this physical world--teshuvah--while the second refers to something on a grander scale--the fulfillment of the soul's mission.

However, the two certainly are connected. It is inevitable that a person will sin. G-d knew this before He even created the universe, as the concept of repentance was one on which the universe was created. And so, a person who since and does teshuvah is doing a great thing in the eyes of G-d.

On the spiritual level, a soul who has not completed his mission to fully keep the Torah must do a grander form of teshuvah. It must return (which is what teshuvah means) to the physical world in order to try again. It will experience the same opportunities to do right, and once it does, it will be as if it never failed in the first place--just like in this life when we make amends for our sins.

Medievalist

08-31-2009, 09:25 PM

semilargeintestine--What about the role of Yom Kippur?

semilargeintestine

08-31-2009, 09:43 PM

We learn about teshuvah from Yom Kippur. A few weeks ago, we read the part of the Torah were Moses recounts the sin of the Golden Calf. He went up to the mountain for the first 40 days and 40 nights. When he did not return on the date the Jewish people* were expecting (which was the result of a very unfortunate misunderstanding), they Jewish people feared the worst. They were under the false impression that they needed an intermediary to speak to G-d for them, as every time they had appealed to G-d or heard from Him before, it was through Moses. And so, they demanded the Golden Calf be built to act as a replacement for Moses.

At the end of the 40 days and 40 nights, G-d told Moses to descend the mountain and see what the people had done. When he saw it, he smashed the two tablets in front of them (he did this because he did not want to impart the binding of the Torah upon them in the midst of sin). They people were completely distraught by what they had done, and allowed him to destroy the Golden Calf.

Moses prayed to G-d to give the people a second chance, and it was granted. He ascended the mountain for another 40 days and 40 nights to rewrite the tablets. When the 40 days and 40 nights were over, G-d told Moses to descend the mountain. He related to Moses that He had joyously reconciled with Israel because they have shown true repentance--they had made teshuvah. Moses descended the mountain to present the tablets to the people.

On that day, G-d told the people that the first 40 days were just as the last 40 days. He said this to tell the people that if you truly desire to change, He will provide you with another opportunity to make amends. Because the people had made teshuvah and succeeded in changing their ways, the second 40 days replaced the sin of the first 40 days.

That day was Yom Kippur.

And so, Yom Kippur is true to its name--Day of Atonement. It is the ultimate day of teshuvah, and the 40 days proceeding it--the month of Elul and the 10 days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur--are the time when we make teshuvah for all that we've done wrong that year, either purposely or unintentionally. If we truly make teshuvah, G-d will allow us to make good on our promise to change.

*The people actually responsible for the Golden Calf were small in number, and were a mixed myriad of people G-d didn't want to be part of the Israelites because he foresaw what would happen. It was only through Moses' pleading that He acquiesced. This is why when G-d tells Moses to go down, He says to see what "your people" have done. They were not G-d's people, but Moses' people.

Gehanna

09-01-2009, 09:56 PM

Thank you for your reply semilargeintestine.

Gehanna

johnnysannie

09-01-2009, 10:48 PM

I'm interested in that too. I don't understand the concept of confessing to another human being. I'm hoping someone can shed some light on that.

Ah but as a Catholic when I go to confession, I'm not confessing to another person - I am confessing my sins to God. The priest is there as an agent of God, so to speak, as a stand-in.

And the "technical" name is not "confession", it's Reconciliation.

Explaining Catholic sacraments to those who know little to nothing about them can be daunting at best but I'll make an attempt.

Think of God as the Father of a large family. Think of Catholics as His family. Like families, those of the Catholic faith are far from perfect. We make mistakes and we sometimes do wrong. If within a human family, someone does something that affects the other family members in a negative way, we clear the air by talking about what happened, what we did wrong, and making a vow not to do the same thing again.

When I go to confession (yes I still call it that even though it's the Sacrament of Reconciliation), it brings me closer to my faith, to God, and in essence "brings me home". If I can go and in privacy, with complete confidence that no one else will know, tell my transgressions, it is amazingly uplifting to confide things I have done wrong, things I know are wrong, and things I shouldn't do.

Prior to going, I have to take time to reflect on what I have done or not done and this time of self-reflection really can bring home areas where I need to improve in my personal life.

My sins are normally pretty mild; it's not like most Catholics go to confession to tell that they murdered their neighbor or robbed a bank. My sins tend to be ones of omission or ways I feel that I fail others, like not being patient with my elderly mother or indulging in too much vino and such.

I always feel somehow cleaner within after confession and my faith feels fresher, renewed and stronger.

Confession also always reminds me that God is a loving, merciful God who doesn't hate me because I grabbed two newspapers out of the coin box and only paid for one, or because I yelled at my kid when she brought home a misconduct slip from school or because I ate an entire Hershey bar (gluttony!) or whatever.

Confession is like a homecoming or renewing your vows. Having everything out in the open opens the process of reconciliation.

This probably all sounds weird and confusing to non-Catholics but that's the best I can explain

TerzaRima

09-02-2009, 12:06 AM

I don't practice much anymore, but I always thought that the essential function of Reconciliation was the need for periodic self-examination which Johnnysannie mentions. Re this sacrament, it's also important to say that while Catholic teaching holds that a priest may grant spiritual absolution for a genuine confession--"humble, sincere, and entire"--atoning for any temporal consequences is a very different matter. God forgives us, but as flawed beings we need to atone for what we have done.

Saint Fool, maybe that was your trouble here. It can be facile for someone to ask for forgiveness after significant harm or abuse--as in the 12 step model, for example-- unless they truly have changed.

Ruv Draba

09-02-2009, 02:02 AM

Saint Fool, that's a really interesting story.

From a secular humanistic perspective, our morality follows our compassion and our conscience.

Most humanists I know seek an ethical frame in which we're accountable to one another for our impacts. The way I think of it is: you clean up your own mess if you can; if you can't then you acknowledge that the mess is yours and get help cleaning it up.

I think we're also accountable to ourselves for being consistent with our own values. I'd say that our hypocrisies hurt other people just by their existence. If we're surrounded by people of integrity, we tend to hold integrity. If we're surrounded by hypocrits our integrity diminishes. So in a sense one's personhood is on display, even if one's making decisions about just oneself.

Secular humanists have no rituals of remorse or reconciliation. We hold that the important thing is to understand our screw-ups, acknowledge them, fix them, and avoid repeating them. That said, screwing up weakens our faith in ourselves, other peoples' faith in themselves and the fabric of our relationships. I think it's important to reconcile where we can.

From a personal perspective I don't like forgiveness at all. It's built on ancient tribal codes of grudges and punishment and I feel that we should try to do better. Reconciliation -- bringing people back together -- is good. But no matter how compassionate forgiveness may appear, slate-wiping means that we all have to keep slates.

