True Forgiveness.

8 views
Skip to first unread message

Drafterman

<drafterman@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 16, 2009, 3:40:13 PM7/16/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
Forgiveness is an important concept in Christianity. Primarily God's
forgiveness toward humanity.

Forgiveness is good, grand and all-around a-okay. The problem comes in
the notion that we can reject forgiveness, be it the forgiveness of
another person or of a fictional sky pixie.

Forgiveness is "a process (or the result of a process) that involves a
change in emotion and attitude regarding an offender. Most scholars
view this an intentional and voluntary process, driven by a deliberate
decision to forgive. This process results in decreased motivation to
retaliate or maintain estrangement from an offender despite their
actions, and requires letting go of negative emotions toward the
offender. Theorists differ in the extent to which
they believe forgiveness also implies replacing the negative emotions
with positive attitudes including compassion and benevolence."

http://www.apa.org/international/forgiveness.pdf

Now, no where in that definition is the act or result of forgiveness
contingent upon the offender's acceptance of said forgiveness. The
only required activity is that performed by the victim.

Upon realization of this, it makes the concept of condemnation to hell
(based on "rejection" of forgiveness) all the more insane.

Hell, be it a physical place or a state of mind, is certainly
"estrangement" from God. Yet forgiveness requires a decreased
motivation to maintain this estrangement. If God's forgiveness is
infinite (or otherwise maximal) then this should result in an infinite
(or maximal) decrease in motivation to maintain any estrangement; no
one should go to hell, if we truly have God's forgiveness.

The two concepts are logically contradictory.

Now, people do not always practice, or grant, forgiveness in the
purest sense. Admittedly it's hard to do, especially when the offender
is unrepentent. It is easy to hold a grudge, to maintain estrangement,
and to make your "forgiveness" contingent on damages, reparations,
revenge, or an apology. Unfortunately, in doing so, you really are not
being forgiving.

Then why does it seem that God, whose forgiveness should be infinite
and most pure, is acting in this manner? His forgiveness should mean
an end to any possible estrangement, yet the removal of that
estrangement seems contingent upon additional actions or beliefs on
our behalf. We need to repent, we need to believe in God, we need to
adhere to some code or dogma. True forgiveness does not require these
things.

God is not forgiving.

Trance Gemini

<trancegemini7@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 16, 2009, 4:36:04 PM7/16/09
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
Nice one DMan. Can I post to my New Atheism blog?
--
“You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates the same people you do.” --Annie Lamott (paraphrased)

JFG

<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 16, 2009, 4:49:52 PM7/16/09
to Atheism vs Christianity


On Jul 16, 3:40 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Forgiveness is an important concept in Christianity. Primarily God's
> forgiveness toward humanity.
>
> Forgiveness is good, grand and all-around a-okay. The problem comes in
> the notion that we can reject forgiveness, be it the forgiveness of
> another person or of a fictional sky pixie.
>
> Forgiveness is "a process (or the result of a process) that involves a
> change in emotion and attitude regarding an offender. Most scholars
> view this an intentional and voluntary process, driven by a deliberate
> decision to forgive. This process results in decreased motivation to
> retaliate or maintain estrangement from an offender despite their
> actions, and requires letting go of negative emotions toward the
> offender. Theorists differ in the extent to which
> they believe forgiveness also implies replacing the negative emotions
> with positive attitudes including compassion and benevolence."
>
> http://www.apa.org/international/forgiveness.pdf
>
> Now, no where in that definition is the act or result of forgiveness
> contingent upon the offender's acceptance of said forgiveness. The
> only required activity is that performed by the victim.
>
> Upon realization of this, it makes the concept of condemnation to hell
> (based on "rejection" of forgiveness) all the more insane.
>

Condemnation to hell is not based on rejection of forgiveness, but on
personal sin.

"The forgiveness of sins" is Catholic Doctrine. It is one of the
things we believe in if we are Christians.

Our Lord addressed it specifically when He instituted the Sacrament of
Reconciliation thus:

John 20:21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the
Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he
breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23
Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins
you shall retain, they are retained.

So God's forgiveness of our sins is not blanketly given to everyone,
contrary to justice, but rather mediated through the Church, in order
to fulfill justice rather than discard it.

> Hell, be it a physical place or a state of mind, is certainly
> "estrangement" from God. Yet forgiveness requires a decreased
> motivation to maintain this estrangement. If God's forgiveness is
> infinite (or otherwise maximal) then this should result in an infinite
> (or maximal) decrease in motivation to maintain any estrangement; no
> one should go to hell, if we truly have God's forgiveness.
>

If you include both the friends and the enemies of God in your "we,"
then you are incorrect to say "we" truly have God's forgiveness. God
is infinite; He is also sovereign. He is not required to blanketly
forgive "everyone." He offers forgiveness of sins to those who
repent. He does not offer it to those who refuse to repent. That
applies to believers and unbelievers alike, but unbelievers are
additionally crippled by their lack of belief, so it is far less
likely any of them will ever repent, except that they might become
believers.

> The two concepts are logically contradictory.
>

What is contradictory is your notion that God owes everyone
forgiveness. He does not, and that lack of debt on His part does not
take away from His infiniteness.

> Now, people do not always practice, or grant, forgiveness in the
> purest sense. Admittedly it's hard to do, especially when the offender
> is unrepentent. It is easy to hold a grudge, to maintain estrangement,
> and to make your "forgiveness" contingent on damages, reparations,
> revenge, or an apology. Unfortunately, in doing so, you really are not
> being forgiving.
>
> Then why does it seem that God, whose forgiveness should be infinite
> and most pure, is acting in this manner? His forgiveness should mean
> an end to any possible estrangement, yet the removal of that
> estrangement seems contingent upon additional actions or beliefs on
> our behalf. We need to repent, we need to believe in God, we need to
> adhere to some code or dogma. True forgiveness does not require these
> things.
>
> God is not forgiving.

On the contrary: He forgives those who love Him. Why should He do
anything for those who hate Him?

Drafterman

<drafterman@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 16, 2009, 5:23:50 PM7/16/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
Sure!
> out that God hates the same people you do.” --Annie Lamott (paraphrased)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Turner Hayes

<lordlacolith@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 16, 2009, 7:24:46 PM7/16/09
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
Psh, a positivist WOULD say that, wouldn't he? You have to realize that there are ways of justifying things outside the bounds of silly restraints such as sanity. Right, Joe?

Answer_42

<ipu.believer@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 17, 2009, 8:20:53 AM7/17/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
So, his forgiveness is conditional, which makes it less than perfect,
in fact, it makes him a petty being.

> He does not offer it to those who refuse to repent.  That
> applies to believers and unbelievers alike, but unbelievers are
> additionally crippled by their lack of belief, so it is far less
> likely any of them will ever repent, except that they might become
> believers.
>
> > The two concepts are logically contradictory.
>
> What is contradictory is your notion that God owes everyone
> forgiveness.

If he is perfect in every way as you claim he is, he would.
Not because he owes it, but because he is perfect, so he cannot
discriminate based on "offence" and selectively distribute
forgiveness.

>  He does not, and that lack of debt on His part does not
> take away from His infiniteness.
>
>
>
> > Now, people do not always practice, or grant, forgiveness in the
> > purest sense. Admittedly it's hard to do, especially when the offender
> > is unrepentent. It is easy to hold a grudge, to maintain estrangement,
> > and to make your "forgiveness" contingent on damages, reparations,
> > revenge, or an apology. Unfortunately, in doing so, you really are not
> > being forgiving.
>
> > Then why does it seem that God, whose forgiveness should be infinite
> > and most pure, is acting in this manner? His forgiveness should mean
> > an end to any possible estrangement, yet the removal of that
> > estrangement seems contingent upon additional actions or beliefs on
> > our behalf. We need to repent, we need to believe in God, we need to
> > adhere to some code or dogma. True forgiveness does not require these
> > things.
>
> > God is not forgiving.
>
> On the contrary: He forgives those who love Him.  Why should He do
> anything for those who hate Him?

So, god will forgive genocidal maniacs who love him, but not
altruistic humanitarians who do not?
How about unbelievers who neither love nor hate him? How can you love/
hate a fictional character?
Why am I not surprised that you do not understand in the slightest the
concept of forgiveness?
Wait, I know, you are a Christian.

Also, you never cease to prove that god is a human construct. The type
of forgiveness you talk about is typical from a human, not from a
perfectly benevolent being. Such a being would not care whether the
offender loves or hates him, his forgiveness should be wholly
unconditional.

So, which is it:
a) god is not perfect
b) god is perfectly malevolent
c) god is fictional
???
________________________________________
Civilization will not attain to its perfection until the last stone
from the last church falls on the last priest!
-- Émile Zola

Treebeard

<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>
unread,
Jul 17, 2009, 8:43:31 AM7/17/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
Except that you quoted the wrong line to make this point, since this
can easily translate to: "He offers forgiveness to those -- and only
those -- who deserve it."

