Is Forgiveness Overrated?

by leavingwt 195 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  bohm

  tec: When i was a kid I had a bird in a cage. I kept it alive by giving it fresh water and bird seeds every day. Suppose one week i desided i wouldnt do that, so i just sad there and watched it starve and die.

  i would have killed the bird. I would be morally responsible for its death. Dont try to deny that -- my mom would certainly not have bought whatever explanation i had come up with, neither would you.

  God had a similar choice: He could -at no cost to himself- keep adam and eve alive, or he could let them die. In my book thats murder, there is no other word for it. That God did not do it delibrately is not what i read from the bible -- he DID specifically say he would inflict pain and suffering on them while he watched them die slowly.

  Q: Did god not say he would inflict pain and suffering on adam and eve to make the remaining time on earth harder to bear?

  As for the morality of what God did, it is clearly immoral. I can demonstrate that very easily since your a moral person: Where you in Gods shoes, what would you have done? Zapped satan (or better, mingled with his mind so he would turn out as you originally intended him to be) and forgive adam or eve, or would you have done like God did? would you have specifically made childbirth painfull for women? Why on earth would God ever want that, its torture!

  think of all the lives you could have saved, think of all the suffering...
• 

  tec

  Did god not say he would inflict pain and suffering on adam and eve while he slowly watched them die?

  No, he did not. But those things - pain in childbearing, and toiling on the ground are both things that happen outside of the 'garden'. He did, however, send them outside the 'garden'. I can't know what would have happened had Adam and Eve been allowed to remain in the garden, after disobeying and knowing what they knew. Only God can know that.

  As for mingling with Satan's mind (or adam and eve's for that matter), then no, I would not have done so. Because there goes free will. And what would be the point without free will?

  think of all the lives you could have saved, think of all the suffering...

  Unless all those others chose the exact same thing?

  Besides which, we do bring forth our children in pain... if you extend beyond just the physical, literal meaning. Sometimes they leave us, sometimes they others or themselves, which hurts us. So perhaps it was more of a prophecy/prediction... it does say that because you did this, now this will happen. Same with toiling the ground. Move beyond actual bringing forth crops, and think about bringing forth nations, sons, spirituality, etc... thorns and thistles are reaped because of their choice.

  (as for the bird analogy, these analogies never work... you did not create the bird, you captured it, and had you tried to tell the bird not to leave the cage through the door if the door is open - because the cat will get it - the bird cannot understand you. But if it did understand you, and ignored you to leave the cage, then whose fault would it be that the cat got it?)

  Tammy
• 

  bohm

  tammy -- "I can't know what would have happened had Adam and Eve been allowed to remain in the garden, after disobeying and knowing what they knew. Only God can know that."

  but i did not ask you what would have happened, i asked you if you would have done as God did, or if you would have tried another solution? When you put yourself in Gods shoes and find his actions to be immoral, that mean its the logical conclusion: God is immoral as far as we can tell. There is no escaping the fact. Reasoning like "we might not know everything, hence we should accept the actions as moral even though they seem not to be" is NOT something that works in the real world, specifically not when one consider the death of billions of people.

  That the part about childbearing is a metaphor -- come on, thats post-hoc! God specifically said that she would suffer, that meant he had a choice right there.

  that you bring a cat into the analogue demonstrate how immoral God are. God left the cage open, God left the cat out, God knew the bird might not understand it should stay in. WHEN the bird got out, God did not interwene to prevent harm to come to the bird.

  A person who act like that should not be allowed to have birds. He should not be allowed to have children ("I told johnny not to eat the candy or he would die. When bill lured johnny into eating the candy, i must surely kill little johnny because otherwise i would intervene with his free will"). He should specifically not be in a position of God-like powers because he has clearly mishandled them.

  "As for mingling with Satan's mind (or adam and eve's for that matter), then no, I would not have done so. Because there goes free will. And what would be the point without free will? "

  so God will not mingle with satans free will by killing him? God did not mingle with the free-will of all the innocent that has died and are dying because he let them? oh wait, the argument only work in the garden...
• 

  tec

  i asked you if you would have done as God did

  But I can't answer that Bohm... because I don't know the things that God knows. I cannot put myself in his shoes... I don't have his perspective, experience, knowledge, etc. Reasoning like "...even though we don't know everything about the situation, we should accept the actions as immoral anyway... " is not something that works in the real world either.

  An example based on my understanding would be this: So lets say your (adult) kid refuses to follow the rules of your house, and in doing so, is going to destroy your house. (and without any repentance even after confronted) Do you tell them - "out you go... I'll still be here, but you have to live on your own and make your own way now. Its going to be harder for you, but that's what you've chosen by your actions." Or do you allow them to destroy your own house?