I like to fix my messes, reconcile with people and not hold grudges. I don't ask for or offer forgiveness, and I get discomfited when people ask for it. I hear it as 'please don't punish me any more'. It makes me want to say 'But I shouldn't be punishing you in the first place'.

I've never had someone come to me as you have, SF, but I applaud the integrity of the person who did. In apologising for the hurt and acknowledging fault in creating it, such a person tells us that we're not at fault for this injury. Sometimes we feel that we are.

If such a person came to me I'd tell them that I appreciated the apology. I'd also tell them what changes I saw in them -- if I saw more integrity, more confidence etc... Finally I'd tell them whether we were reconciled or not, based on whether I thought they met my standard for trust and respect or not. It would depend on what I saw in the person, and this highlights my other problem with forgiveness.

Often a statement of contrition and acknowledgement of fault is enough to effect reconciliation, but sometimes it's not. Systematic abuses or betryals require more than words or symbolic penitence. I'd need to see someone's personhood on display, much as you did. Until that point if someone said 'Are we reconciled' I'd say frankly: 'No, we're not.' Which is not the same as 'I want to punish you' or 'I wish you harm'; it's the same as 'I don't trust or respect you'. On the other hand, having told someone that I'd also make a point to tell them if that changed. Truth sometimes hurts. We should clean up our messes.

AMCrenshaw

09-02-2009, 03:13 AM

From a personal perspective I don't like forgiveness at all. It's built on ancient tribal codes of grudges and punishment and I feel that we should try to do better. Reconciliation -- bringing people back together -- is good. But no matter how compassionate forgiveness may appear, slate-wiping means that we all have to keep slates.

Unlike Ruv I see forgiveness as both reconciliation and restoration, as opposed to mutual amnesia (why don't we both just forget this ever happened?). If it's a ritual, it's a ritual the same way any act of communication is a ritual.

Punishment needn't be the reason for or cause of forgiveness and it's best if it has nothing to do with it; compassion is indeed the basis for forgiveness -- both in asking for and receiving it. Without compassion, requests for forgiveness are empty; without compassion, giving forgiveness gives nothing.

Neither repentance nor redemption are things I'm ultimately concerned with.

At the same time, I understand repentance to mean "rethinking" -- and so to me that's a matter of the compassion which prompted the request for forgiveness blooming into something more lasting than the immediate moment of this forgiveness exchange-- and because we can't read thoughts we must see thought in action.

Redemption I think is impossible: a deliverance from sin or wrongdoing would entail a slate wiped clean, which doesn't interest me. Forgiveness is most itself (as a restorative, healing agent) when each party understands the wrongdoings in relation to the whole being, the whole person, and not as isolated events. To wipe clean wrong doings is to deliberately misunderstand the whole being and to eliminate/ignore/overlook simple facts, which helps only in the empty present, but fails to heal anyone.

AMC

semilargeintestine

09-02-2009, 08:05 AM

Thank you for your reply semilargeintestine.

Gehanna

No problem.

Ah but as a Catholic when I go to confession, I'm not confessing to another person - I am confessing my sins to God. The priest is there as an agent of God, so to speak, as a stand-in.

So...you're confessing to an idol basically?

And the "technical" name is not "confession", it's Reconciliation.

Explaining Catholic sacraments to those who know little to nothing about them can be daunting at best but I'll make an attempt.

Think of God as the Father of a large family. Think of Catholics as His family. Like families, those of the Catholic faith are far from perfect. We make mistakes and we sometimes do wrong. If within a human family, someone does something that affects the other family members in a negative way, we clear the air by talking about what happened, what we did wrong, and making a vow not to do the same thing again.

When I go to confession (yes I still call it that even though it's the Sacrament of Reconciliation), it brings me closer to my faith, to God, and in essence "brings me home". If I can go and in privacy, with complete confidence that no one else will know, tell my transgressions, it is amazingly uplifting to confide things I have done wrong, things I know are wrong, and things I shouldn't do.

Prior to going, I have to take time to reflect on what I have done or not done and this time of self-reflection really can bring home areas where I need to improve in my personal life.

My sins are normally pretty mild; it's not like most Catholics go to confession to tell that they murdered their neighbor or robbed a bank. My sins tend to be ones of omission or ways I feel that I fail others, like not being patient with my elderly mother or indulging in too much vino and such.

I always feel somehow cleaner within after confession and my faith feels fresher, renewed and stronger.

Confession also always reminds me that God is a loving, merciful God who doesn't hate me because I grabbed two newspapers out of the coin box and only paid for one, or because I yelled at my kid when she brought home a misconduct slip from school or because I ate an entire Hershey bar (gluttony!) or whatever.

Confession is like a homecoming or renewing your vows. Having everything out in the open opens the process of reconciliation.

This probably all sounds weird and confusing to non-Catholics but that's the best I can explain

That sounds nice (no sarcasm intended). I just don't understand why you need the priest, that's all. Why can't you just talk to the Boss?

johnnysannie

09-02-2009, 10:44 PM

No problem.

So...you're confessing to an idol basically?

No, not to an idol. There is no idolatry in Catholicism. The priest is in essence the acting agent for God. If you don't get it, you don't get it but that's how it is. Another example, at the bank do you always go straight to the Bank President's office or do you deal with someone who has been authorized to act as an agent for the bank?

That sounds nice (no sarcasm intended). I just don't understand why you need the priest, that's all. Why can't you just talk to the Boss?

I can, of course, and often do. But it's not a sacrament unless a priest is involved. To me, it's a little like the difference between living with a significant other (which I once did and it was not with the man I eventually married) and being married. No matter what, it's not the same relationship without the santicty and legality of marriage (whether it's blessed by a priest or solemnized by a judge

Gehanna

09-03-2009, 12:42 AM

An idol is something worshiped. A priest, in my opinion, is more like one who would bear witness.

Gehanna

Ruv Draba

09-03-2009, 05:11 AM

Unlike Ruv I see forgiveness as both reconciliation and restoration, as opposed to mutual amnesia (why don't we both just forget this ever happened?).Eh? I certainly didn't advocate mutual amnesia, so do you think it's implied? Does reconciliation without forgiveness entail forgetfulness? Why should it?

Restoration -- maybe, it depends. We can't unmurder each other's loved ones, undrink each other's water, unrape each other, unburn one another's mementoes. We can't always unharm each other, and it's very hard to unhurt each other. We can only unhurt ourselves.

We can restore dignity, respect. We can restore justice inasmuch as we can restore protection and security of one another's necessities. We can display our understanding of the great harm we've done and in doing so we can show that we are no longer capable of such a blind or malignant wrong.

For some, those things are enough that they can begin to unhurt. But certainly not for all. For that reason alone, I think that asking for forgiveness is rather selfish. Giving compassion for one we've hurt is not.