I think we can all agree that if someone is told to apologize for a
crime and they'll avoid jail, and they refuse, and then when they go
to jail and discover that they dislike it they offer to disingenuously
apologize just to get out of jail that forgiving them for that isn't
exactly just (and there's some debate whether or not the initial offer
is just, too) and that we shouldn't forgive them in that case. Why
would that be different for God? Why can't God be just?

>
> > He does not offer it to those who refuse to repent.  That
> > applies to believers and unbelievers alike, but unbelievers are
> > additionally crippled by their lack of belief, so it is far less
> > likely any of them will ever repent, except that they might become
> > believers.
>
> > > The two concepts are logically contradictory.
>
> > What is contradictory is your notion that God owes everyone
> > forgiveness.
>
> If he is perfect in every way as you claim he is, he would.
> Not because he owes it, but because he is perfect, so he cannot
> discriminate based on "offence" and selectively distribute
> forgiveness.

Why do you think perfection means absolute forgiveness in all cases
with no thought to justice or the intent or if the person really does
feel that they want forgiveness?

It seems that perfect forgiveness is forgiveness only when the person
really does deserve forgiveness, which to me seems to include a
genuine recognition that what you did was wrong and having a genuine
desire to be forgiven.

[snipped the rest due to either claims I don't make or repetition]

Drafterman

<drafterman@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 17, 2009, 8:45:57 AM7/17/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Jul 16, 4:49 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 3:40 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Forgiveness is an important concept in Christianity. Primarily God's
> > forgiveness toward humanity.
>
> > Forgiveness is good, grand and all-around a-okay. The problem comes in
> > the notion that we can reject forgiveness, be it the forgiveness of
> > another person or of a fictional sky pixie.
>
> > Forgiveness is "a process (or the result of a process) that involves a
> > change in emotion and attitude regarding an offender. Most scholars
> > view this an intentional and voluntary process, driven by a deliberate
> > decision to forgive. This process results in decreased motivation to
> > retaliate or maintain estrangement from an offender despite their
> > actions, and requires letting go of negative emotions toward the
> > offender. Theorists differ in the extent to which
> > they believe forgiveness also implies replacing the negative emotions
> > with positive attitudes including compassion and benevolence."
>
> >http://www.apa.org/international/forgiveness.pdf
>
> > Now, no where in that definition is the act or result of forgiveness
> > contingent upon the offender's acceptance of said forgiveness. The
> > only required activity is that performed by the victim.
>
> > Upon realization of this, it makes the concept of condemnation to hell
> > (based on "rejection" of forgiveness) all the more insane.
>
> Condemnation to hell is not based on rejection of forgiveness, but on
> personal sin.

Resources I came across disagree.

For example:
http://whyhow.org/whyhow/hell.htm

A simple google search of "reject forgiveness" and hell pulls up
others.

If you disagree with their interpretation of Christianity, then that
is your beef with them, not me.

In any event, this is irrelevent:

Hell is estrangement from God.
Forgiveness erases estrangement.
If we have forgiveness from God, there should be no Hell.

This is the argument. If you have a problem with the argument then you
need to show one or more of the following:

Hell is not estrangement from God.
Forgiveness does not erase estrangement.

>
> "The forgiveness of sins" is Catholic Doctrine.  It is one of the
> things we believe in if we are Christians.
>
> Our Lord addressed it specifically when He instituted the Sacrament of
> Reconciliation thus:
>
> John 20:21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the
> Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he
> breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23
> Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins
> you shall retain, they are retained.
>
> So God's forgiveness of our sins is not blanketly given to everyone,
> contrary to justice, but rather mediated through the Church, in order
> to fulfill justice rather than discard it.

This would be my point. In practice God's forgiveness seems to be
contingent upon repentence and belief. But true forgiveness is
contingent only upon the desire of the victim, *not* on any actions of
the offender.

God does *not* forgive in the truest sense of the word.

>
> > Hell, be it a physical place or a state of mind, is certainly
> > "estrangement" from God. Yet forgiveness requires a decreased
> > motivation to maintain this estrangement. If God's forgiveness is
> > infinite (or otherwise maximal) then this should result in an infinite
> > (or maximal) decrease in motivation to maintain any estrangement; no
> > one should go to hell, if we truly have God's forgiveness.
>
> If you include both the friends and the enemies of God in your "we,"
> then you are incorrect to say "we" truly have God's forgiveness.  God
> is infinite; He is also sovereign.  He is not required to blanketly
> forgive "everyone."

I'm not saying he is. But if he chooses to forgive, then it should be
without condition, based solely on his desire of who he wants to
forgive. But his forgiveness is dependent on specific actions on the
parts of the offenders. This is like saying, "I'll forgive you if you
give me a $100". It's not really forgiveness.

> He offers forgiveness of sins to those who
> repent.  He does not offer it to those who refuse to repent.

Then it isn't forgiveness.

> That
> applies to believers and unbelievers alike, but unbelievers are
> additionally crippled by their lack of belief, so it is far less
> likely any of them will ever repent, except that they might become
> believers.
>
> > The two concepts are logically contradictory.
>
> What is contradictory is your notion that God owes everyone
> forgiveness.  He does not, and that lack of debt on His part does not
> take away from His infiniteness.

I never stated, anywhere, that God owes everyone forgiveness.

>
>
>
>
>
> > Now, people do not always practice, or grant, forgiveness in the
> > purest sense. Admittedly it's hard to do, especially when the offender
> > is unrepentent. It is easy to hold a grudge, to maintain estrangement,
> > and to make your "forgiveness" contingent on damages, reparations,
> > revenge, or an apology. Unfortunately, in doing so, you really are not
> > being forgiving.
>
> > Then why does it seem that God, whose forgiveness should be infinite
> > and most pure, is acting in this manner? His forgiveness should mean
> > an end to any possible estrangement, yet the removal of that
> > estrangement seems contingent upon additional actions or beliefs on
> > our behalf. We need to repent, we need to believe in God, we need to
> > adhere to some code or dogma. True forgiveness does not require these
> > things.
>
> > God is not forgiving.
>
> On the contrary: He forgives those who love Him.  Why should He do
> anything for those who hate Him?

This is not a discussion about why God should or should not do
anything. It is about what God actually does and does not do.
Forgiveness, with regards to the definition I provided, is not
conditional on anything the offender does. In fact, one could argue
that forgiveness is most pure when it is given to someone that is
completely unrepentent and hateful and, in fact, those are the cases
when forgiveness should be given the most.


> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

Answer_42

<ipu.believer@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 17, 2009, 1:05:38 PM7/17/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
Except that I did not quote anything.
I was responding to his quotes.

> since this
> can easily translate to: "He offers forgiveness to those  -- and only
> those -- who deserve it."

That changes nothing.

> I think we can all agree that if someone is told to apologize for a
> crime and they'll avoid jail, and they refuse, and then when they go
> to jail and discover that they dislike it they offer to disingenuously
> apologize just to get out of jail that forgiving them for that isn't
> exactly just (and there's some debate whether or not the initial offer
> is just, too) and that we shouldn't forgive them in that case.  Why
> would that be different for God?  Why can't God be just?

It seems you also fail to grasp the true nature of forgiveness.
True forgiveness comes from the victim, and is totally unrelated to
the offender's actions following the offence.
Forgiveness and justice are totally unrelated.

> > > He does not offer it to those who refuse to repent.  That
> > > applies to believers and unbelievers alike, but unbelievers are
> > > additionally crippled by their lack of belief, so it is far less
> > > likely any of them will ever repent, except that they might become
> > > believers.
>
> > > > The two concepts are logically contradictory.
>
> > > What is contradictory is your notion that God owes everyone
> > > forgiveness.
>
> > If he is perfect in every way as you claim he is, he would.
> > Not because he owes it, but because he is perfect, so he cannot
> > discriminate based on "offence" and selectively distribute
> > forgiveness.
>
> Why do you think perfection means absolute forgiveness in all cases
> with no thought to justice or the intent or if the person really does
> feel that they want forgiveness?

Because this is what forgiveness is about. It is a one way street.
You do not forgive based on what others do/feel/think, you forgive
based on what YOU feel/think.

> It seems that perfect forgiveness is forgiveness only when the person
> really does deserve forgiveness,

And you would be wrong.
In fact, the less the person "deserves" forgiveness, as you sate, then
the more admirable the act of forgiving is.
And god, as a perfect being, should be able to forgive in a totally
altruistic manner.

Why is it that theists cannot grasp the meaning of forgiveness?

> which to me seems to include a
> genuine recognition that what you did was wrong and having a genuine
> desire to be forgiven.
>
> [snipped the rest due to either claims I don't make or repetition]

Answer_42

<ipu.believer@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 17, 2009, 1:10:54 PM7/17/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Jul 17, 8:45 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > On the contrary: He forgives those who love Him.  Why should He do
> > anything for those who hate Him?
>
> This is not a discussion about why God should or should not do
> anything. It is about what God actually does and does not do.
> Forgiveness, with regards to the definition I provided, is not
> conditional on anything the offender does. In fact, one could argue
> that forgiveness is most pure when it is given to someone that is
> completely unrepentent and hateful and, in fact, those are the cases
> when forgiveness should be given the most.

