On Jul 23, 11:20 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com
> On Jul 22, 4:39 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com
> > > Of course.
> > > I was just showing you that true forgiveness is not related to how the
> > > offender feels/acts/thinks as you suggested it is.
> > True forgiveness is given by the offended party.
> Finally, you got something right.
> > Can one not choose
> > to forgive whomsoever he wills?
> Very true,.
> But perfect true forgiveness is to forgive all those who offended you,
> regardless of who they are and how you think they will react to the
> act of forgiveness.
That would be universal. Now all you need do is show that in order to
be perfect and true, forgiveness must be universal. If forgiveness
does indeed come from the offended party, then it does so on a case-by-
case basis, and withholding it in one instance would not negate it in
> Your god is incapable of true forgiveness, so he is not perfect, so he
> is not a god.
> > > > > So, if the victim, as part of his healing process, wants to forgive,
> > > > > all the power to him.
> > > > God does not forgive in order to heal Himself, since He cannot be
> > > > injured. He forgives us, to heal us, because we need it, and because
> > > > He is benevolent.
> > > Ultimately, forgiveness does nothing to the one being forgiven.
> > However, what follows upon God's forgiveness is reconciliation, which
> > does something to the one forgiven.
> It might follow, but not necessarily.
It is its purpose, and does follow necessarily. Otherwise, what would
be the point?
> If you forgive only because you think that reconciliation will be
> possible, then you are not truly forgiving.
God does not "think" in the sense of not being sure. God knows.
> > > Some people may take comfort in knowing that they were forgiven,
> > > others not.
> > > Forgiveness is not a way to make the offender feel better.
> > Reconciliation has that side effect.
> Not always, and THAT is the point.
Then your point is lost, since reconciliation is that for which
>True forgiveness should be given
> irrespective of how one think the offender will react.
Again: God knows everything, including all your hypotheticals. He
forgives sin, so that He and the sinner might be reconciled.
> > That is not its primary effect,
> > but you are not interested in its primary effect, are you?
> Only because it is irrelevant to true forgiveness.
It is the other side of the selfsame coin.
> > > > > Who cares what the offender, and some obtuse bystanders, think?
> > > > Apparently God does take into account whether you are willing to trust
> > > > Him. Too bad for you that that does nothing for you.
> > > You still do not understand how forgiveness works.
> > You are incorrect in your assessment of my understanding.
> You still insist that side effects neesdto be taken ninto
> They don't.
The question of Faith is not a side effect of anything else, it is
central to the whole topic. Without faith it is impossible to please
God, according to Scripture. But to be pleasing to God requires God
to forgive our sins. Thus God does not forgive the sins of one
without faith. So, the question of whether one has faith or not is
relevant to the question of whether one has his sins forgiven or not.
Information about one ostensibly leads to information about the other.
Thus we are not talking about the process of forgiveness as interior
to God. That process, as it is, is interior to God, just as you say.
We are talking, rather, about the question of whether God in fact
forgives the sins of a particular individual, or, as the only
alternative, allows them to remain as barriers to reconciliation.
That is a question of whether or not, in a particular case, any
forgiveness actually exists, and not, rather, what details that
process entails given that it did exist.
> You are talking about conditional forgiveness, which is not true
> perfect forgiveness.
Selective is not a synonym for conditional.
"Requital" from forgive/1.a., "payment" from forgive/1.b., and
"merited rewards and punishments" from justice/1.a., all refer to the
same things. So there is your connection.
> Now, if you want to be less severe when applying justice, you do it
> based on the offender's behaviour, i..e remorse, desire to make
> amends, etc.
> Forgivenesses is from the offended party, so you do not mitigate
> justice based on whether the offended party wants to forgive or not.
"You" in your first sentence --- i.e. the one applying the justice ---
and "the offended party" in your second sentence, both refer to the
same person, so your verbal distinction between modes of that person's
action is not much more than verbal.
> It may very well be that the offended party understand what happened
> and expresses a desire that the justice be a little lenient, and still
> refuse to forgive.