Without compassion, requests for forgiveness are empty; without compassion, giving forgiveness gives nothing.I'm back to agreeing here. The bit I'm interested in though, is why forgiveness is necessary at all -- might it be enough to recover and exchange compassion?

AMCrenshaw

09-03-2009, 05:44 AM

Sorry, you wrote:

But no matter how compassionate forgiveness may appear, slate-wiping means that we all have to keep slates.

so my view of forgiveness is unlike yours.

AMCrenshaw

09-03-2009, 06:02 AM

We've had this discussion before, but I'll say it here for another's benefit. Asking for forgiveness is as selfish to me as asking for compassion. But for the sake of my argument I have to mention that I keep a roughly threefold view of any action-- the intention behind it, its after-effect(s), and what (the event) actually occurs between the two. Compassion is a motivation (and between you and me a fusion of feeling and reasoning) -- but it's not an action. If the act of asking for forgiveness or compassion or for anything is rooted in the compassionate motive then they are equally good in my opinion.

I'm back to agreeing here. The bit I'm interested in though, is why forgiveness is necessary at all -- might it be enough to recover and exchange compassion?

I think you can ask for forgiveness or compassion without any tendency toward the wellbeing of the other. But since I see forgiveness -- which must be an exchange -- as restorative I am confident in saying forgiveness occurs through mutual compassion; and if it doesn't, it's not forgiveness, but something else (namely, amnesia or apathy, a desire "to move on" without anyone actually healing the wound). And so to me forgiveness is the name for the exchange - between a wrongdoer and a victim - or the process in which healing, recovery, and learning from one's mistakes occur.

AMC

Ruv Draba

09-03-2009, 06:02 AM

Sorry, you wrote:
But no matter how compassionate forgiveness may appear, slate-wiping means that we all have to keep slates.
so my view of forgiveness is unlike yours.Yes, I realise that you're aiming at healing through forgiveness. I think that we should seek to heal when it's feasible; I just don't think that it always is, and I don't think that forgiveness is always necessary for it.

My concern is that by lauding forgiveness we're also inadvertantly lauding grudge-bearing. We may also be overlooking the possibility that other kinds of healing may be required, or that full recovery may not be possible but we still need to find some way to get along even so.

What other kinds of healing? I'll give you an example. Down the road from me is a therapist who uses humour for serious purposes. If you're cranky about something and it's eating at you; or if you're scared about something and it's riding you, or if you're sad about something and it's weighing you down, she tries to help you find another way to see it. I don't exactly know how she practices, but I looked into the practice elsewhere from curiosity. They get you to talk about it with marbles in your mouth, or upside-down, or in a squeaky voice. Or they'll get you to say the same hurt message over and over again, pulling faces.

I think that what's supposed to happen is that you realise that your hurt/fear/sadness is just the one bit of you, that there are other bits you're not accessing. It lets you dwindle the problem to a more managable size -- or get bored with the problem entirely -- and move on. I reckon this is especially useful on problems we've blown beyond all proportion, or problems we've outgrown but just don't know we have.

My point though, is that no forgiveness is required. We could still be hurt about something; it's just not going to eat us. We might still have a grudge; we just won't bother pandering to it. And maybe it can teach us not to hold grudges in the first place -- which is perhaps even better than forgiving them. It's not forgetting our hurts -- it's recognising that they're unimportant in the first place.

semilargeintestine

09-03-2009, 06:04 AM

I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just trying to understand. In the Torah (your OT), the Jews commit a sin of idolatry during the incident of the Golden Calf. They were not worshipping it as G-d, but they were using it as an intermediary to Him.

However, they also used Moses as a way to get messages to G-d because he had a more direct connection, and we often pray that the righteous souls of those passed will help elevate our prayers to G-d. So I guess I am just going to assume that yours is more like the second rather than the first.

As far as no idolatry in Christianity, I find that hard to belief. Last time I checked, there are complete statues of the saints, Mary, and the J man all over the place, the last of which at least is worshipped. Correct me if I'm wrong about your particular denomination.

I can, of course, and often do. But it's not a sacrament unless a priest is involved. To me, it's a little like the difference between living with a significant other (which I once did and it was not with the man I eventually married) and being married. No matter what, it's not the same relationship without the santicty and legality of marriage (whether it's blessed by a priest or solemnized by a judge

Yeah, I don't get that. We have no concept of that in Judaism. We talk directly to the Boss. There is no need to have someone there, and we actually have no equivalent of a Catholic priest. We have the kohanim, which are the Jewish priests, but their role is completely different.

AMCrenshaw

09-03-2009, 06:13 AM

Yes, I realise that you're aiming at healing through forgiveness. I think that we should seek to heal when it's feasible; I just don't think that it always is, and I don't think that forgiveness is always necessary for it.

My concern is that by lauding forgiveness we're also inadvertantly lauding grudge-bearing. We may also be overlooking the possibility that other kinds of healing may be required, or that full recovery may not be possible but we still need to find some way to get along even so.

<snip>

My point though, is that no forgiveness is required. We could still be hurt about something; it's just not going to eat us. We might still have a grudge; we just won't bother pandering to it. And maybe it can teach us not to hold grudges in the first place -- which is perhaps even better than forgiving them. It's not forgetting our hurts -- it's recognising that they're unimportant in the first place.

I'll never advocate that forgiveness is an absolute or that it's necessary (and really neither is compassion) to overcome all hurts. Saying so would make me a clown, in fact.

On the other hand I disagree fully that lauding forgiveness lauds grudge-bearing except if we're talking about records of each other's wrongdoings. In which case, what does forgiveness serve? Nothing and no one; the only option is wiping slates clean. That is amnesia.

Records of wrongdoings aren't the concern of forgiveness; rather, forgiveness is concerned with exactly what you seemed to be concerned with: the whole of the person.

AMC

Medievalist

09-03-2009, 07:28 AM

I don't practice much anymore, but I always thought that the essential function of Reconciliation was the need for periodic self-examination which Johnnysannie mentions. Re this sacrament, it's also important to say that while Catholic teaching holds that a priest may grant spiritual absolution for a genuine confession--"humble, sincere, and entire"--atoning for any temporal consequences is a very different matter. God forgives us, but as flawed beings we need to atone for what we have done.

I'm very very tired today, and can't recall the right words.

There are stages according to Augustine, and Acquineas picks this up:

Contrition
Reconcilliation
Atonement
Redemption

Not sure that's right; it doesn't look right . . .