Exactly.
But as humans, this is a very difficult thing to do, pride gets in the
way, a desire for revenge as well, anger, etc.

What Joe and Allan are actually doing is providing yet more evidence
that god is a human construct since god is incapable of acting in a
non-human fashion.

J flores

<struggleformysoul777@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 17, 2009, 6:36:22 PM7/17/09
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com


Dude that means nothing.  It doesnt matter if the offender doesnt repent to his offense he can still be forgiven by the person he offended.  Now following dogmas.  Even if you are christian or not some people adhere to God's commandments and don't even know it.  If you want to be considered good in people's eyes you wont steal from them or lie to them or want to have sex with their wife.  God's forgiveness is infinite because He has patience.  The bible teaches self-control and patience to the max.  Jesus taught if your neighboor offends you you should forgive him and if he offends you 7 times then you forgive him and if he offends you 770 times then you should forgive them 770 times.
 
No forgiving someone and not trusting them is a different story if someone offends you and you forgive them doesnt mean that you have to hang out with them anymore.  Usually after 3 offenses I stop hanging out with the offender.

JFG

<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 17, 2009, 7:38:33 PM7/17/09
to Atheism vs Christianity


On Jul 17, 8:20 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 4:49 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Forgiveness is an important concept in Christianity. Primarily God's
> > > forgiveness toward humanity.
>
> > > Forgiveness is good, grand and all-around a-okay. The problem comes in
> > > the notion that we can reject forgiveness, be it the forgiveness of
> > > another person or of a fictional sky pixie.
>
> > > Forgiveness is "a process (or the result of a process) that involves a
> > > change in emotion and attitude regarding an offender. Most scholars
> > > view this an intentional and voluntary process, driven by a deliberate
> > > decision to forgive. This process results in decreased motivation to
> > > retaliate or maintain estrangement from an offender despite their
> > > actions, and requires letting go of negative emotions toward the
> > > offender. Theorists differ in the extent to which
> > > they believe forgiveness also implies replacing the negative emotions
> > > with positive attitudes including compassion and benevolence."
>
> > >http://www.apa.org/international/forgiveness.pdf
>
> > > Now, no where in that definition is the act or result of forgiveness
> > > contingent upon the offender's acceptance of said forgiveness. The
> > > only required activity is that performed by the victim.
>

Who offers forgiveness to one who does not ask for it? Wouldn't most
people consider such a thing a condescending insult?
Since no one offers forgiveness without being asked, it is not that
God's forgiveness is conditional at all --- in fact, it is absolute
--- but rather, that that for which one does not ask is not granted.
Why should it be?

> > He does not offer it to those who refuse to repent.  That
> > applies to believers and unbelievers alike, but unbelievers are
> > additionally crippled by their lack of belief, so it is far less
> > likely any of them will ever repent, except that they might become
> > believers.
>
> > > The two concepts are logically contradictory.
>
> > What is contradictory is your notion that God owes everyone
> > forgiveness.
>
> If he is perfect in every way as you claim he is, he would.

You have no proper concept of "perfect in every way."

> Not because he owes it, but because he is perfect, so he cannot
> discriminate based on "offence" and selectively distribute
> forgiveness.
>

He cannot judge rightly? How then would He be perfect?

> >  He does not, and that lack of debt on His part does not
> > take away from His infiniteness.
>
> > > Now, people do not always practice, or grant, forgiveness in the
> > > purest sense. Admittedly it's hard to do, especially when the offender
> > > is unrepentent. It is easy to hold a grudge, to maintain estrangement,
> > > and to make your "forgiveness" contingent on damages, reparations,
> > > revenge, or an apology. Unfortunately, in doing so, you really are not
> > > being forgiving.
>
> > > Then why does it seem that God, whose forgiveness should be infinite
> > > and most pure, is acting in this manner? His forgiveness should mean
> > > an end to any possible estrangement, yet the removal of that
> > > estrangement seems contingent upon additional actions or beliefs on
> > > our behalf. We need to repent, we need to believe in God, we need to
> > > adhere to some code or dogma. True forgiveness does not require these
> > > things.
>
> > > God is not forgiving.
>
> > On the contrary: He forgives those who love Him.  Why should He do
> > anything for those who hate Him?
>
> So, god will forgive genocidal maniacs who love him, but not
> altruistic humanitarians who do not?

Your two oxymorons are not examples of possible hypothetical persons.

> How about unbelievers who neither love nor hate him?

No one is neutral towards Love.

>How can you love/
> hate a fictional character?

Love is not fictional.

JFG

<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 17, 2009, 8:07:02 PM7/17/09
to Atheism vs Christianity


On Jul 17, 8:45 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
Glad you said that. Wonder why you went to the trouble to type it all
out, but you are right. You're not conversing with those whose
interpretation that is, and even that interpretation was not exactly
worded to address the nitpicky definition of forgiveness in the OP.
Better stick with talking to the people here.

> Hell is estrangement from God.
> Forgiveness erases estrangement.
> If we have forgiveness from God, there should be no Hell.
>

Doesn't follow. There are those whose sins will not be forgiven. How
do you include them in your "we?" How do you include *yourself* in
your "we?" Do you think you have God's forgiveness?

> This is the argument. If you have a problem with the argument then you
> need to show one or more of the following:
>
> Hell is not estrangement from God.
> Forgiveness does not erase estrangement.
>

On the contrary, if we acknowledge that not all are forgiven, then
there is nothing further to reconcile.

>
>
> > "The forgiveness of sins" is Catholic Doctrine.  It is one of the
> > things we believe in if we are Christians.
>
> > Our Lord addressed it specifically when He instituted the Sacrament of
> > Reconciliation thus:
>
> > John 20:21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the
> > Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he
> > breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23
> > Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins
> > you shall retain, they are retained.
>
> > So God's forgiveness of our sins is not blanketly given to everyone,
> > contrary to justice, but rather mediated through the Church, in order
> > to fulfill justice rather than discard it.
>
> This would be my point. In practice God's forgiveness seems to be
> contingent upon repentence and belief. But true forgiveness is
> contingent only upon the desire of the victim, *not* on any actions of
> the offender.
>
> God does *not* forgive in the truest sense of the word.
>

He forgives me in the truest sense of the word. I think what you mean
to say is God does not forgive all. But no one said He did.

>
>
> > > Hell, be it a physical place or a state of mind, is certainly
> > > "estrangement" from God. Yet forgiveness requires a decreased
> > > motivation to maintain this estrangement. If God's forgiveness is
> > > infinite (or otherwise maximal) then this should result in an infinite
> > > (or maximal) decrease in motivation to maintain any estrangement; no
> > > one should go to hell, if we truly have God's forgiveness.
>
> > If you include both the friends and the enemies of God in your "we,"
> > then you are incorrect to say "we" truly have God's forgiveness.  God
> > is infinite; He is also sovereign.  He is not required to blanketly
> > forgive "everyone."
>
> I'm not saying he is.

You appear to imply it in everything you have written here.

>But if he chooses to forgive, then it should be
> without condition, based solely on his desire of who he wants to
> forgive.

Well, now you are talking Calvinism, aren't you? But I'm not a
Calvinist.

If you are incapable of grasping the reality and the gravity of free
will, then perhaps you would be better off leaning towards Calvinism
than pursuing the truth. Babies do need milk before they can have
meat.

It is essential to understand that salvation *does indeed* depend on
God's sovereign choice. That is not conditional on anything the
sinner does; He chooses whom He wills. He loves whom He chooses to
love and hates whom He chooses to hate.

After that, we might be granted some insight into the motives of His
choices, at least insofar as they are related to ourselves. But to
believe that we could do something initially to merit salvation is
absurd, and if that is the only way you can view free will it would
probably be better for you if you did not view it at all. It is
better to have no concept than a misleading one.

>But his forgiveness is dependent on specific actions on the
> parts of the offenders. This is like saying, "I'll forgive you if you
> give me a $100". It's not really forgiveness.
>

Yes, and if this is the extent of your understanding of free will,
then it would be better for you not to try to understand it, as I've
said.

> > He offers forgiveness of sins to those who
> > repent.  He does not offer it to those who refuse to repent.
>
> Then it isn't forgiveness.
>

How does selectively offering forgiveness make it not forgiveness?

I see that my sentence above is contributing to your confusion.

God makes the blanket offer of forgiveness of sin to anyone who will
have the decency to come forth and ask. To assume you have it without
ever asking for it is presumption, a form of stealing, if you were
really obtaining what you presumed to steal. Factually, there is
nothing stolen, but the presumption of possessing something you do not
possess, just because it has been granted to others.

