Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim.

reply to post by AManYouALL


Just to be clear.

I am not against the psychological benefits that come from introspection, self analysis, compassion and empathy. I reject a religious doctrine that tells me that unless I forgive, which I may not have the capacity to do, I will not be forgiven by god.

Well, I never asked god for forgiveness.

I don't believe in hell, or heaven, I believe in reincarnation. I reject the virgin birth of Jesus. I don't believe that he died on the cross, therefore, he didn't die for my sins. I don't believe in the resurrection, or that Jesus is god, and neither is that character from the Old Testament.

I do believe that Christianity is one of the most unethical and immoral religions around today. (I haven't seen any Islam tele-evangelist asking for money lately) I am appalled at the death worship, human blood sacrifice and cannibalism, and that people think it was orchestrated for their eternal behalf.

I particularly despise being told that because I don't believe, can't believe, then my life is worthless and I am doomed to hell.

Originally posted by windword
I am not against the psychological benefits that come from introspection, self analysis, compassion and empathy. I reject a religious doctrine that tells me that unless I forgive, which I may not have the capacity to do, I will not be forgiven by god.

I do not teach a religious doctrine. I teach my doctrine which aligns with the doctrine taught by Jesus but is heretical to most who claim to follow him.

I am telling you that God is within YOU and because of that YOU have the capacity to forgive or show his wrath. His wrath will destroy this world.

Originally posted by windword
Well, I never asked god for forgiveness.

If you have ever sincerely asked anyone's forgiveness, you have asked God for forgiveness.

Originally posted by windword
I don't believe in hell, or heaven, I believe in reincarnation.

This world is what it is. Call it what you will. The way you leave it when you go, is how it is when you return.

Originally posted by windword
I reject the virgin birth of Jesus.

My mother is a blessed virgin to me.

Originally posted by windword
I don't believe that he died on the cross, therefore, he didn't die for my sins. I don't believe in the resurrection, or that Jesus is god, and neither is that character from the Old Testament.

Then why are you here discussing a man you do not believe in? I do not believe in Santa so you won't find me discussing him and his elves.

Originally posted by windword
I do believe that Christianity is one of the most unethical and immoral religions around today. (I haven't seen any Islam tele-evangelist asking for money lately) I am appalled at the death worship, human blood sacrifice and cannibalism, and that people think it was orchestrated for their eternal behalf.

I believe the whole world is a den of vipers. A pitiful generation this is and not a lick of faith is found in anyone for all are sitting unwilling to stand for truth but only that which provides for their own benefit.

Originally posted by windword
I particularly despise being told that because I don't believe, can't believe, then my life is worthless and I am doomed to hell.

Your life is NOT worthless. You are a created being forged by the very same hands (figurative hands) that molded the stars in the heavens. Your life has more worth than all the stars for without you, all of us, who would name them? Who would marvel at this existence? Who would write the songs and stories that document this existence? Would the rabbits in their dens stare in awe? Would the birds write of the bright summer days? Would the ants compose an ode to the joy of being?

What you do with your life is your business. What you leave behind is what you return to. So make it something worth coming back for.

reply to post by AManYouALL

Originally posted by windword
I don't believe that he died on the cross, therefore, he didn't die for my sins. I don't believe in the resurrection, or that Jesus is god, and neither is that character from the Old Testament.

Then why are you here discussing a man you do not believe in? I do not believe in Santa so you won't find me discussing him and his elves.

Typical Christian. If I don't believe your version of Jesus I don't believe anything.

I am here to discuss the OP's question as to the morality behind being forgiven through the supposed sacrifice of Jesus, and the lack of empathy for the victims of the crimes committed. My addition to the thread, my argument is that Jesus also requires forgiveness, and not doing so is "the unforgivable sin." So says biblical Jesus. I don't believe that. Forgiveness is a process, you can't just turn it on and off.

I never said that I don't believe that the person, Jesus, existed. I do. But I think his life and teachings have been corrupted, words he never said and lies have been placed in his mouth, and his true teachings are all but absent from the bible.

Originally posted by windword
Typical Christian. If I don't believe your version of Jesus I don't believe anything.

You do not know my version of Jesus. Stop trying to box me in with a label "christian" and I will stop making assumptions about your own beliefs. Deal?

Originally posted by windword
Forgiveness is a process, you can't just turn it on and off.

You might be amazed at what you can do with a slight change of perception. Can you forgive folly in an infant? How about a toddler?