Ruv Draba

09-03-2009, 08:00 AM

There's some interesting stuff on atonement from Wikipedia:

The word atonement was invented in the sixteenth century by William Tyndale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale) who recognized that there was not a direct English translation of the biblical Hebraic concept. The word is composed of two parts "at" and "onement" in order to reflect the dual aspect of Christ's sacrifice: the remission of sin and reconciliation of man to God. Tyndale's concept overcome the limitations of the word "reconciliation" whilst incorporating aspects of propitiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propitiation) and forgiveness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgiveness).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement#cite_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement#cite_note-2)

The atonement is a doctrine found within both Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) and Judaism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism). It describes how sin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin) can be forgiven by God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God). In Judaism, Atonement is said to be the process of forgiving or pardoning a transgression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgression). This was originally accomplished through rituals performed by a high priest (Kohen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohen)) on the holiest day of the Jewish year: Yom Kippur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur) (Day of Atonement). In Christian theology the atonement refers to the forgiving or pardoning of sin through the death of Jesus Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ) by crucifixion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion) which made possible the reconciliation between God and creation. Within Christianity there are three main theories for how such atonement might work: the ransom theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_(ransom_view)), the satisfaction theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_(satisfaction_view)) and the moral influence theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_(moral_influence_view)).

[...]

Christians have used three different metaphors to understand how the atonement might work[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement#cite_note-3). Churches and denominations may vary in which metaphor they consider most accurately fits into their theological perspective, however all Christians emphasize that Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus) is the Saviour of the world and through his death the sins of mankind have been forgiven.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement#cite_note-4)

The first metaphor, epitomised by the "ransom to Satan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_(ransom_view))" theory, was used by the fourth-century theologian Gregory of Nyssa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_of_Nyssa) based on verses such as Mark 10:45 – "the Son of Man came … to give his life as a ransom for the many". In this metaphor Jesus liberates mankind from slavery to Satan and thus death by giving his own life as a ransom. Victory over Satan consists of swapping the life of the perfect (Jesus), for the lives of the imperfect (mankind). A variation of this view is known as the "Christus Victor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christus_Victor)" theory, and sees Jesus not used as a ransom but rather defeating Satan in a spiritual battle and thus freeing enslaved mankind by defeating the captor.

The second metaphor, used by the eleventh century theologian Anselm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anselm_of_Canterbury), is called the "satisfaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_(satisfaction_view))" theory. In this picture mankind owes a debt not to Satan, but to sovereign God himself. A sovereign may well be able to forgive an insult or an injury in his private capacity, but because he is a sovereign he cannot if the state has been dishonoured. Anselm argued that the insult given to God is so great that only a perfect sacrifice could satisfy and Jesus, being both God and man, was this perfect sacrifice. A variation on this theory is the commonly held Protestant "penal substitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_substitution) theory," which instead of considering sin as an affront to God’s honour, sees sin as the breaking of God’s moral law. Placing a particular emphasis on Romans 6:23 (the wages of sin is death), penal substitution sees sinful man as being subject to God’s wrath with the essence of Jesus' saving work being his substitution in the sinner's place, bearing the curse in the place of man (Gal. 3:13). A third variation that also falls within this metaphor is Hugo Grotius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Grotius)’ "governmental theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_(governmental_view))", which sees Jesus receiving a punishment as a public example of the lengths to which God will go to uphold the moral order.

The third metaphor is that of healing, associated with Pierre Abélard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Ab%C3%A9lard) in the eleventh century, and Paul Tillich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich) in the twentieth. In this picture Jesus’ death on the cross demonstrates the extent of God’s love for us, and moved by this great act of love humankind responds and is transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit. This view is favoured by most liberal theologians as the moral influence view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_(moral_influence_view)), and also forms the basis for Rene Girard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rene_Girard)’s "mimetic desire" theory (not to be confused with meme theory).

(The third account might be close to your own, AMC).

Perhaps the etymology explains why I've never found use for the word 'atone'. I have a similar problem with words like 'forgive' and 'pardon' too, because of where they come from and what they imply:

forgive: O.E. forgiefan "give, grant, allow," also "to give up" and "to give in marriage;" from for- "completely" + giefan "give" (see give (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=give)). The modern sense of "to give up desire or power to punish" is from use of the compound as a Gmc. loan-translation of L. perdonare (cf. Du. vergeven, Ger. vergeben; see pardon (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pardon)).pardon: c.1290, "papal indulgence," from O.Fr. pardonner "to grant, forgive," from V.L. *perdonare "to give wholeheartedly, to remit," from L. per- "through, thoroughly" + donare "give, present" (see donation (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=donation)). Meaning "passing over an offense without punishment is from c.1300; strictly legal sense is from 1328, in Anglo-Fr. Weaker sense of "excuse for a minor fault" is attested from 1548. The verb is first recorded c.1430.

We're accustomed to thinking of it as compassionate, but etymologically, forgiveness/pardoning is entrenched in punitivism -- eye for an eye stuff.

If you want to see how archaic and broken that thinking can be you only need to look at the "pay back" system in Papua New Guinea, where the embassies advise you that if you hit someone with your car, you shouldn't stop, but drive to the nearest police-station and report it. :(

Forgiveness is certainly a compassionate improvement on that, but to me it feels like a band-aid over an ulcer. I want to ask: what's the punitivism doing there in the first place, and does it have any place in a compassionate mind?

semilargeintestine

09-03-2009, 08:24 AM

The part about Judaism in that wikipedia article isn't really accurate, but sure.

AMCrenshaw

09-03-2009, 08:37 AM

In this picture Jesus’ death on the cross demonstrates the extent of God’s love for us, and moved by this great act of love humankind responds and is transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit. This view is favoured by most liberal theologians as the moral influence view, and also forms the basis for Rene Girard’s "mimetic desire" theory (not to be confused with meme theory).

You're right that it's close, Ruv. When I think of Jesus I rarely think of the cross; but when I do think of the cross I don't think of sin directly-- rather, I think of suffering (my esoteric/poetic reading of the cross concerns the intersection of space and time, the timeless with time, the 'divine' with history, which I believe is kommein, shared by all). And of course when I think of suffering I think of healing.

AMC

semilargeintestine

09-03-2009, 08:46 AM

Maybe it's because I'm Jewish, but I think of Sparticus when I think of the cross. To me, hundreds of men crucified along the road to Rome is more significant.

AMCrenshaw

09-03-2009, 09:20 AM

Maybe it's because I'm Jewish, but I think of Sparticus when I think of the cross. To me, hundreds of men crucified along the road to Rome is more significant.

Than suffering? "Suffering" is pretty universal to the human realm. Also my interest in the cross is in reclamation of a symbol: because when I used to think of the cross I used to think of hundreds of men crucified along the road to Rome but I ended up investing a lot of creative energy into it (and, to be honest, I still do albeit in a different fashion-- the noose-- hard to explain, you'd have to read my fiction :)). The cross, the way you think of it, is a historical symbol of human degradation. One end of what we are capable of doing to one another.

The cross as I see it more often these days, as I see it with Jesus (or anyone, really; because I don't believe Jesus sacrificed himself "for" anyone) dying upon it, is a fundamental symbol: there is suffering and a need for healing.