I don't know anyone who goes about forgiving people who are in no way
sorry for what they've done, and who do not even ask for forgiveness.
Do you? I have observed people becoming insulted when a person says
something condescending like, "I forgive you," when in fact the one to
whom the forgiveness is offered does not believe they did anything
wrong. In such a case, the presumption is on the part of the one
presuming to say "I forgive. . ." a non-offense. Thus for God to
grant you forgiveness of your sins in spite of your denial of His very
existence would be insulting to you and presumptuous on His part. And
God is not rude; He does not presume.

> > That
> > applies to believers and unbelievers alike, but unbelievers are
> > additionally crippled by their lack of belief, so it is far less
> > likely any of them will ever repent, except that they might become
> > believers.
>
> > > The two concepts are logically contradictory.
>
> > What is contradictory is your notion that God owes everyone
> > forgiveness.  He does not, and that lack of debt on His part does not
> > take away from His infiniteness.
>
> I never stated, anywhere, that God owes everyone forgiveness.
>

Then you appear to have no argument. He does not owe it to everyone,
and He gives it to those He chooses. What is unfair?

>
>
> > > Now, people do not always practice, or grant, forgiveness in the
> > > purest sense. Admittedly it's hard to do, especially when the offender
> > > is unrepentent. It is easy to hold a grudge, to maintain estrangement,
> > > and to make your "forgiveness" contingent on damages, reparations,
> > > revenge, or an apology. Unfortunately, in doing so, you really are not
> > > being forgiving.
>
> > > Then why does it seem that God, whose forgiveness should be infinite
> > > and most pure, is acting in this manner? His forgiveness should mean
> > > an end to any possible estrangement, yet the removal of that
> > > estrangement seems contingent upon additional actions or beliefs on
> > > our behalf. We need to repent, we need to believe in God, we need to
> > > adhere to some code or dogma. True forgiveness does not require these
> > > things.
>
> > > God is not forgiving.
>
> > On the contrary: He forgives those who love Him.  Why should He do
> > anything for those who hate Him?
>
> This is not a discussion about why God should or should not do
> anything. It is about what God actually does and does not do.
> Forgiveness, with regards to the definition I provided, is not
> conditional on anything the offender does.

And indeed, that is precisely Catholic Doctrine. There is no sin that
cannot be forgiven.

>In fact, one could argue
> that forgiveness is most pure when it is given to someone that is
> completely unrepentent and hateful and, in fact, those are the cases
> when forgiveness should be given the most.

I suppose you must have something in mind when you say "one could
argue" that. I am skeptical of the existence of one with that
ability, myself. Go ahead and give it a shot. We'll see if you are
that one who could argue such. Initially, your case does not appear
supported by, for example, any human justice system. That would
appear to point in the direction of a negative assessment of the
possibility of that for which you claim one can have an argument.

Drafterman

<drafterman@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 17, 2009, 8:37:58 PM7/17/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
Your objection does not negate my argument since it is conditional.
You are simply saying that the condition (forgiveness) doesn't
actually exist. Not that the logical connection is faulty.

In any event, I'll take the concession: We don't have God's
forgiveness.

What a wonderfully infinitely benign deity you have there!

Neil Kelsey

<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
unread,
Jul 18, 2009, 9:55:15 AM7/18/09
to Atheism vs Christianity


On Jul 17, 3:36 pm, J flores <struggleformysoul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dude that means nothing.  It doesnt matter if the offender doesnt repent to
> his offense he can still be forgiven by the person he offended.  Now
> following dogmas.  Even if you are christian or not some people adhere to
> God's commandments and don't even know it.  If you want to be considered
> good in people's eyes you wont steal from them or lie to them or want to
> have sex with their wife.  God's forgiveness is infinite because He has
> patience.  The bible teaches self-control and patience to the max.  Jesus
> taught if your neighboor offends you you should forgive him and if he
> offends you 7 times then you forgive him and if he offends you 770 times
> then you should forgive them 770 times.

Jesus never forgives you if you aren't a Christian.

> No forgiving someone and not trusting them is a different story if someone
> offends you and you forgive them doesnt mean that you have to hang out with
> them anymore.  Usually after 3 offenses I stop hanging out with the
> offender.

Then what's the difference? If you drop them from your life, you
haven't forgiven them.

JFG

<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 18, 2009, 10:20:49 PM7/18/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
Just to point out, the full reality of it is that you don't have God's
forgiveness, and that is your own fault. There is nothing lacking in
God.
> ...
>
> read more »

JFG

<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 18, 2009, 10:36:36 PM7/18/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
I just happened across this post. Is this directed to me?

On Jul 16, 7:24 pm, Turner Hayes <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Psh, a positivist WOULD say that, wouldn't he? You have to realize that
> there are ways of justifying things outside the bounds of silly restraints
> such as sanity. Right, Joe?
>

Observer

<mayorskid@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 18, 2009, 10:43:41 PM7/18/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
Observer
Correction there is nothing lacking in god except a god!

Ha Ha Ha Ha

If you think otherwise then prove the existence of this fucking
sadomasochistic (as described in the buy bull) monster you worship

Psychonomist
> ...
>
> read more »

Drafterman

<drafterman@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 19, 2009, 3:40:57 AM7/19/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
Not according to the definition of forgiveness. You don't seem to be
getting this, do you? Forgiveness is not dependent on the offender.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

Answer_42

<ipu.believer@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 20, 2009, 8:58:18 AM7/20/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Jul 17, 7:38 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Forgiveness is an important concept in Christianity. Primarily God's
> > > > forgiveness toward humanity.
>
> > > > Forgiveness is good, grand and all-around a-okay. The problem comes in
> > > > the notion that we can reject forgiveness, be it the forgiveness of
> > > > another person or of a fictional sky pixie.
>
> > > > Forgiveness is "a process (or the result of a process) that involves a
> > > > change in emotion and attitude regarding an offender. Most scholars
> > > > view this an intentional and voluntary process, driven by a deliberate
> > > > decision to forgive. This process results in decreased motivation to
> > > > retaliate or maintain estrangement from an offender despite their
> > > > actions, and requires letting go of negative emotions toward the
> > > > offender. Theorists differ in the extent to which
> > > > they believe forgiveness also implies replacing the negative emotions
> > > > with positive attitudes including compassion and benevolence."
>
> > > >http://www.apa.org/international/forgiveness.pdf
>
> > > > Now, no where in that definition is the act or result of forgiveness
> > > > contingent upon the offender's acceptance of said forgiveness. The
> > > > only required activity is that performed by the victim.
>
> Who offers forgiveness to one who does not ask for it?  Wouldn't most
> people consider such a thing a condescending insult?

Enough said.

You truly do not understand the concept of forgiveness.
Part of it is closure. Closure is needed by the victim more so than by
the offender.
So, if the victim, as part of his healing process, wants to forgive,
all the power to him.
Who cares what the offender, and some obtuse bystanders, think?

<snip>

> > Not because he owes it, but because he is perfect, so he cannot
> > discriminate based on "offence" and selectively distribute
> > forgiveness.
>
> He cannot judge rightly?  How then would He be perfect?

There you go again.
Justice and forgiveness are totally unrelated.

<snip>

> > > On the contrary: He forgives those who love Him.  Why should He do
> > > anything for those who hate Him?
>
> > So, god will forgive genocidal maniacs who love him, but not
> > altruistic humanitarians who do not?
>
> Your two oxymorons are not examples of possible hypothetical persons.

Really? No such people can exist?
Two words for you:
Hitler / Ghandi

<snip>

Also, you never cease to prove that god is a human construct. The type
of forgiveness you talk about is typical from a human, not from a
perfectly benevolent being. Such a being would not care whether the
offender loves or hates him, his forgiveness should be wholly
unconditional.

So, which is it:
a) god is not perfect
b) god is perfectly malevolent
c) god is fictional
???
___________________________________________
Women should not be enlightened or educated in any way. They should,
in fact, be segregated as they are the cause of hideous and
involuntary erections in holy men.
-- Augustine

Turner Hayes

<lordlacolith@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 22, 2009, 10:55:26 AM7/22/09
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:36 PM, JFG <thelemic...@gmail.com> wrote:

I just happened across this post.  Is this directed to me?

I wouldn't say "directed to" so much as "mocking".
 

Answer_42

<ipu.believer@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 22, 2009, 1:58:48 PM7/22/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Jul 22, 10:55 am, Turner Hayes <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I just happened across this post.  Is this directed to me?
>
> I wouldn't say "directed to" so much as "mocking".

Noticed how fast the theists fled once we, poor silly immoral
atheists, demonstrated that they did not understand the true meaning
of forgiveness?

Ain't it delightfully ironic?

And the fact there were only two who tried to respond to this critique
of god's character is very telling as well.
________________________________________________
Throughout American history, there's been this belief that our country
has a covenant with God and that a deity watches over America.
-- Michael Cromartie

JFG

<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 22, 2009, 2:13:26 PM7/22/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
Ah. O.K., as long as you admit it had no content, I will ignore it.