I don't see anyone as more than a child. Thus even their most painful mistakes are easily forgiven. Even repeated offenses (some are slower learners).

Originally posted by windword
I never said that I don't believe that the person, Jesus, existed. I do. But I think his life and teachings have been corrupted, words he never said and lies have been placed in his mouth, and his true teachings are all but absent from the bible.

There is enough of his teachings in the Bible to advance his cause and to bring one to a greater understanding of ourselves and this existence. BUT, his cause was usurped for a time and his flock scattered to the hills.

When you read the Gospels, try putting yourself in Jesus' shoes. Imagine yourself saying what he is saying.

What he says of himself he says of all mankind. That is what the title "Son of Man" is all about.

Either way, it is about a personal relationship.

Not with Jesus, but with your fellow Man.

reply to post by AManYouALL

You do not know my version of Jesus. Stop trying to box me in with a label "christian" and I will stop making assumptions about your own beliefs. Deal?

I reject the magical mythology of the story of Jesus, and your response is to question the integrity of my participation in a discussion about the morality of advancing these magical beliefs, specifically regarding supernatural forgiveness granted by a god being. Your words created the very box you wish to deny.

As far as the words of Jesus, I take some and leave some, because, in many places in the gospels, his words are out of character with his previous teachings, IMO.

The teaching of Buddha are more detailed and expound the same teachings of brotherhood and personal reckoning for suffering based on human greed and desire. The beautiful and profound teachings of Lao Tzu, in the Tao, also urge an individual to seek a peace path. Gandhi, too, taught the way of peace and tolerance.

All these teachings are able to persist throughout time without having to assert divine intervention. None of them claim to magically absolve one from the karmic effects of their deeds. None of them claim to be the one and only way, and none of them threaten hell for non believers. .

You might be amazed at what you can do with a slight change of perception. Can you forgive folly in an infant? How about a toddler?

I don't see anyone as more than a child. Thus even their most painful mistakes are easily forgiven. Even repeated offenses (some are slower learners).

People make mistakes and every mistake isn't a criminal one. But there are many people who don't play by the rules of peace. They know how to prey on those that do, and these people deserve no forgiveness and will get none from me. To equate the sins of the likes of say, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld with the errors of a toddler, is just wrong.

Christianity is the only religion that claims to bypass the laws of nature, based on divine intervention, and allows it's followers to sidestep accountability by claiming forgiveness through the murder of Jesus, and present themselves as whole.

reply to post by Greatest I am


let he who is without sin... Caste the first stone.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

let he who is without sin... Caste the first stone.

This scripture condemns hypocrisy. It does not infer compulsory forgiveness.

reply to post by windword

This scripture condemns hypocrisy. It does not infer compulsory forgiveness.

/

Originally posted by windword
I reject the magical mythology of the story of Jesus, and your response is to question the integrity of my participation in a discussion about the morality of advancing these magical beliefs, specifically regarding supernatural forgiveness granted by a god being. Your words created the very box you wish to deny.

It was just a question out of curiosity. The box was made by you. You ave answered the question, so let's not dwell on it. I under5stand your position now, which was why I asked.

Originally posted by windword
As far as the words of Jesus, I take some and leave some, because, in many places in the gospels, his words are out of character with his previous teachings, IMO.

That is fair. I would add though that not near enough has been written about Jesus to adequately assess his character and much more has been edited in time. You can't have a god-child with bad marks in his story. It just doesn't fit the agenda of those who compiled the works.

Originally posted by windword
The teaching of Buddha are more detailed and expound the same teachings of brotherhood and personal reckoning for suffering based on human greed and desire. The beautiful and profound teachings of Lao Tzu, in the Tao, also urge an individual to seek a peace path. Gandhi, too, taught the way of peace and tolerance.

All these teachings are able to persist throughout time without having to assert divine intervention. None of them claim to magically absolve one from the karmic effects of their deeds. None of them claim to be the one and only way, and none of them threaten hell for non believers. .

All fine examples. What these way seers lack though, is fulfillment of prophecy. That is what gives validity to Jesus over all others, at least if you believe the story.

Originally posted by windword
People make mistakes and every mistake isn't a criminal one. But there are many people who don't play by the rules of peace. They know how to prey on those that do, and these people deserve no forgiveness and will get none from me. To equate the sins of the likes of say, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld with the errors of a toddler, is just wrong.

Self righteousness. It would lead you to do equal amounts of harm as the men you list.