AMC

C.bronco

09-03-2009, 09:20 AM

Part of this is also about the horror of addiction which turns sober counterparts into desperate, lying, stealing junkies, be it alcohol or otherwise.

Many addicts are entirely different people away from addiction. Some are truly wonderful people once they get past it. Some were truly wonderful people before they were harmed by others.

Addiction also has a solid core in self-hate and previous trauma.

Life's a journey, not a destination- Aerosmith. (Corny, I know).

I've seen people come out of addiction and become wiser, happier and better.

I find it better to be happy when they do find happiness in their lives. It can be a long, hard journey waiting for that point, though. It can be, definitely, heartbreaking.

AMCrenshaw

09-03-2009, 09:25 AM

I find it better to be happy when they do find happiness in their lives.

Yeah I think that's a good point. Ruv and I are talking about compassion but that doesn't really cover it either, since compassion refers to 'suffering with' -- unless of course it refers to general feeling / recognition of another's feeling / recognition. But I also think that you add a bit of validation to the change by being happy with (again, as opposed to "for") someone's being happy about a change they've made and earned in their lives...

AMC

C.bronco

09-03-2009, 09:35 AM

Hugs to anyone who has someone they care about grappling with it. I can say that there is hope, and it is a wonderful thing to see an end to suffering. It is wonderful to see the strong and wise people who come out in the aftermath.

Not everyone makes it out.

Hettie

09-03-2009, 09:42 AM

I will not get into the religion aspect right now, as I am suffering a crisis of faith these days.... but, I want to believe...

I will say for me, forgiveness has always been the hardest thing. Is the person TRULY sorry they hurt me, repeatedly my entire life? Or are they just trying to make their own way to heaven, while clouding mine?

Ruv Draba

09-03-2009, 10:08 AM

I will say for me, forgiveness has always been the hardest thing. Is the person TRULY sorry they hurt me, repeatedly my entire life? Or are they just trying to make their own way to heaven, while clouding mine?My sympathies, Hettie. In an effort to be helpful, here's another view.

When we're hurt, our first job is to be safe. Our next job is to keep our hurt from weakening our courage, our honour and our dignity, because those things guard who we are. After that, we must keep our hurt from harming our compassion and decency, because those things ensure that who we are is good.

Once we have those things safeguarded then we can worry about what to do with those who have harmed us, especially if there is a risk of further harm. In general our choices are to retreat, attack, block, distract, accept them or do nothing. All of these choices can be useful, but depending on what our compassion sees, our wisdom tells us and our integrity demands, one of them will be the most useful. Often we imagine that we only have one or two choices, but there are always at least six. It's useful to remember that because it keeps us from thinking narrowly.

At issue is who's still at risk, what motivated the hurt, how the hurter has reflected on the hurt, what behaviour they commit to, what accountabilities they accept for that behaviour and what they've done previously. Also we need to be aware of our part in provoking or enabling the hurt.

The choices that we make from compassion, integrity and wisdom are different from the choices we make from anger, resentment, or idealism. They're also, in my experience, far more effective choices.

Hettie

09-03-2009, 10:40 AM

Well, without telling you the whole crazy story... I will say that I let my mother see my children, though my sister does not let that happen. I am nice to my mother, short, but pleasant at times. My sister is not. My mother has a purpose now, to be a grandmother, though she did not feel the purpose as a mother. Alcoholic, married 6 times, blah blah blah...

My husband and children are wonderful...

Getting past the 'you never told me about that' or 'that didn't happen' has been hard. Even though she will admit she was a horrible mother.

Again, my adult life... fantastic. No one will harm my children... EVER! Forgiving a woman who will not admit fault but apologizes... not so easy!

Ruv Draba

09-03-2009, 01:03 PM

Again, my adult life... fantastic. No one will harm my children... EVER! Forgiving a woman who will not admit fault but apologizes... not so easy!Hrm... I expect that you're thinking of the childrens' interests... A personal view follows.

There are several alcoholics in my family. While they're still drinking they're generally weak at holding boundaries. This makes them irresponsible adults. There might be some alcoholic parents who haven't screwed their kids lives up, but that hasn't been my observation.

If your mother were a good grandmother but an irresponsible adult then for the kids' sake I'd give her access, but under controlled circumstances. Solitary visits, sober in front of the children, no access to family functions and no discussing family matters on those visits. If her word were unreliable I'd have her sign an agreement -- not for its legal effect but for its effect on her integrity. Sorry wouldn't get her off the hook. There would be no question of reconciliation without she first dealt with her alcoholism and acknowledged its impact on the family.

Hettie

09-03-2009, 04:57 PM

If your mother were a good grandmother but an irresponsible adult then for the kids' sake I'd give her access, but under controlled circumstances. Solitary visits, sober in front of the children, no access to family functions and no discussing family matters on those visits.

Rav- Yes, thanks... I do all these things... my only problem was the forgiveness aspect... I am not able to FORGIVE her for things which she refuses to admit she was a party to. Though she does apologize for being horrible. Confusing... yes... but I am not able to go further into that!

For myself the repentence and redemtion, I think I am good... Do we need that third aspect to be good? To be let in? To move on?

Oh, and it has been 10 years since my last confession! :eek:

Ruv Draba

09-03-2009, 08:04 PM

Rav- Yes, thanks... I do all these things... my only problem was the forgiveness aspect...Well, I'm not of your faith but to me that's no problem at all. Don't seek to punish her. Don't put yourself so high above her in her misery that you think you should be in a position to forgive her. Easy. ;)
For myself the repentence and redemtion, I think I am good... Do we need that third aspect to be good? To be let in? To move on?Aiiish. You know what I think is good? Living compassionately. Looking after your kids; offering your mother that limited joy that she can have without hurting someone. That's it. The rest is dignity, honesty and practicality.

Will she change if you say 'I forgive you?' I'd suggest that she probably won't. If she's like the alcoholics I know she'll take advantage of you until and unless she reforms. Will you change from forgiving her just now? Probably you'll make yourself a victim, which you don't need to be. You'll hand her your guilt and she'll play you with it.

So don't. Let your religion work out its own problems. Don't carry those problems on your shoulders.

Do that, and to the extent that your god is real, and that being an atheist, I'm doomed anyway, I'll happily accept whatever punishment is ascribed to you for not being gullible and stupid when you're told to be. :)

There. :D Live strong. Good luck. :D

johnnysannie

09-03-2009, 10:30 PM

As far as no idolatry in Christianity, I find that hard to belief. Last time I checked, there are complete statues of the saints, Mary, and the J man all over the place, the last of which at least is worshipped. Correct me if I'm wrong about your particular denomination.

.

You're wrong, so I'll do my best to correct.

Yes, Catholic churches have statues of Mary and other saints in most churches but they are NOT WORSHIPPED.