On Jul 22, 10:55 am, Turner Hayes <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:

JFG

<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 22, 2009, 2:14:57 PM7/22/09
to Atheism vs Christianity


On Jul 22, 1:58 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 10:55 am, Turner Hayes <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I just happened across this post.  Is this directed to me?
>
> > I wouldn't say "directed to" so much as "mocking".
>
> Noticed how fast the theists fled once we, poor silly immoral
> atheists, demonstrated that they did not understand the true meaning
> of forgiveness?
>
> Ain't it delightfully ironic?
>

You misspelled "moronic."

> And the fact there were only two who tried to respond to this critique
> of god's character is very telling as well.

You still have not demonstrated how God owes you forgiveness.

JFG

<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 22, 2009, 2:16:32 PM7/22/09
to Atheism vs Christianity


On Jul 18, 9:55 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 17, 3:36 pm, J flores <struggleformysoul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dude that means nothing.  It doesnt matter if the offender doesnt repent to
> > his offense he can still be forgiven by the person he offended.  Now
> > following dogmas.  Even if you are christian or not some people adhere to
> > God's commandments and don't even know it.  If you want to be considered
> > good in people's eyes you wont steal from them or lie to them or want to
> > have sex with their wife.  God's forgiveness is infinite because He has
> > patience.  The bible teaches self-control and patience to the max.  Jesus
> > taught if your neighboor offends you you should forgive him and if he
> > offends you 7 times then you forgive him and if he offends you 770 times
> > then you should forgive them 770 times.
>
> Jesus never forgives you if you aren't a Christian.
>

You obviously don't believe that at all, so why post it? Just can't
honestly express your real thoughts?

JFG

<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 22, 2009, 2:20:48 PM7/22/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
Correct, it is dependent on the offended. In other words, God doesn't
have to forgive offenses. It is up to Him, whether or not He does.
That fills wise souls with the Fear of God, and causes foolish souls
to mock Him. Thus does God separate the sheep from the goats.

God did not cause you to mock Him, it is your own reaction to the news
that God is willing and able to forgive your sins. It is your free
will, and you use it to condemn yourself.

Drafterman

<drafterman@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 22, 2009, 2:29:45 PM7/22/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
Again, I'm not arguing what God has to do, or should do, but what God
does do, and does not.

You concede that his forgiveness is not infinite. It is not offerred
to everyone and those it is offerred to it is made contingent on some
act on the part of the offender, thus making it not really
forgiveness.

So. In what way can God be said to be forgiving at all?

JFG

<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 22, 2009, 2:31:02 PM7/22/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
God does not have any needs at all, so how could He "need closure?"
You are projecting your human foibles onto 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.

> 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.

> <snip>
>
> > > Not because he owes it, but because he is perfect, so he cannot
> > > discriminate based on "offence" and selectively distribute
> > > forgiveness.
>
> > He cannot judge rightly?  How then would He be perfect?
>
> There you go again.
> Justice and forgiveness are totally unrelated.
>

Absurd. The latter is the mitigation of the former. That is their
relation.

> <snip>
>
> > > > On the contrary: He forgives those who love Him.  Why should He do
> > > > anything for those who hate Him?
>
> > > So, god will forgive genocidal maniacs who love him, but not
> > > altruistic humanitarians who do not?
>
> > Your two oxymorons are not examples of possible hypothetical persons.
>
> Really? No such people can exist?
> Two words for you:
> Hitler / Ghandi
>

Are you trying to assert that Hitler loved God, or that Ghandi failed
to love God?

I think both men would disagree with you in both cases. But that is
merely what I think; I am neither man's Judge.

> <snip>
>
> Also, you never cease to prove that god is a human construct. The type
> of forgiveness you talk about is typical from a human, not from a
> perfectly benevolent being.

You have no concept of a perfectly benevolent being, so why pretend
you do?

>Such a being would not care whether the
> offender loves or hates him, his forgiveness should be wholly
> unconditional.
>

God's forgiveness is unconditional. It is simply not extended to
those who despise Him.

> So, which is it:
> a) god is not perfect
> b) god is perfectly malevolent
> c) god is fictional
> ???

D. God is real and perfectly good.

There is no lack in God. The lack is in you.

Turner Hayes

<lordlacolith@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 22, 2009, 2:36:29 PM7/22/09
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 2:13 PM, JFG <thelemic...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ah.  O.K., as long as you admit it had no content, I will ignore it.

Now, I didn't say that, did I?
 

JFG

<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 22, 2009, 2:38:41 PM7/22/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
God forgives sins. He also condemns those who will not repent.

> You concede that his forgiveness is not infinite.

Totally false. There is no one condemned who could not have been
saved. There is no limit to God's Mercy; it is truly infinite. There
is no excuse for those who choose to remain outside of it. They are
justly condemned, for their own fault.

>It is not offerred
> to everyone and those it is offerred to it is made contingent on some
> act on the part of the offender, thus making it not really
> forgiveness.
>

In reality, everything is done by grace, including the free will
response to grace by the believer. Without grace, no one at all could
be saved.

And it is really forgiveness. Not only does God forgive; in addition,
when He forgives, He also forgets. So God has no memory of sins that
have already been forgiven. He can do anything, including to will to
forget, and since He is God, His forgetting is total. Nothing can any
more remind Him of the sins that used to be committed by those He has
saved.

> So. In what way can God be said to be forgiving at all?
>

In every way that makes sense to one not destined for the lake of
fire.

JFG

<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 22, 2009, 2:40:13 PM7/22/09
to Atheism vs Christianity


On Jul 22, 2:36 pm, Turner Hayes <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 2:13 PM, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ah.  O.K., as long as you admit it had no content, I will ignore it.
>
> Now, I didn't say that, did I?
>

Yeah, you did.

" I wouldn't say "directed to" so much as "mocking". "

Mockery is useless, except to an atheist.

Turner Hayes

<lordlacolith@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 22, 2009, 2:42:15 PM7/22/09
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 2:40 PM, JFG <thelemic...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Jul 22, 2:36 pm, Turner Hayes <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 2:13 PM, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ah.  O.K., as long as you admit it had no content, I will ignore it.
>
> Now, I didn't say that, did I?
>

Yeah, you did.

" I wouldn't say "directed to" so much as "mocking". "

Mockery is useless, except to an atheist.

False. Actual points can be conveyed through mocking. That's essentially what satire is.
 

Answer_42

<ipu.believer@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 22, 2009, 2:51:30 PM7/22/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
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.

> > 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.
Some people may take comfort in knowing that they were forgiven,
others not.
Forgiveness is not a way to make the offender feel better.

> > 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.

> > <snip>
>
> > > > Not because he owes it, but because he is perfect, so he cannot
> > > > discriminate based on "offence" and selectively distribute
> > > > forgiveness.
>
> > > He cannot judge rightly?  How then would He be perfect?
>
> > There you go again.
> > Justice and forgiveness are totally unrelated.
>
> Absurd.  The latter is the mitigation of the former.  That is their
> relation.

Show me a definition of justice that involves forgiveness, and show me
a definition of forgiveness that involves justice.

You still have no clue what true forgiveness is.


> > <snip>
>
> > > > > On the contrary: He forgives those who love Him.  Why should He do
> > > > > anything for those who hate Him?
>
> > > > So, god will forgive genocidal maniacs who love him, but not
> > > > altruistic humanitarians who do not?
>
> > > Your two oxymorons are not examples of possible hypothetical persons.
>
> > Really? No such people can exist?
> > Two words for you:
> > Hitler / Ghandi
>
> 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; and
Ghandi was an altruistic humanitarian, but an unbeliever.

> I think both men would disagree with you in both cases.  But that is
> merely what I think; I am neither man's Judge.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > Also, you never cease to prove that god is a human construct. The type
> > of forgiveness you talk about is typical from a human, not from a
> > perfectly benevolent being.
>
> You have no concept of a perfectly benevolent being, so why pretend
> you do?

And you do?
In any case, we are talking about forgiveness, and you have
demonstrated that you do not know what it is.

> >Such a being would not care whether the
> > offender loves or hates him, his forgiveness should be wholly
> > unconditional.
>
> God's forgiveness is unconditional.  It is simply not extended to
> those who despise Him.

Nice contradiction.

> > So, which is it:
> > a) god is not perfect
> > b) god is perfectly malevolent
> > c) god is fictional
> > ???
>
> D. God is real and perfectly good.
>
> 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.

Answer_42

<ipu.believer@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 22, 2009, 2:56:00 PM7/22/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Jul 22, 2:38 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> And it is really forgiveness.  Not only does God forgive; in addition,
> when He forgives, He also forgets.  So God has no memory of sins that
> have already been forgiven.  He can do anything, including to will to
> forget, and since He is God, His forgetting is total.  Nothing can any
> more remind Him of the sins that used to be committed by those He has
> saved.

Wow, I am impressed.
You seem to know a lot about god.
Lots of tiny details about his attributes/character.
Where did you get this information?

Answer_42

<ipu.believer@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 22, 2009, 2:59:36 PM7/22/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Jul 22, 2:14 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > I just happened across this post.  Is this directed to me?
>
> > > I wouldn't say "directed to" so much as "mocking".
>
> > Noticed how fast the theists fled once we, poor silly immoral
> > atheists, demonstrated that they did not understand the true meaning
> > of forgiveness?
>
> > Ain't it delightfully ironic?
>
> You misspelled "moronic."