Originally posted by windword
Christianity is the only religion that claims to bypass the laws of nature, based on divine intervention, and allows it's followers to sidestep accountability by claiming forgiveness through the murder of Jesus, and present themselves as whole.

That may be true. I am not advocating the "christian" position though. So, in context of our conversation, it is a moot point. Jesus is not my scapegoat. He did not walk the path for me, but rather left a trail for me to walk in myself.

reply to post by AManYouALL


I can agree with you, and I can agree to disagree with you, on every point, except this one.

Self righteousness. It would lead you to do equal amounts of harm as the men you list.

The term self righteous can be a 2 edged sword. I can find divinity and righteousness from within myself. But, I take exception to that leading to the mass murder and raping of the earth, for profit, as being a result of seeking personal self righteousness.

The claiming of self righteousness doesn't necessarily invalidate compassion, empathy and tolerance.

Originally posted by windword
The term self righteous can be a 2 edged sword. I can find divinity and righteousness from within myself. But, I take exception to that leading to the mass murder and raping of the earth, for profit, as being a result of seeking personal self righteousness.

As long as there are fat assed people in a nation that demands their right to be lazy, self centered, vain, and willfully ignorant, there will always be righteousness in those who find ways to exploit such people.

Not saying you fit the bill, just that a nation gets the leaders they truly deserve.

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

Retribution is only one component of what makes up our human conception of justice. You seem assume that a victim needs to witness their attacker being punished in order to have closure. There's a lot wrong with that. At the very least its inconsistent with the overall Christian view; turn the other cheek, forgiveness, eschewing revenge, favoring reconciliation, finding condolence in God, seeking your reward in the afterlife as opposed to making life as comfortable and satisfying as possible here on earth.Taking one of a religious leader's teachings out of context and analyzing it based on modern day sentencing standards is just bizarre in my opinion.

The victim does not need to see retribution. What she needs to see is justice done and her right to forgive not being usurped by another who will forgive her perpetrator before she is ready.

As to turning the other cheek.
If a man comes to your home and rapes your wife, will you turn the other cheek and offer your daughter for seconds.

Get real and out of the unworkable rhetoric that some idiot put in Jesus' mouth.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by sacgamer25

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Genesis 3 16;and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

This does not agree with your "Christ did not deny equality to women,"

Regards
DL

How did Christ come to rule over us? He came as a servant. One who laid his life down for us.

How are husbands commanded to treat their wives? The way Christ treated the Church, as a servant. Willing to give our life for our wifes.

Husbands are instructed to treat their wives as they treat themselves. Scripture says that when a man and woman come together the two become one. How is it that two that became one are not equal? The two become one, they are equal because they are now one and no longer two.

If I serve my wife as a loving, kind, generous husband. If I treat her they way I wish to be treated, or better yet the way she wishes to be treated; Is it too much for me to ask she respect me as the leader of our house?

The problem lies with man first than with woman. If the man is not serving his wife the way Christ served the church he should not expect the respect of a leader.

You are right. The problem is with man following your immoral bible.

How do you serve your wife and rule over her at the same time?

Stop trying to justify the unjustifiable. You are part of the problem and not a part of the solution.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

let he who is without sin... Caste the first stone.

Yes. Note that Jesus did not cast the first stone.

Then again, scripture does say that he was a sinner.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

The victim does not need to see retribution. What she needs to see is justice done and her right to forgive not being usurped by another who will forgive her perpetrator before she is ready.

As to turning the other cheek.
If a man comes to your home and rapes your wife, will you turn the other cheek and offer your daughter for seconds.

posted on 12-5-2012 @ 11:18 AM this post reply to post by Greatest I am

Post by Purplemer
let he who is without sin... Caste the first stone.

Think I agree with both of these, but would like to add a couple of things. As far as I understand it, the position of Jesus was that we need to forgive wrongs done by others because none of us can say we don't do wrong ourselves. However, turning the other cheek is not suggesting that two wrongs can make a right - a wrong committed against someone else is not a parallel example.

The other point is something non-one has mentioned yet, in relation to the OP that forgiving a wrong is unfair to the victim, the beatitudes (blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, etc., in Matthew and elsewhere) which suggest that the victim will be given some kind of compensation, if you like.

A great reason for leaving God to sort it out (assuming you believe in God) is that God knows all the facts.

If you or someone you care about become victim to a crime, I'll admit that none of this is easy. You're right, justice - putting things right, not necessarily retribution against the perpetrator - is what you want, and it's very difficult to consign this to something undefined that you may never see in this life. There's no suggestion that forgiving them should stop you from taking them to court (I'll bet someone will argue with that though).