> Or, it may be that the offended party wants to forgive while wanting
> to see full justice applied.
> Many people who do not stop and think confuse justice and forgiveness,
> but in fact, they are unrelated.
They are in fact related as elucidated above.
> Forgiveness comes in totality from the offended party, and justice is
> applied to the iffender.
--- by the offended party, in the case of offenses against God.
> > > You still have no clue what true forgiveness is.
> > > > Are you trying to assert that Hitler loved God, or that Ghandi failed
> > > > to love God?
> > > No.
> > > I stated that Hitler was a genocidal maniac, but a believer;
> > So you say.
> So he said.
And you believe him? Why?
> > >and
> > > Ghandi was an altruistic humanitarian, but an unbeliever.
> > And so you say.
> So he said.
You are hideously misinformed. Educate yourself:
THERE IS an indefinable mysterious Power that pervades everything. I
feel it, though I do not see it. It is this unseen Power which makes
itself felt and yet defies all proof, because it is so unlike all that
I perceive through my senses. It transcends the senses. But it is
possible to reason out the existence of God to a limited extent.
I do dimly perceive that whilst everything around me is ever changing,
ever-dying, there is underlying all that change a Living Power that is
changeless, that holds all together, that creates, dissolves, and
recreates. That informing Power or Spirit is God. And since nothing
else I see merely through the senses can or will persist, He alone is.
And is this Power benevolent or malevolent? I see it as purely
benevolent. For I can see, that in the midst of death life persists,
in the midst of untruth truth persists, in the midst of darkness light
persists. Hence I gather that God is Life, Truth, Light. He is Love.
He is the Supreme Good.
I confess… that I have no argument to convince… through reason. Faith
transcends reason. All I can advise… is not to attempt the impossible.
I cannot account for the existence of evil by any rational method. To
want to do so is to be co-equal with God. I am, therefore, humble
enough to recognize evil as such; and I call God long-suffering and
patient precisely because He permits evil in the world. I know that He
has no evil in Him and yet if there is evil, He is the author of it
and yet untouched by it.
I know, too, that I shall never know God if I do not wrestle with and
against evil even at the cost of life itself. I am fortified in the
belief by my own humble and limited experience. The purer I try to
become the nearer to God I feel myself to be. How much more should I
be near to Him when my faith is not a mere apology, as it is today,
but has become as immovable as the Himalayas and as white and bright
as the snows on their peaks? (YI, 11-10-1928, pp340-1)
Thank you for being instrumental in my seeking out the actual words of
Ghandi himself. I find myself in rapt awe and humble agreement with
almost all of what he wrote.
> > > > You have no concept of a perfectly benevolent being, so why pretend
> > > > you do?
> > > And you do?
> > Yes.
> Really? How can an imperfect sinner really comprehend perfection?
Can't comprehend, but can conceptualize. Can also notice.
> > > > God's forgiveness is unconditional. It is simply not extended to
> > > > those who despise Him.
> > > Nice contradiction.
> > Not in the least. Unconditional is not a synonym for universal.
> Yes it is, but your delusion in blinding you.
> If you state "I will forgive unconditionally, except if you hate me"
> you have just expressed a condition and negated the "unconditional"
> aspect of the forgiveness.
The nature of the forgiveness is unconditional. It is not extended in
all cases. Some do impose the condition upon themselves, of refusing
to ask for forgiveness. Forgiveness is not extended when it is not
requested. Why would you think it should be?
> > > > There is no lack in God. The lack is in you.
> > > The fact that according to you he will not forgive some people, for
> > > whatever reason, demonstrates a certain lack.
> > In them, not in God.
> In god, since he lacks the will to forgive some people based on those
> people's behaviour.
No in fact. For example, Saint Paul made it his business to go about
murdering Christians, yet he still received forgiveness for his sins.
So it has nothing to do with behavior.
Why are you so concerned about whether you will be forgiven by a being
you say you don't believe exists?