You are right.
It is moronic that theists do not understand the concept of true
forgiveness.

> > And the fact there were only two who tried to respond to this critique
> > of god's character is very telling as well.
>
> You still have not demonstrated how God owes you forgiveness.

And once again, you have demonstrated that you do not understand what
forgiveness actually means.
Nobody ever owes anybody forgiveness.

Drafterman

<drafterman@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 22, 2009, 3:49:59 PM7/22/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
Well, obviously he does not forgive the sins he doesn't (since you
admit that he doesn't forgive everyone) and making "forgiveness"
contingent on repentence makes it not, actually, forgiveness.

So, can you provide an example of God's forgiveness that actually
meets the definition of forgiveness? (That is, not dependent on the
actions of the offender).

>
> > You concede that his forgiveness is not infinite.
>
> Totally false.

Actually you just did.

> There is no one condemned who could not have been
> saved.

Except we are not talking about hypothetically unrealized realities.
We are talking about this one, where you admit that there are people
that aren't forgiven.

> There is no limit to God's Mercy; it is truly infinite.

But there is a limit: the limit God has placed on it when he chooses
not to forgive people.

> There
> is no excuse for those who choose to remain outside of it.  They are
> justly condemned, for their own fault.

If they are condemned, then they aren't forgiven. If they aren't
forgiven, then God's forgiveness isn't infinite.

>
> >It is not offerred
> > to everyone and those it is offerred to it is made contingent on some
> > act on the part of the offender, thus making it not really
> > forgiveness.
>
> In reality, everything is done by grace, including the free will
> response to grace by the believer.  Without grace, no one at all could
> be saved.
>
> And it is really forgiveness.

Not according to the definition of the word.

> Not only does God forgive; in addition,
> when He forgives, He also forgets.  So God has no memory of sins that
> have already been forgiven.  He can do anything, including to will to
> forget, and since He is God, His forgetting is total.  Nothing can any
> more remind Him of the sins that used to be committed by those He has
> saved.
>
> > So. In what way can God be said to be forgiving at all?
>
> In every way that makes sense to one not destined for the lake of
> fire.

That doesn't answer the question. You have only said that there are
people God doesn't forgive and that God does "forgive" it is
contingent on their repentence which, as I explained, isn't actually
forgiveness.

So, based on the actual definition of the word, how can God said to be
forgiving?

JFG

<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 22, 2009, 4:18:26 PM7/22/09
to Atheism vs Christianity


On Jul 22, 2:42 pm, Turner Hayes <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 2:40 PM, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 22, 2:36 pm, Turner Hayes <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 2:13 PM, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Ah.  O.K., as long as you admit it had no content, I will ignore it.
>
> > > Now, I didn't say that, did I?
>
> > Yeah, you did.
>
> > " I wouldn't say "directed to" so much as "mocking". "
>
> > Mockery is useless, except to an atheist.
>
> False. Actual points can be conveyed through mocking. That's essentially
> what satire is.
>

But no good point is made by mocking Faith. The only thing atheists
accomplish by that, is to make it more embarrassing for anyone to
embrace the faith. They themselves have decided to stay away from
salvation, and they seek to keep others away, as well. It is the work
of the evil one, in which atheists actively participate.

So mockery of God, and of the salvation that comes from God, is
useless, expect to an atheist. We could add, except to an *evil*
atheist.

JFG

<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 22, 2009, 4:19:24 PM7/22/09
to Atheism vs Christianity


On Jul 22, 2:59 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 2:14 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I just happened across this post.  Is this directed to me?
>
> > > > I wouldn't say "directed to" so much as "mocking".
>
> > > Noticed how fast the theists fled once we, poor silly immoral
> > > atheists, demonstrated that they did not understand the true meaning
> > > of forgiveness?
>
> > > Ain't it delightfully ironic?
>
> > You misspelled "moronic."
>
> You are right.
> It is moronic that theists do not understand the concept of true
> forgiveness.
>
> > > And the fact there were only two who tried to respond to this critique
> > > of god's character is very telling as well.
>
> > You still have not demonstrated how God owes you forgiveness.
>
> And once again, you have demonstrated that you do not understand what
> forgiveness actually means.
> Nobody ever owes anybody forgiveness.

Then how can you argue that God owes it to you?

JFG

<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 22, 2009, 4:27:41 PM7/22/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
You fail to take into account that repentance, also, is contingent on
grace. No one can repent unless God gives the grace.

> So, can you provide an example of God's forgiveness that actually
> meets the definition of forgiveness? (That is, not dependent on the
> actions of the offender).
>

All of it. It isn't God's fault that you reject grace.

>
>
> > > You concede that his forgiveness is not infinite.
>
> > Totally false.
>
> Actually you just did.
>
> > There is no one condemned who could not have been
> > saved.
>
> Except we are not talking about hypothetically unrealized realities.
> We are talking about this one, where you admit that there are people
> that aren't forgiven.
>

Through their own fault.

> > There is no limit to God's Mercy; it is truly infinite.
>
> But there is a limit: the limit God has placed on it when he chooses
> not to forgive people.
>

God does not make them reject grace. They do that themselves, in
defiance of His commandment.

> > There
> > is no excuse for those who choose to remain outside of it.  They are
> > justly condemned, for their own fault.
>
> If they are condemned, then they aren't forgiven. If they aren't
> forgiven, then God's forgiveness isn't infinite.
>

Universal and infinite are not the same things.

>
>
> > >It is not offerred
> > > to everyone and those it is offerred to it is made contingent on some
> > > act on the part of the offender, thus making it not really
> > > forgiveness.
>
> > In reality, everything is done by grace, including the free will
> > response to grace by the believer.  Without grace, no one at all could
> > be saved.
>
> > And it is really forgiveness.
>
> Not according to the definition of the word.
>

Your insistence that God blanketly owes forgiveness to everyone does
not make that assertion a fact.


> > Not only does God forgive; in addition,
> > when He forgives, He also forgets.  So God has no memory of sins that
> > have already been forgiven.  He can do anything, including to will to
> > forget, and since He is God, His forgetting is total.  Nothing can any
> > more remind Him of the sins that used to be committed by those He has
> > saved.
>
> > > So. In what way can God be said to be forgiving at all?
>
> > In every way that makes sense to one not destined for the lake of
> > fire.
>
> That doesn't answer the question. You have only said that there are
> people God doesn't forgive and that God does "forgive" it is
> contingent on their repentence which, as I explained, isn't actually
> forgiveness.
>

No. By now I have explained that their repentance is contingent upon
God's grace. So there is nothing in us that we can give God to induce
Him to forgive us. That fact causes the wise to fear Him and the
foolish to mock Him.

> So, based on the actual definition of the word, how can God said to be
> forgiving?
>

In every way. There is no way in which God's forgiveness of our sins
is anything apart from His forgiveness of our sins. You are
irrationally attached to a failed argument. You wish there were even
a solitary valid argument against God, but there isn't. You have to
acknowledge that your atheism is willful on your part. But you won't,
because that would be acknowledging that there is nothing lacking in
God, but something lacking in you. So you continue to cling to failed
arguments, and around and around we go.

JFG

<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 22, 2009, 4:39:11 PM7/22/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
True forgiveness is given by the offended party. Can one not choose
to forgive whomsoever he wills?

> > > 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.

> 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. That is not its primary effect,
but you are not interested in its primary effect, are you?

> > > 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.


> > > <snip>
>
> > > > > Not because he owes it, but because he is perfect, so he cannot
> > > > > discriminate based on "offence" and selectively distribute
> > > > > forgiveness.
>
> > > > He cannot judge rightly?  How then would He be perfect?
>
> > > There you go again.
> > > Justice and forgiveness are totally unrelated.
>
> > Absurd.  The latter is the mitigation of the former.  That is their
> > relation.
>
> Show me a definition of justice that involves forgiveness, and show me
> a definition of forgiveness that involves justice.
>

Forgiveness is the mitigation of justice. Sorry, can't help you learn
English.

> You still have no clue what true forgiveness is.
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > > > On the contrary: He forgives those who love Him.  Why should He do
> > > > > > anything for those who hate Him?
>
> > > > > So, god will forgive genocidal maniacs who love him, but not
> > > > > altruistic humanitarians who do not?
>
> > > > Your two oxymorons are not examples of possible hypothetical persons.
>
> > > Really? No such people can exist?
> > > Two words for you:
> > > Hitler / Ghandi
>
> > 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.

>and
> Ghandi was an altruistic humanitarian, but an unbeliever.
>

And so you say.

However, I doubt that Hitler had any true faith, or that Ghandi lacked
it. But as I say, those are my opinions about the men, which actually
count for nothing.