  I would personally try everything in my power to help my child change his/her ways, and I would forgive them. (there is nothing to say that God did not forgive Adam/Eve) But if my house and the members of my household were going to be destroyed by that one child, then the best thing for all would probably be to let that child go out and experience life without me sheltering them in my home.

  that you bring a cat into the analogue demonstrate how immoral God are. God left the cage open, God left the cat out, God knew the bird might not understand it should stay in. WHEN the bird got out, God did not interwene to prevent harm to come to the bird.

  That's why I said that analogy didn't work. The bird can't understand that. Neither can the cat understand that eating the bird is wrong.

  I told johnny not to eat the candy or he would die. When bill lured johnny into eating the candy, i must surely kill little johnny because otherwise i would intervene with his free will"

  Replace candy with poison and you'll see where I'm coming from, and why that doesn't make any sense to me.

  so God will not mingle with satans free will by killing him? God did not mingle with the free-will of all the innocent that has died and are dying because he let them? oh wait, the argument only work in the garden...

  Sorry, don't understand what you're saying here.

  That the part about childbearing is a metaphor-- come on, thats post-hoc!

  I only asked you to consider it, not accept it.

  Tammy
• 

  bohm

  tammy -- given your limited knowledge about the situation, would you then not have forgiven them?

  or would you have let them suffer or die, knowing you are all-powerfull and could trivially prevent it?

  adam and eve did not cause god any pain, or financial damage -- they was tricked and simply disobeyd an instruction. for me that would be the most trivial thing to forgive. i would be mad at myself for even being upset in the first place!.

  Do you not think they begged for mercy and forgiveness as they slowly died on earth? why did god not forgive them then? would you not have?

  Reasoning like "...even though we don't know everything about the situation, we should accept the actions as immoral anyway... " is not something that works in the real world either.

  yes it does, we do that in all moral evaluations! for example, i did not know hitlers exact reasons for exterminating jews -- but i find it highly immoral, because his actions violate basic principles in life. Gods actions, similar, violate other basic principles, in particular he did not forgive a trivial transgression, but rather let billions suffer and die.
• 

  tec

  given your limited knowledge about the situation, would you then not have forgiven them?

  Of course I would... even though as per my illustration with children above, I might send them out on their own to learn what I tried to teach them the easy way. (would you do differently with your own adult children?) But you ask me if I think they begged for mercy and forgiveness... possibly, I don't know. Just as you don't know if God did or won't grant them forgiveness as well.

  I think we're having a miscommunication on consequences here, concerning the death. I do not mean that death was an enforced consequence, but rather a natural consequence - hence the poison example. Eat this and you will die... or... when you know good and evil you will know death. Can't un-know what you now know... and if that knowledge (poison) is present in the world, the best you can do is teach and warn your children to stay away from it.

  But this does not mean that they will not ever be allowed back into the 'garden'. Just... those who belong to Christ first, then the sheep, then whoever has their name written in the book of life, and God may have mercy on whomever he chooses to have mercy upon.

  So I am unable to comment on your hitler example, because it does not compare to what I believe about God and this story.

  Tammy
• 

  myelaine

  dear AGuest...

  you said: "But it doesn't matter: the command is not to forgive "those who are repentant" and you will be forgiven. It is to FORGIVE... period. And you will be forgiven."...

  o.k...I know that repentence isn't a requirement of being forgiven(by us). the writer knows this as well. (I think) his stance is that in order to be forgiven (to salvation) by God, there is a need to repent by turning to Jesus. (otherwise God forgives everyone and there is no need to turn to Jesus or God for that matter because God does what ever Jesus tells Him to do..."Father forgive them")

  there is no telling what the thief on the cross was thinking but he repented by turning to Jesus. first there has to be an acknowledgement that we have sinned before there is the acknowledgement that Jesus is the One who has the power to let judgement "pass over" us. I didn't say nor did the writer say that the thief ran through a long repentance speech like you suggest before he turned to Jesus in faith...a simple thought like, "I am guilty and need..." would be indication of repentence before turning to Jesus in faith, imo.

  again, the people were essentially to turn FROM that which couldn't save TO Jesus who is the Saviour...to repent is to TURN AWAY FROM something. Strongs # 3340 ...in a religious sense sorrow for unbelief and sin and a turning from them to God and the gospel of Christ...

  love michelle
• 

  AGuest

  in order to be forgiven (to salvation) by God, there is a need to repent by turning to Jesus.

  That is inaccurate and, again, the teaching of men (or perhaps your own understanding, again). There is a need to turn to Christ, yes... in order to be a member of the Body of Christ... and thus a co-ruler with for him 1,000 years in his kingdom. And there is NO LIMIT to the number of people who can BE in that Body (although only a few will be, because only a few find the Way IN). However, for those who will be SUBJECTS of that kingdom:

  “... the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world."