They are there as a reminder - like do you or anyone you know keep photographs around of beloved loved ones who are far away or deceased? Do you like to look upon them and remember them with respect and honor?

That isn't idolatry.

If Catholics bowed down and salaamed the statues, sure, but we don't. The statues are a focus point just like the crucifix behind the altar is.

I'm well aware that in the Jewish faith, you talk directly to the Lord. Despite being a good Catholic girl, I'm also part Jewish (nice mixed heritage, all-American dontcha know) and as a little girl I used to sometimes wonder during church (Catholic) why did they have to emphasize that Jesus guy so much?

We as Catholics also pray directly to God (or Jesus or the Holy Spirit both of which are part of God) most of the time. But we also ask for help from saints like Mary the Mother of God.

No comparison to the Golden Calf, not at all.

semilargeintestine

09-03-2009, 10:31 PM

Than suffering? "Suffering" is pretty universal to the human realm.

Than the Jeebus story.

Also my interest in the cross is in reclamation of a symbol: because when I used to think of the cross I used to think of hundreds of men crucified along the road to Rome but I ended up investing a lot of creative energy into it (and, to be honest, I still do albeit in a different fashion-- the noose-- hard to explain, you'd have to read my fiction :)). The cross, the way you think of it, is a historical symbol of human degradation. One end of what we are capable of doing to one another.

For me, it reminds me that as great a civilisation as Rome was, they were still barbaric in so many ways.

The cross as I see it more often these days, as I see it with Jesus (or anyone, really; because I don't believe Jesus sacrificed himself "for" anyone) dying upon it, is a fundamental symbol: there is suffering and a need for healing.

AMC

I guess. I don't really put much into it.

semilargeintestine

09-03-2009, 10:33 PM

You're wrong, so I'll do my best to correct.

Yes, Catholic churches have statues of Mary and other saints in most churches but they are NOT WORSHIPPED.

They are there as a reminder - like do you or anyone you know keep photographs around of beloved loved ones who are far away or deceased? Do you like to look upon them and remember them with respect and honor?

That isn't idolatry.

If Catholics bowed down and salaamed the statues, sure, but we don't. The statues are a focus point just like the crucifix behind the altar is.

I'm well aware that in the Jewish faith, you talk directly to the Lord. Despite being a good Catholic girl, I'm also part Jewish (nice mixed heritage, all-American dontcha know) and as a little girl I used to sometimes wonder during church (Catholic) why did they have to emphasize that Jesus guy so much?

We as Catholics also pray directly to God (or Jesus or the Holy Spirit both of which are part of God) most of the time. But we also ask for help from saints like Mary the Mother of God.

No comparison to the Golden Calf, not at all.

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. How is that not a graven image though?

Once again, serious question.

ColoradoGuy

09-04-2009, 02:15 AM

The issue of images has troubled Christianity in the past, most famously during what is called the iconoclastic controversy (http://www.greece.org:8080/opencms/opencms/HEC_Organizations/gopatalex/sa/Articles/The_Iconoclastic_Controversy_.html).

Gehanna

09-04-2009, 07:11 AM

Why semilargeintestine do you write Jeebus instead of Jesus?

Gehanna

semilargeintestine

09-04-2009, 07:22 AM

While the Rambam says it is halachically okay to write the names of false deities and prophets, it is the practice of a lot of people to not write or say their names. I used to write Jes-s, but I also write G-d, and I didn't want people to think I considered Jes-s as anything more than a (possibly fictional) heretic.

Gehanna

09-04-2009, 07:45 AM

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I am a heretic and as such you may call me Geebus if you want. lol

Gehanna

AMCrenshaw

09-04-2009, 08:22 PM

I don't think idolatry has anything to do with this thread, btw.

semilargeintestine

09-04-2009, 08:31 PM

No, but it was a related side discussion.

Melisande

09-12-2009, 10:22 AM

Public events of the past few months have set me to thinking about the process of repentance, redemption and forgiveness and how true forgiveness may be the hardest part of the process.

Many years back, a good friend became an alcoholic. An alcoholic of the lying, cheating, stealing kind. Finally, after a betrayal of trust, I told her to get out of my life. Ten years ago, I received a letter from her apologizing for her actions. She'd gone to AA, straightened her life out and wanted to make amends. Part of me said OK, she's changed. But another part said, TOUGH! Look what she did to you!!!! I ended up giving her a sort of raggedy-ass forgiveness, which she was wise enough to see through and live with. Three years ago, I was in her neck of the woods and met up with her. Met her spouse. Her kids. Saw the change in her eyes and was finally able to let go of my resentments and feelings and feel real forgiveness. Are we good friends now? Not really. Our lives have gone in very different ways and we have little in common now. But I was able to accept that she had changed her life and regretted her action and true forgiveness got rid of the anger I felt for much too long.

I'm not particularly religious and I don't think it would have made a difference, but I'm curious.

What does your belief system say about repentance, redemption and forgiveness? How does someone repent and action? Who sets the standards for redemption? And is forgiveness the hardest part of the three or was I just being pig-headed stupid about it? Or is forgiveness the icing on the cake, something that doesn't compare to repentance and redemption?

Or do repentence, redemption and forgiveness even count in this day and age when a grudge cannot only be held but passed on to many more people through the click of a mouse, a letter to an editor, or a video on You-Tube?

On an atheistic note (before I have read any other replies to this thread);
What are repentence, redemption and forgiveness if not religious concepts?

In my (oh, so crass) world, I'd look at the whole matter from a purely personal stand-point. I wouldn't even consider a "higher" authority on the case at hand. But that's just me.

In my world there exists no forgiveness; there exists only acceptance. In my world there exists no repentence for there is no need (again being accepted even with flaws). In my world there is no need for redemption because we are humans - and we come with flaws, and pay-back's a bitch anyway, even if it is (and more often than not bacause it's) well meant.

In my world; the most gracious thing anyone can do is to accept others for who they are; humans!

semilargeintestine

09-13-2009, 07:34 AM

So you don't believe in forgiving someone for a wrong? You could argue two ways: that acceptance is the same as forgiveness, or that they are different.

With the former, by accepting that someone did something wrong to you and chalking it up to human nature, you are necessarily forgiving them; however, the latter would contend that just because you are able to accept that and move on, that doesn't mean you have cleared the grudge internally.

Which side of the fence are you on? I'm curious because never forgiving anyone is not only impossible to do, but bad for your health.

Melisande

09-16-2009, 07:11 AM

With the former, by accepting that someone did something wrong to you and chalking it up to human nature, you are necessarily forgiving them; however, the latter would contend that just because you are able to accept that and move on, that doesn't mean you have cleared the grudge internally.

Which side of the fence are you on? I'm curious because never forgiving anyone is not only impossible to do, but bad for your health.