> > I think both men would disagree with you in both cases.  But that is
> > merely what I think; I am neither man's Judge.
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > Also, you never cease to prove that god is a human construct. The type
> > > of forgiveness you talk about is typical from a human, not from a
> > > perfectly benevolent being.
>
> > You have no concept of a perfectly benevolent being, so why pretend
> > you do?
>
> And you do?

Yes.

> In any case, we are talking about forgiveness, and you have
> demonstrated that you do not know what it is.
>

So you say.

> > >Such a being would not care whether the
> > > offender loves or hates him, his forgiveness should be wholly
> > > unconditional.
>
> > 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.

> > > So, which is it:
> > > a) god is not perfect
> > > b) god is perfectly malevolent
> > > c) god is fictional
> > > ???
>
> > D. God is real and perfectly good.
>
> > 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.

Neil Kelsey

<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
unread,
Jul 23, 2009, 12:27:48 AM7/23/09
to Atheism vs Christianity


On Jul 22, 11:16 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 18, 9:55 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 17, 3:36 pm, J flores <struggleformysoul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Dude that means nothing.  It doesnt matter if the offender doesnt repent to
> > > his offense he can still be forgiven by the person he offended.  Now
> > > following dogmas.  Even if you are christian or not some people adhere to
> > > God's commandments and don't even know it.  If you want to be considered
> > > good in people's eyes you wont steal from them or lie to them or want to
> > > have sex with their wife.  God's forgiveness is infinite because He has
> > > patience.  The bible teaches self-control and patience to the max.  Jesus
> > > taught if your neighboor offends you you should forgive him and if he
> > > offends you 7 times then you forgive him and if he offends you 770 times
> > > then you should forgive them 770 times.
>
> > Jesus never forgives you if you aren't a Christian.
>
> You obviously don't believe that at all, so why post it?  Just can't
> honestly express your real thoughts?

What I said is true. Whether jesus exists or not, he doesn't forgive
you if you're not a Christian. So it's a big lie that Jesus is all
about forgiveness.

Nice red herring though, Joe. Is it at all possible for you to open
your mouth without a fallacy falling out?

> > > No forgiving someone and not trusting them is a different story if someone
> > > offends you and you forgive them doesnt mean that you have to hang out with
> > > them anymore.  Usually after 3 offenses I stop hanging out with the
> > > offender.
>
> > Then what's the difference? If you drop them from your life, you
> > haven't forgiven them.- Hide quoted text -

JEAN BRISCOE

<jean.briscoe@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 23, 2009, 12:45:11 AM7/23/09
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
If your not a christain than Jesus does not know you or the Father so how could he forgive you

Drafterman

<drafterman@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 23, 2009, 8:26:09 AM7/23/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
I am not taking into account repentance, yes. But this is not a
failure. You don't seem to be catching on that forgiveness is
independent of the actions of the offender. Repentence is an action of
the offender. Ergo forgiveness is independent of repentence. Since I'm
talking about forgiveness, it makes sense that I would ignore things
that are independent of it.

>
> > So, can you provide an example of God's forgiveness that actually
> > meets the definition of forgiveness? (That is, not dependent on the
> > actions of the offender).
>
> All of it.  It isn't God's fault that you reject grace.

"All of it" is not providing an example.

>
>
>
> > > > You concede that his forgiveness is not infinite.
>
> > > Totally false.
>
> > Actually you just did.
>
> > > There is no one condemned who could not have been
> > > saved.
>
> > Except we are not talking about hypothetically unrealized realities.
> > We are talking about this one, where you admit that there are people
> > that aren't forgiven.
>
> Through their own fault.

Irrelevant. The point is, they're not forgiven.

>
> > > There is no limit to God's Mercy; it is truly infinite.
>
> > But there is a limit: the limit God has placed on it when he chooses
> > not to forgive people.
>
> God does not make them reject grace.  They do that themselves, in
> defiance of His commandment.

Irrelevant. The point is, God's forgiveness as limits. If it has
limits it is not infinite. BY DEFINITION.

>
> > > There
> > > is no excuse for those who choose to remain outside of it.  They are
> > > justly condemned, for their own fault.
>
> > If they are condemned, then they aren't forgiven. If they aren't
> > forgiven, then God's forgiveness isn't infinite.
>
> Universal and infinite are not the same things.

No, they aren't. In this case, I'm talking about infinite.

>
>
>
> > > >It is not offerred
> > > > to everyone and those it is offerred to it is made contingent on some
> > > > act on the part of the offender, thus making it not really
> > > > forgiveness.
>
> > > In reality, everything is done by grace, including the free will
> > > response to grace by the believer.  Without grace, no one at all could
> > > be saved.
>
> > > And it is really forgiveness.
>
> > Not according to the definition of the word.
>
> Your insistence that God blanketly owes forgiveness to everyone does
> not make that assertion a fact.

Except I'm not arguing that God blanketly owes forgiveness to
everyone. I'm arguing that God does not, actually, give forgiveness.

>
> > > Not only does God forgive; in addition,
> > > when He forgives, He also forgets.  So God has no memory of sins that
> > > have already been forgiven.  He can do anything, including to will to
> > > forget, and since He is God, His forgetting is total.  Nothing can any
> > > more remind Him of the sins that used to be committed by those He has
> > > saved.
>
> > > > So. In what way can God be said to be forgiving at all?
>
> > > In every way that makes sense to one not destined for the lake of
> > > fire.
>
> > That doesn't answer the question. You have only said that there are
> > people God doesn't forgive and that God does "forgive" it is
> > contingent on their repentence which, as I explained, isn't actually
> > forgiveness.
>
> No.  By now I have explained that their repentance is contingent upon
> God's grace.  So there is nothing in us that we can give God to induce
> Him to forgive us.  That fact causes the wise to fear Him and the
> foolish to mock Him.

This doesn't answer the question either.

>
> > So, based on the actual definition of the word, how can God said to be
> > forgiving?
>
> In every way.  There is no way in which God's forgiveness of our sins
> is anything apart from His forgiveness of our sins.  You are
> irrationally attached to a failed argument.  You wish there were even
> a solitary valid argument against God, but there isn't.  You have to
> acknowledge that your atheism is willful on your part.  But you won't,
> because that would be acknowledging that there is nothing lacking in
> God, but something lacking in you.  So you continue to cling to failed
> arguments, and around and around we go.

"In every way" doesn't answer the question. The rest of that rambling
is off topic.

Neil Kelsey

<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
unread,
Jul 23, 2009, 9:11:37 AM7/23/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Jul 22, 9:45 pm, JEAN BRISCOE <jean.bris...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If your not a christain than Jesus does not know you or the Father so how
> could he forgive you

So God/Jesus are not all knowing? Also, how could they send you to
Hell if they don't know you?

You seem confused by your own beliefs.
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

Answer_42

<ipu.believer@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 23, 2009, 11:20:22 AM7/23/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Jul 22, 4:39 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > 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.

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.
If you forgive only because you think that reconciliation will be
possible, then you are not truly forgiving.

> > 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. True forgiveness should be given
irrespective of how one think the offender will react.

> 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.

> > > > 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.

Nope.
You still insist that side effects neesdto be taken ninto
consideration.
They don't.

You are talking about conditional forgiveness, which is not true
perfect forgiveness.

<snip>

> > > > There you go again.
> > > > Justice and forgiveness are totally unrelated.
>
> > > Absurd.  The latter is the mitigation of the former.  That is their
> > > relation.
>
> > Show me a definition of justice that involves forgiveness, and show me
> > a definition of forgiveness that involves justice.
>
> Forgiveness is the mitigation of justice.  Sorry, can't help you learn
> English.

Sionce you do not understand basic English and since you are too lazy
to even back up your claims, I will have, once again, to do your job
for you:
From the Merriam Webster:

Forgiveness
"
the act of forgiving
"

forgiving
"
1: willing or able to forgive
"

to forgive:
"
1 a: to give up resentment of or claim to requital for <forgive an
insult>
b: to grant relief from payment of <forgive a debt>
2: to cease to feel resentment against (an offender) : pardon <forgive
one's enemies>
"

1a and 2 are very similar and are the ones we are talking about.
Nothing abut justice here.
You can pardon (in the sense of forgiving, not in the penal system
sense) and still desire that justice be applied as a consequence of
the offender's acts.

Justice
"
1 a: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by
the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of
merited rewards or punishments
b: judge
c: the administration of law ; especially : the establishment or
determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity
2 a: the quality of being just, impartial, or fair
b (1): the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action
(2): conformity to this principle or ideal : righteousness
c: the quality of conforming to law
3: conformity to truth, fact, or reason : correctness
"
None of those meanings say anything about forgiveness.

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.

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.
Forgiveness comes in totality from the offended party, and justice is
applied to the iffender.

> > You still have no clue what true forgiveness is.

<snip>

> > > 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
> > Ghandi was an altruistic humanitarian, but an unbeliever.
>
> And so you say.

So he said.

<snip>

> > > 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?

<snip>

> > > 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.