  Why do these inherit? My Lord is recorded to have said:

  " For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’"

  Of course, that raises the questions, doesn't it:

  “‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? W hen did we ever see you sick or in prison and care for or visit you?’ "

  Which my Lord wonderfully answered:

  “... the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters,you were doing it to me!’

  And who would be the LEAST of his brothers and sisters? Even a Pharisaical Jew. The LEAST... of "these." Which, at the time, was the Jews. But not ONCE did he say that they would inherit because they were repentant. Indeed, some of these will not have even known him before he calls them "sheep." He becomes their "Lord"... when they realize they are about to receive a blessing FROM him.

  Thus, they are like Rahab, the prostitute in Jericho, who saved her entire household. Of what did she "repent"? Nothing. She saved her entire household not because she repented of being a prostitute but because she had FAITH in the God of the Israelitesanddemonstrated that FAITH by hiding His servants in her house. And although her family was initially camped outside of Israel (because they had to be circumcised, etc., before being allowed in), they apparently joined the nation of Israel at some point and then followed/worshipped the Most Holy One of Israel. THAT would be the "turning"... and it makes sense that she would be repentant THEN. Just in order to be a part of Israel. But that was AFTER she received a blessing... and was saved... for her FAITH.

  otherwise God forgives everyone

  Again, inaccurate. It is not upon God to forgive everyone; it is upon US... because that is what His Son said WE should do. And we are to listen... to HIM. You can't "turn" TO him, as you're indicating... and not listen to him. However, he said that vengeance... belongs to God. So, God does not HAVE to forgive; He is WELL within His right... when He doesn't. We, however, DO. Why? Because (1) the One to whom God gave all authority said we should, and (2) we want to be forgiven. Since "we" (Israel) simply couldn't grasp what that looked like... forgiving even our enemies, even the unrepentant... He sent His Son. And that Son showed us what WE are to do. He not only forgave those who impaled him... and those who caused it... but asked the Father to forgive them as well.

  And so, they WILL be... because HE released them. Even though not a one of them was repentant at the time... or repented before such forgiveness was granted. And most didn't after, either.

  We cannot be like God and NOT forgive; that right belongs to Him ONLY. We MUST be like His SON... who forgave even his unrepentant enemies.

  there is no need to turn to Jesus or God for that matter because God does what ever Jesus tells Him to do..."Father forgive them"

  The Father absolutely DOES do whatever my Lord asks Him to... especially forgiving whomever my Lord asks Him to:

  If you forgive anyone’s sins, they areforgiven. If you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

  Surely, we don't have more power than Christ, the One to whom ALL authority... even to request forgiveness for unrepentant people... has been given?? Surely, if WE can ask ANYTHING... and it be granted US... surely HE can ask and recieve WHATEVER he asks for from the Father?

  But in saying that one must turn to Christ or God to be forgiven is misleading. One can so "TURN"... simply by forgiving... even an enemy:

  "I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? Even the people of the nations do that."

  If you forgive only those who are "repentant"... how really are you different from the "people of the nations"... those who do not know God? My Lord then stated:

  "But youare to be perfect...even as your Father in heaven is perfect."

  If God then gives sunlight to both good AND bad people... and rain upon the just AND the unjust... how it is that we can pick and choose between whom we should forgive? We should forgive ALL. Unfortunately, we're not always ABLE to do so. Which is a sin. And for that... there is the blood of Christ.

  You're missing the entire point, Michelle. And it is because you don't WANT to forgive some. And so this author's thinking... which obviously comports with yours... provides a very convenient way to get around it while still holding a "good" conscience: we only have to forgive those who are repentant. That is melarkey. I wasn't repentant when I found Christ... or, rather, when he found me. Heck, I didn't even know half of what I should have been repentant about. He is the One who showed me... and still shows me.

  I can BE shown, however, because I hear him. I hear him because I found... and was found... BY him. I was found because of my faith. Which led... to my repentance.

  Get this, and you just might start working YOUR way back... to true faith... and repentance.

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  AGuest

  Greetings, dear Bohm, and peace to you! I tried to stay out of the discussion between you and dear tec (the greatest of love and peace to you, dear one!) and just continue with Michelle to the extent my Lord permitted me. You two seemed to be doing just fine. But you made a statement in one of your comments that I am directed by my Lord to respond to (but only that, so no worries...), if you will permit me - thank you!

  You stated:

  God had a similar choice: He could -at no cost to himself- keep adam and eve alive, or he could let them die.