Well, in my world, acceptance actually means accepting the fact that something has been done, and then moving on; because there is neither need for any kind of judgement nor grudges.

Knowing that oneself is filled with flaws gives one the ability to recognize the same in others, I believe.

semilargeintestine

09-16-2009, 07:46 AM

So isn't forgiveness accepting the flaws of other people and moving on?

kdnxdr

09-28-2009, 12:47 PM

I've always understood that forgiveness has to do with the release of an owed debt.

As a Christian, believing in original sin as rebellion to God that is man's inherited nature, the payment of sin is exacted as death.

Therefore, we are all born in debt to God, dead in our sinful nature. To remedy that state, we, as humans, have been afforded by God, a substitute payment (I think the word is propitiation) for our sin debt; Jesus died in our stead and we (all humans) are forgiven of that debt and brought to life, through Christ, unto God. It is only when we humans confess and repent of our sin nature, and appropriate, through simple faith in the work of the life/death/resurrection/ascention of Christ, and accept His Lordship over our life, that He is the master of our life and not ourself, that we are forgiven the debt of sin to God, which is exacted through death, and we are born again, becoming new creatures, alive through the life of Christ and His Lordship, restored into a living dynamic relationship with the Triune God and given the opportunity to prove out His love by serving and glorifying Him through our acts of love and service.

That is called Justification and is the "entry way" back from being dead to God into a living relationship with God. One scripture says, "No one comes to the Father, except through the Son." We are put back into our rightful place that we were, in fact, created for, to love God and to receive His love.

As a result, Christians progressively become conformed into the image of Christ Jesus by living out their lives in righteousness. When we fail and sin against God or man, we are compelled by scripture and by the love mandate, to be reconciled and to reestablish the broken relationship of love. We do this by confessing our sins and asking forgiveness of God and of one another. The scripture says: "If you confess your faults one to another He is just and will forgive you of your sins and will cleanse you from all unrighteousness." A person can't truelly/sincerely confess unless he is contrite/broken hearted of the harm to God and to others. God is not judging our actions but the state of our heart. If we are truely/sincerely broken hearted, we will regret that we broke the relationship of love and we will earnestly desire to amend that relationship. Scripture also calls us to obey the law and to repay where we have brought loss.

God, through the Scriptures and by the work of Jesus Christ, calls us to reconcilliation, man to God and man to man.

Perfection in this carnal life is never achieved but that we can progressively conform into a greater and greater manifestation of God's love, modeled by Jesus, by dying to self and by living unto God.

Some believe that Justification, Salvation achieved by accepting the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, paying the debt of sin for all of humanity for all time, is a one time even that cannot be undone. Some believe that, through the continuous exercise of rebellion to God's moral code, as asserted by the scriptures, one's heart can, in fact, become as stone, completely and irrevocably indifferent to God and Salvation can be lost.

EmilySC

09-29-2009, 05:14 AM

Well, in my world, acceptance actually means accepting the fact that something has been done, and then moving on; because there is neither need for any kind of judgement nor grudges.

Knowing that oneself is filled with flaws gives one the ability to recognize the same in others, I believe.

Seems like "moving on" may be the key. I could "accept" the fact that a bully was going to take my food each day. Even if I hid one lunch and carried one for him to steal, I don't think I would necessarily "forgive" him although I would move on.

Recognizing that a flaw exists and realizing that I, too, have flaws could only be 'forgiveness' if I recognize that my flaws are just as bad or worse. When someone does something "that I would never do" forgiveness requires something more than logic--something driven by an altruistic or religious mindset.

That's how it seems to me, anyway.

Ruv Draba

09-29-2009, 10:11 AM

Recognizing that a flaw exists and realizing that I, too, have flaws could only be 'forgiveness' if I recognize that my flaws are just as bad or worse.I used to believe that there were things that most people were not capable of. I've come to understand that most people are capable of most atrocities -- if not physically then emotionally and psychologically. The story we often tell ourselves about our moral identities is I think, nothing like the real truth.

For me, forgiveness is all about keeping slates and disposing of debts. I don't believe that it has a moral foundation so much as a psychological one. Some people need to hold grudges. If they can't unlearn grudge-holding they may choose to learn forgiveness instead.

Over-all I believe that compassion for those who hurt us and those we hurt does a better job than forgiving and begging forgiveness. It's easy to withhold forgiveness, or to forgive without caring about another, or to beg forgiveness for selfish reasons. But I can find no way to hold grudges in the face of genuine compassion.

kdnxdr

09-29-2009, 06:44 PM

Because of insincerity (lack of genuine broken-heartedness), forgiveness has almost become a valuless concept/word.

There's a story in the Scriptures that demonstrates this point. (Sorry, I don't study enough to be able to quote it's exact location, but, it's in the Old Testament.

There was a guy that just kept living irresponsibly, and he accumulated alot of debt. He was hauled into debtor's court, before the king and was to be thrown into prison for a very long time. The man made a passionate plea for mercy, demonstrating remorse for his actions. He begged for mercy and forgiveness from the king who had jurisdiction over the court. The king was moved to compassion and released the man, believing that the act of mercy would help the man live a better and more responsible life.

As the man was leaving the court and was back in the street, he saw another man who owed him, like "five bucks" (some small token of money). The forgiven man became enraged at the second man and began demanding immediate payment of the small amount of money. The second man begged mercy and understanding. The forgiven man would not relent and ordered the "police" to pick him up and throw him into debtor's prison for that small amount of money. If I remember correctly, the king heard of it and repealed the forgiveness he had offered the 1st man and he was thrown into jail after all.

I would say that this story represents most people that I've ever come across. And, also, what little capacity, we humans have to genuinely humble ourselves, how little we are able to be sincerely contrite for the wrong's that we've done and how quick we are to hold offense of others.

I would think that if the 1st man had "passed along" the compassion, understanding and sincere forgiveness that had been given to him, the story would have a completely different outcome. Reminds me of the movie Pay It Forward (?). Where one little boy gets so fed up with all the negative crap he sees in the world, that, by example he starts with an army of one to change the world. And, he succeeds by his acts of kindness.

Have you ever visited a community, or a home, or a party, where the atmosphere felt charge with "something" negative and creepy? Or, have you ever been in place where the atmosphere felt light and beautiful and safe, where you always feel happy and content to be? I truelly believe there's a real and discernable reason for the difference. People generate goodness, kindness, compassion, concern, love or they generate indifference, hate, corruption, evil, death and darkness. People are attracted to the light or the dark in their souls, and "live" accordingly.

I believe love and forgiveness are two concepts that have degenerated into meaninglessness for many people.

We can all "do the math".

kid

semilargeintestine

09-29-2009, 09:31 PM

I just had a discussion with someone about this today. He is trying to convert to Judaism, and so he wanted to keep Yom Kippur. Part of it is asking for forgiveness from people you've wronged. He went to a lot of trouble to ask his ex-g/f, enen though she also wronged him; however, he didn't get the return request the way he wanted. He thought it was insincere, and so he refused to grant her forgiveness.