<snip>

> > > 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.
_____________________________________
Any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be
seen as fundamentally deficient.
-- William Dembski

Answer_42

<ipu.believer@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 23, 2009, 11:32:12 AM7/23/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
I don't.
You brought this up.

Now, pay attention, it is in fact very simple.

Forgiveness is something the offended party does IRRESPECTIVE of the
offender's behaviour.
God, as per your claim, does not forgive everybody, and that decision
seems to be contingent on the offender's behaviour.

Therefore, god's forgiveness is not perfect and true because it is
conditional and limited.

Before you reply, do grab an encyclopedia, not he Catholic one, and
read up on forgiveness and what it really means.

If you still claim that unless a sinner repent, god will not forgive,
then it proves that we are right, god's forgiveness is conditional.
If it were unconditional, god would forgive.
The repentance would have an impact to god's justice, not his
forgiveness.

End of story.

Turner Hayes

<lordlacolith@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 23, 2009, 3:06:27 PM7/23/09
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:18 PM, JFG <thelemic...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Jul 22, 2:42 pm, Turner Hayes <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 2:40 PM, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 22, 2:36 pm, Turner Hayes <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 2:13 PM, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Ah.  O.K., as long as you admit it had no content, I will ignore it.
>
> > > Now, I didn't say that, did I?
>
> > Yeah, you did.
>
> > " I wouldn't say "directed to" so much as "mocking". "
>
> > Mockery is useless, except to an atheist.
>
> False. Actual points can be conveyed through mocking. That's essentially
> what satire is.
>

But no good point is made by mocking Faith.  

False.
 
The only thing atheists
accomplish by that, is to make it more embarrassing for anyone to
embrace the faith.  

If only that were true. Unfortunately, the numbers seem to indicate a distinct lack or embarrassment. So, again, false.
 
They themselves have decided to stay away from
salvation, and they seek to keep others away, as well.  It is the work
of the evil one, in which atheists actively participate.

I think this is the first time I've actually seen you descend into whackjob "Them evil atheists are tools of SAYTAN!!!" mode. Not that I'm surprised at all.
 


So mockery of God, and of the salvation that comes from God, is
useless, expect to an atheist.  We could add, except to an *evil*
atheist.

Fuck you, Joe.
 

Lawrey

<lawrenceel@btinternet.com>
unread,
Jul 23, 2009, 5:04:21 PM7/23/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
Answer_42

Everyone is talking about a god all of a sudden.

What god? which god? and where from?

There is no such thing as far as I am aware.

Why is everyone talking about godthings?

On Jul 17, 1:20 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 4:49 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Forgiveness is an important concept in Christianity. Primarily God's
> > > forgiveness toward humanity.
>
> > > Forgiveness is good, grand and all-around a-okay. The problem comes in
> > > the notion that we can reject forgiveness, be it the forgiveness of
> > > another person or of a fictional sky pixie.
>
> > > Forgiveness is "a process (or the result of a process) that involves a
> > > change in emotion and attitude regarding an offender. Most scholars
> > > view this an intentional and voluntary process, driven by a deliberate
> > > decision to forgive. This process results in decreased motivation to
> > > retaliate or maintain estrangement from an offender despite their
> > > actions, and requires letting go of negative emotions toward the
> > > offender. Theorists differ in the extent to which
> > > they believe forgiveness also implies replacing the negative emotions
> > > with positive attitudes including compassion and benevolence."
>
> > >http://www.apa.org/international/forgiveness.pdf
>
> > > Now, no where in that definition is the act or result of forgiveness
> > > contingent upon the offender's acceptance of said forgiveness. The
> > > only required activity is that performed by the victim.
>
> > > Upon realization of this, it makes the concept of condemnation to hell
> > > (based on "rejection" of forgiveness) all the more insane.
>
> > Condemnation to hell is not based on rejection of forgiveness, but on
> > personal sin.
>
> > "The forgiveness of sins" is Catholic Doctrine.  It is one of the
> > things we believe in if we are Christians.
>
> > Our Lord addressed it specifically when He instituted the Sacrament of
> > Reconciliation thus:
>
> > John 20:21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the
> > Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he
> > breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23
> > Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins
> > you shall retain, they are retained.
>
> > So God's forgiveness of our sins is not blanketly given to everyone,
> > contrary to justice, but rather mediated through the Church, in order
> > to fulfill justice rather than discard it.
>
> > > Hell, be it a physical place or a state of mind, is certainly
> > > "estrangement" from God. Yet forgiveness requires a decreased
> > > motivation to maintain this estrangement. If God's forgiveness is
> > > infinite (or otherwise maximal) then this should result in an infinite
> > > (or maximal) decrease in motivation to maintain any estrangement; no
> > > one should go to hell, if we truly have God's forgiveness.
>
> > If you include both the friends and the enemies of God in your "we,"
> > then you are incorrect to say "we" truly have God's forgiveness.  God
> > is infinite; He is also sovereign.  He is not required to blanketly
> > forgive "everyone."  He offers forgiveness of sins to those who
> > repent.  
>
> So, his forgiveness is conditional, which makes it less than perfect,
> in fact, it makes him a petty being.
>
> > He does not offer it to those who refuse to repent.  That
> > applies to believers and unbelievers alike, but unbelievers are
> > additionally crippled by their lack of belief, so it is far less
> > likely any of them will ever repent, except that they might become
> > believers.
>
> > > The two concepts are logically contradictory.
>
> > What is contradictory is your notion that God owes everyone
> > forgiveness.
>
> If he is perfect in every way as you claim he is, he would.
> Not because he owes it, but because he is perfect, so he cannot
> discriminate based on "offence" and selectively distribute
> forgiveness.
>
>
>
>
>
> >  He does not, and that lack of debt on His part does not
> > take away from His infiniteness.
>
> > > Now, people do not always practice, or grant, forgiveness in the
> > > purest sense. Admittedly it's hard to do, especially when the offender
> > > is unrepentent. It is easy to hold a grudge, to maintain estrangement,
> > > and to make your "forgiveness" contingent on damages, reparations,
> > > revenge, or an apology. Unfortunately, in doing so, you really are not
> > > being forgiving.
>
> > > Then why does it seem that God, whose forgiveness should be infinite
> > > and most pure, is acting in this manner? His forgiveness should mean
> > > an end to any possible estrangement, yet the removal of that
> > > estrangement seems contingent upon additional actions or beliefs on
> > > our behalf. We need to repent, we need to believe in God, we need to
> > > adhere to some code or dogma. True forgiveness does not require these
> > > things.
>
> > > God is not forgiving.
>
> > On the contrary: He forgives those who love Him.  Why should He do
> > anything for those who hate Him?
>
> So, god will forgive genocidal maniacs who love him, but not
> altruistic humanitarians who do not?
> How about unbelievers who neither love nor hate him? How can you love/
> hate a fictional character?
> Why am I not surprised that you do not understand in the slightest the
> concept of forgiveness?
> Wait, I know, you are a Christian.
>
> Also, you never cease to prove that god is a human construct. The type
> of forgiveness you talk about is typical from a human, not from a
> perfectly benevolent being. Such a being would not care whether the
> offender loves or hates him, his forgiveness should be wholly
> unconditional.
>
> So, which is it:
> a) god is not perfect
> b) god is perfectly malevolent
> c) god is fictional
> ???
> ________________________________________
> Civilization will not attain to its perfection until the last stone
> from the last church falls on the last priest!
> -- Émile Zola- Hide quoted text -

ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com

<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>
unread,
Jul 23, 2009, 5:20:10 PM7/23/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Jul 22, 4:18 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But no good point is made by mocking Faith.

So, St. Paul made no good point by mocking faith in idols? - 'What
concord hath Christ with Belial?' (2 Corinthians 6:15).

> The only thing atheists
> accomplish by that, is to make it more embarrassing for anyone to
> embrace the faith.

What do monotheists accomplish by mocking polytheists' faith?

JEAN BRISCOE

<jean.briscoe@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 23, 2009, 6:44:24 PM7/23/09
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
First of all it is beyond a belief...and not confused...do you know me? no ----do I know you no ---so how would you know me or even get to know me unless you seek out to know me or me to seek out to know you.. you would half to seek out God through his son and ask him if he would forgive non-christains....just remenber it could take you awhile to find that answer or not...and you would half to seek and take the time to ask him if he is all knowing....but in my heart I hope he would forgive you ...Jesus hung on the cross and while he was hanging there he ask ..Father forgive them for they no what they do..Even Jesus had hope and ask for mercey..

JFG

<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 23, 2009, 7:16:11 PM7/23/09
to Atheism vs Christianity


On Jul 23, 11:20 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 4:39 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > 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
another.

> 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
forgiveness occurs.

>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.
>
> Nope.
> You still insist that side effects neesdto be taken ninto
> consideration.
> 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.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > 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:

http://www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/momindex.htm

God Is
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)

(end quote)

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.

> <snip>
>
> > > > 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.

> <snip>
>
> > > > 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?

> <snip>
>
> > > > 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?

JFG

<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>
unread,
Jul 23, 2009, 7:19:21 PM7/23/09