Originally posted by Anthony2

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

The victim does not need to see retribution. What she needs to see is justice done and her right to forgive not being usurped by another who will forgive her perpetrator before she is ready.

As to turning the other cheek.
If a man comes to your home and rapes your wife, will you turn the other cheek and offer your daughter for seconds.

posted on 12-5-2012 @ 11:18 AM this post reply to post by Greatest I am

Post by Purplemer
let he who is without sin... Caste the first stone.

Think I agree with both of these, but would like to add a couple of things. As far as I understand it, the position of Jesus was that we need to forgive wrongs done by others because none of us can say we don't do wrong ourselves. However, turning the other cheek is not suggesting that two wrongs can make a right - a wrong committed against someone else is not a parallel example.

The other point is something non-one has mentioned yet, in relation to the OP that forgiving a wrong is unfair to the victim, the beatitudes (blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, etc., in Matthew and elsewhere) which suggest that the victim will be given some kind of compensation, if you like.

A great reason for leaving God to sort it out (assuming you believe in God) is that God knows all the facts.

If you or someone you care about become victim to a crime, I'll admit that none of this is easy. You're right, justice - putting things right, not necessarily retribution against the perpetrator - is what you want, and it's very difficult to consign this to something undefined that you may never see in this life. There's no suggestion that forgiving them should stop you from taking them to court (I'll bet someone will argue with that though).

To your comment on Matthew and some future compensation.
Simply stated, justice delayed is justice denied.
Or a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

To your last on the courts.
Einstein thought that we did not have real free will and were stuck in the conditions at hand and could not help doing what we were doing and in that sense, none deserved any retribution from anyone. He then followed this by saying that murderers would still have to be put in jail for the protection of society.
I think we do have free choice.

You and I might forgive a thief be he repentant or not, we cannot see in his heart, and not call in the authorities.
This might work for instances of relatively minor offences. For larger ones, as with Einstein, even if you and I forgive him, our duty is to society at large and I would send the perpetrator to jail.

I hope all would as well.

I just posted this that relates somewhat to Einstein's view in an indirect way, if you care to read it or comment.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Regards
DL

To someone who sincerely believes that Jesus forgiving is unjust to victims, I would like to mention purgatory. Here is an article about the subject.

www.mysticsofthechurch.com...

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
To someone who sincerely believes that Jesus forgiving is unjust to victims, I would like to mention purgatory. Here is an article about the subject.
y]

Purgatory.

A great idea invented by the Church so that you could bargain with God and fill their coffers by selling indulgences and speak for God.

The exact reason that Martin Luther split the church.
It was an immoral practice yet Chritians are still trying to buy their way out from under God.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
To someone who sincerely believes that Jesus forgiving is unjust to victims, I would like to mention purgatory. Here is an article about the subject.
y]

Purgatory.

A great idea invented by the Church so that you could bargain with God and fill their coffers by selling indulgences and speak for God.

The exact reason that Martin Luther split the church.
It was an immoral practice yet Chritians are still trying to buy their way out from under God.

Regards
DL

Oh I see. That is why Martin Luther removed 2 Maccabees 12:46 (Old Testament) from the Bible. I am surprised he didn't strip a few of the preceding verses away while he was at it, or did he????

42 And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. 43 And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection. 44 (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead), 45 and because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them.46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.(my bold)

www.newadvent.org... (side by side with Greek and Roman translations)

Sounds like Jews were offering $$ for sins of the dead in the OT. As for verse 46 it would be quite illogical to pray for the dead to loose their sins if they went straight to heaven. Martin Luther didn't agree with it so he deleted it, how special.

Doesn't a curse befall someone who changes the Bible?

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by Greatest I am
The exact reason that Martin Luther split the church.

The exact reason that Martin Luther CLAIMED to be splitting from the church.
His writings and deeds when it came to bedroom antics say that his real reason
was a much more 'earthy' one. "If the wife is unwilling then take the maid" - Martin Luther.
Lovely ... he's pushing adultry and rape.


ON TOPIC - Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to the Victim.

On one hand .. true.

However, if the victim can bring himself to forgive the perp who has harmed him, then that victim raises himself up to being like Jesus - Jesus who practiced heroic forgiveness with those who tortured and killed him. According to Christianity, we are all supposed to be like Christ, loving and forgiving. (easier said than done). So being the victim is an opportunity to practice heroic virtue.

And I agree with what dbates said.