He did this based on a verse in Rambam's Laws of Teshuvah, which states that if you ask someone for forgiveness and they don't give it to you, you must continue to ask them until they become unreasonable, at which point the sin is then cast upon that person. His logic was that the verse allows him to refuse to grant her forgiveness until she asks the way he wants.

However, he missed the part where Rambam says that when someone asks for forgiveness even once, we should joyously forgive them even if just on a basic level. In fact, the Talmud says very clearly that we must forgive a person--at least on a basic level--even if they did a great wrong against us, and that not forgiving them is tantamount to cruelty. The Torah teaches us that G-d forgives us for our sins the moment we ask for forgiveness. Living a Torah life is trying to live like G-d, and so part of that is forgiving someone the moment they ask for it with joy in our hearts.

Have you ever visited a community, or a home, or a party, where the atmosphere felt charge with "something" negative and creepy? Or, have you ever been in place where the atmosphere felt light and beautiful and safe, where you always feel happy and content to be? I truelly believe there's a real and discernable reason for the difference. People generate goodness, kindness, compassion, concern, love or they generate indifference, hate, corruption, evil, death and darkness. People are attracted to the light or the dark in their souls, and "live" accordingly.

There's some pretty deep Kabbalistic stuff going on there I think. Kabbalah discusses demons and the like, and every time we sin, we create more of these spiritual demons. Every time we do a mitzvah, we help destroy them. I think it's telling that people are able to sense when things are just not right in a certain place. There is actually a story about that in Daniel.

And in the four and twentieth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the great river, which is Tigris, I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz; his body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as torches of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to burnished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude. And I Daniel alone saw the vision; for the men that were with me saw not the vision; howbeit a great trembling fell upon them, and they fled to hide themselves.

The reason they fled even though they couldn't see the vision is they were able to sense what was there, and it frightened them.

macwilkey

09-30-2009, 02:23 AM

Melisande

10-02-2009, 05:29 AM

Seems like "moving on" may be the key. I could "accept" the fact that a bully was going to take my food each day. Even if I hid one lunch and carried one for him to steal, I don't think I would necessarily "forgive" him although I would move on.
----
That's how it seems to me, anyway.

Well, that's not really what I had in mind. What I meant was, if you will accept my following through your train of thought is this;

The bully takes your food each day. one day you've had enough and reports him/her to the teacher, OR you choose to take action yourself and kick his/her shins blue.

In my book 'acceptance' does not necessarily mean 'allowance', but to accept the fact that these things happen and either one does something about it, or one accepts the fact that these things happen.

The key to my argument of accepting a behavior is NOT letting it go on, but to accept the fact that it is happening, or has happend, and move from there - without further regrets.

Also; seen from the other side; you might be a person that these things seem to happen to more often than others. Maybe the problem does not lie with the bullies; maybe it's something in you that invite bullies to haunt you. If so, maybe to accept that there is something within you that invites bullies to bully you. Ususally that would be something strong and unwielding in you personality that scares them.

To accept THAT fact might help both you and them moving on. The hardest part of acceptance, is to take a real good look in the mirror and accept who oneself is.

Pat~

10-02-2009, 07:21 AM

On an atheistic note (before I have read any other replies to this thread);
What are repentence, redemption and forgiveness if not religious concepts?

In my (oh, so crass) world, I'd look at the whole matter from a purely personal stand-point. I wouldn't even consider a "higher" authority on the case at hand. But that's just me.

In my world there exists no forgiveness; there exists only acceptance. In my world there exists no repentence for there is no need (again being accepted even with flaws). In my world there is no need for redemption because we are humans - and we come with flaws, and pay-back's a bitch anyway, even if it is (and more often than not bacause it's) well meant.

In my world; the most gracious thing anyone can do is to accept others for who they are; humans!

This makes sense to me, because an atheistic position (as I understand it) doesn't have a higher authority defining an absolute such as right/wrong; the need for forgiveness would be solely based on a subjective, individual sense, and simple acceptance/moving on would be more universally practical.

Going along the lines of what the OP and CBronco were talking about concerning addiction (which is a very close-to-home topic with me and my family): I would probably define repentance as a "turning around", a change--not simply a feeling. It's a step beyond simple regret or even deeper remorse; it's an inward shift that prompts action toward positive change. It often starts observably by someone going to a person they've hurt, and asking for their forgiveness.

Unlike Ruv, I do not see forgiveness as having anything to do with grudges or slate-keeping. I see it as having everything to do with justice. If someone has been wronged, it is not their vengeful, slate-keeping nature that makes them realize they've been wronged, but rather an innate sense of justice, and the knowledge that the respect that any human is due has been infringed upon. It is not innately selfish and score-keeping to acknowledge that someone who mugged you (for example) has wronged you. It is Justice which requires either retribution or forgiveness/mercy, whether or not the wronged person even requires or wants it. So selfishness has nothing to do with the the need for forgiveness that I can see.

Forgiveness is a huge topic, and an interesting one. Personally I don't think a person has to ask you to forgive them before you can forgive them; Christ forgave those who crucified Him from the cross without anyone coming up to make amends. I think forgiveness benefits the wronged person, and it can also benefit the offender if/when he seeks it. If he seeks it and doesn't receive it, I believe it's still beneficial for the offender, in that he's humbled himself before whomever he offended, and can move on knowing he's done what he can. I don't believe people always need to obtain forgiveness from other people, but I believe people need to give other people forgiveness in order to function well in this life.

That said, I do see many times when forgiveness is given with a contingency. And I think it might as well not be given, in that case. If an addict comes to me and asks my forgiveness for several wrongs he did to me, I cannot make my forgiving him contingent upon his never doing those wrongs again. He's not asking my forgiveness for any future times he's going to fail me; and it'd be arrogant of me, a fellow mortal capable of hurting him also in the future to require that of him, I think. Several years ago, someone close to me would not forgive someone else once close to me until she 'saw signs of repentance'...well, for how long?? Is today's repentant heart not valid because it might turn the wrong direction again next year? Part of loving people is vulnerability in relationship; there are no guarantees that the people you have a relationship with--who are most likely to ask your forgiveness concerning an affront--aren't going to cause you pain again in the future. If that were a requirement for my granting someone forgiveness, well...I might as well go live on a desert island.

Reconciliation comes as a result of an intersection of justice and humility. It takes humility to ask for as well as to grant forgiveness, and an adequate sense of affronted justice is what sets the ball rolling in that direction. True reconciliation doesn't come with stipulations, I don't believe. It has to be vulnerable, willing to work toward the other's growth and good, and trust/love even with a chance of hurt--otherwise it's not true relationship, but a dictatorship of sorts. Just my two cents...