  That's not entirely accurate. There were others involved. In order to save Adham and Eve at that time... or even within a short period... another would have had to die. Because Adham made a CHOICE: he chose Death to give his life to. And Death was not just going to release Adham for nothing. Eve was deceived into giving her life, so the matter wasn't actually complete with regard to her. Adham could have saved her by offering his own perfect life (because he had not yet chosen to give HIS life). But he didn't offer his life for hers; he went further and GAVE his life to Death, as well. There was no one yet living who could pay the ransom price called for by Death: no one existed in the flesh at the time except Adham and Eve; and even if someone came later (which occurred), they would have to give Death the exact value of what Adham gave: a lifeforce that did not have sin... and death... IN it (because Adham's lifeforce did not have, at the time he gave it - it was the giving of that lifeforce that opened the way for sin and death to enter into your world). So, there was nothing and no one who could pay for the error and redeem Adham... which is what Death demanded... at that time.

  But changing what occurred with Adham/Eve had to wait... until someone came who COULD pay the price exacted by Death (and NOT God). Unfortunately, it took a long time. A few men proved that if they weren't fleshly they WOULD have done it: Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses... All of these showed their faith and willingness to "sacrifice" either themselves, their own children, whatever it would take. Unfortunately, however, they could not "satisfy" Death... because THEIR lifeblood... the blood that they inherited from Adham... via his long garment of skin... wouldn't suffice. It has to be GOD's blood... holy spirit.

  And then my Lord came... in the manner of Adham: a body from the earth, with a spirit lifeforce... from God. And the blood... of both. And exact match. And Death sought him. But Death didn't want his body... the vessel of flesh that he received from Mary, a child of Adham. Death wanted his spirit... his lifeforce... which he received from the Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies. But... Death couldn't TAKE it: just as with Adham... it had to be GIVEN.

  Unlike Adham... my Lord refused to give it. He gave his fleshly body, yes... but not his spirit lifeforce. Not is RIGHT... to eternal life. Although Death's chief agent, Belial... the one called "Satan" and "Devil" tried... he could not get my Lord to just give up that lifeforce. Unlike Adham. And that agent pulled out all the stops... until finally he had my Lord impaled... because he just KNEW my Lord would "curse God"... and so DIE. Because, after all, he had seen man and what man would do when the "hedge" was removed: skin in behalf of skin and ALL a man has... he WILL give... on behalf of his life. Even... his kingdom. Even the kingdom of God.

  But he was wrong. My Lord did not repeat Adham's sin.

  And what is the result? That perhaps Adham and Eve WILL live... even forever. The Most Holy One of Israel is merciful... and shows mercy to whomever HE wishes to show it. There will be a resurrection... of the righteous... AND the unrighteous. Which means everyone (excluding some, who are beyond the scope of this post)... including Adham and Eve. Who are we to say that the blood of Christ won't cover THEIR error? Who are we to say that they WON'T live forever? We can't say either.

  I, SA, share this with you just as I received it from the Holy One of Israel and Holy Spirit, my Lord, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH, who is the Son and Christ of the Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies.

  I hope this helps and, again, I bid you peace!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  bohm

  tec -- but then it seem we are coming to some agreement. We would not do as God.

  even though as per my illustration with children above, I might send them out on their own to learn what I tried to teach them the easy way.

  What they did was not to any burden of God (who is all-powerfull, no house was being ruined he could no rebuild by snapping his fingers), and your example is more accurate if you had vital life-supporting medicine your children needed or they would die, and you desided that after you had chased them out of the house you would not send them the life-supporting medicine by mail: only a terrible human would do such a thing and there is no way to justify that without changing the underlying story.

  you can argue (again) the illustration fail, but then lets return to the biblical story: God did not forgive what we would have forgived trivially. He got angry, chased them off to their death, and inflicted suffering on them he could trivially have prevented while he slowly watched them die over 700 years. Thats a hell of an anger management issue right there!

  To make Gods actions just, one must somehow accept Adam and Eve wanted themselves and their descendants to die like that.

  But you ask me if I think they begged for mercy and forgiveness... possibly, I don't know.

  you dont think they did? really? 700 years of slowly dying, knowing your children would die to, and their children, and so on? not even after Kain killed Abel? ... if i was God, i would have BEGGED them to come to their sences! as would you, were it your children, and it is simply impossible for me to accept they would not have accepted such an offer were it given to them.

  Just as you don't know if God did or won't grant them forgiveness as well.

  well, i believe the bible is quite clear on the matter, they suffered and died.

  there is no need for mercy, there is no need for killing and torturing poor jesus, there is just the most trivial transgression which God could have forgiven in an instant; if their transgression somehow altered the brain chemistry of humankind, the "poison" you talk about, God is a fool for allowing such a dangerous thing to be around, God is a fool for allowing the devil to walk around. And at any rate, God will somehow remove the poison, why did he not forgive them in that instant - as we would have - and remove the poison? at least offer it? why not offer it to adam and eves children?