Comments

Forgiveness: what did Jesus mean? — 94 Comments

1. Some things can be forgiven, other things are unforgivable. Each of us decides which is which. Only those doomed for extinction believe all can be forgiven under this sun.

2. I’ve always liked the statement of Eric Butterworth: “We forgive people not because they deserve it, but because we do.”

3. I’ve discussed this a few times on mine and other blogs.
   There is a thought that all sin is a sin against God foremost.
   Therefore, Jesus would ask the Father to forgive them.

   It’s my opinion that forgiveness must be offered, but reservedly.
   Love is unconditional, forgiveness is not.
   If God forgave everyone unconditionally, without repentance, one would have to believe in universal salvation.
   Everyone gets in. Hitler too.
   What kind of heaven would that be?

4. The Jesus who talks forgiveness also threw out the money changers in the Temple. And He was angry at them.

   Jesus said he did not come to do away with the Old Testament, but to fulfill it. Read Ecclesiastics 3:8

   To everything there is a season:
   A time to love and a time to hate: A time for war and a time for peace.

5. We might start by asking what “forgive” means in English, and whether any context is implied.

   Suppose you Catholics went to a priest, and said,

   I would like to be forgiven my sins. I want you to pardon me for my offense, remit any liability on my part for punishment either temporal or other; and, take things back between me and that God-fella to where they were before I did what I did.

   The priest asks: Are you sorry for having done what you did, are you willing to perform penance, and have you repented, that is to say, turned away psychologically from your sinful acts?

   And you reply: No, and no, and most certainly not.

   And he says, OK.

   In the name of …. I forgive you.

   Go, and sin some more.

6. Bilwick:

   The position of Judaism on that is that forgiving someone who has not “deserved” it can lead to the following problem [emphasis mine]:

   When one sins against another, one incurs an obligation to right the wrong one has committed. This is a debt toward the offended party borne by the offender. The more serious the wrong, the more serious the obligation to set it straight. In rabbinic thought, only the offending party can set the wrong aright and only the offended party can forgo the debt of the sin. This means that, if I offend someone, it is my responsibility to do whatever it takes to set matters aright and, conversely, if someone has offended me, it is my responsibility to allow the offender to do teshuva, that is, to correct the wrong done to me. Teshuva is part of the structure of God’s creation; hence, the sinner is obligated to do teshuva and the offended person is obligated to permit teshuva by the offender…

   Mechila is, thus, an expectation of the offended person but only if the sinner is actually repentant. For example, a woman who has been battered by her husband, or abused by her father, is not obliged to grant such a person mechila unless he has, first, desisted from all abusive activity; second, reformed his character through analysis of sin, remorse, restitution, and confession; and third, actually asked for forgiveness several times. Only then, after ascertaining that he is sincere in his repentance, would a woman in such a situation be morally bound, though not legally obligated, to offer the offender mechila.

   The principle that mechila ought to be granted only if deserved is the great Jewish “No” to easy forgiveness. It is core to the Jewish view of forgiveness, just as desisting from sin is core to the Jewish view of repentance. Without good grounds, the offended person should not forgo the indebtedness of the sinner; otherwise, the sinner may never truly repent and evil will be perpetuated. And, conversely, if there are good grounds to waive the debt or relinquish the claim, the offended person is morally bound to do so. This is the great Jewish “Yes” to the possibility of repentance for every sinner.

   Judaism distinguishes human forgiveness from divine forgiveness, although it acknowledges both. The Jewish idea is that human forgiveness is between humans, and has consequences in the real world, and easy forgiveness in the real world can have very bad consequences.

7. I think it critical to realize that forgiveness forgetting, ignoring, not expecting justice, etc.

   I’m not specifically addressing what you’ve written above, but I’ve read a fair amount of Catholic writings (older stuff and anything modern I read is traditional/conserfvative / orthdox), so it’s not the happy-clappy stuff you see now), and it tends to affirm that the other person need not repent for you to forgive. And that meshes with modern psychology and “self-help” writings as well.

   Personally, when there is evil done in the world, I view it as being done by people who are blinded and inspired by the devil.

   The prayer itself is pretty explicit. We petition God to forgive us AS we forgive others. That’s a serious request, and people really should consider what they are asking.

8. DNW,

   We have in Catholicism the notion of imperfect contrition. Ideally, we should be truly sorry for our sins (perfect contrition). However, that’s not always possible. So the Sacrament of Confession allows the priest to give absolution for imperfect contrition.

   Now, that leads everyone to say that we really don’t need to be sorry and it’s a get out of jail free card. Let me share something personal to illustrate it more accurately.

   My sibling is pagan/atheist and somewhat of an immature person with poor judgment. Sibling had children, and I love them more than my life itself.

   Lay people (atheists even) can baptize people on an emergency basis. I thought, and thought, and thought about the risk of the children perishing without baptism. So one day, I baptized them.

   I’ve told no one. Sibling would probably roll their eyes.

   Is this a sin? I don’t really know. If I was told it was, and I were to confess it, I would be sorry for breaking God’s guidelines thereby sinning against Him in my action. But would I truly be sorry for the action? No. That is an example of imperfect contrition. In my deepest heart, I cannot see it as a sin. How can I be sorry for possibly saving someone from damnation if they were to perish before the age of reason?

9. IMO the problem with discussions of forgiveness is that they, almost always, blend the idea of forgiveness with (lack of) punishment. They do this oftentimes implicitly, yet forgiveness and punishment are two decidedly different things. “If he repents forgive him” says nothing about deserving punishment.

   Take for example the recent tragedy in South Carolina. That the survivors and relatives of the slain voiced their forgiveness of Dylan Roof is admirable. They publicly announce that they bear him no ill will nor hold anger against him. Does that mean that Roof shouldn’t be punished for the gratuitous taking of human lives? Many would mistakenly (IMO) say that is precisely what forgiveness implies. Without punishment, all forgiveness does is enable unrestrained wickedness. It is like being a pacifist; a luxury that can not be entertained without someone to protect the pacifist.

   Rather, I offer that forgiveness is about abating internal anger and (thereby) our lust for vengeance. It allows one to move on with one’s life without dragging tedious emotional baggage that contributes nothing to our own self. A classic scene is in A Bronx Tale where Sonny, the gangster, is with “C.” “C” runs into a kid that owes him twenty bucks and yells after him “where’s my money?” The kid makes some lame excuse and hustles off. Sonny tells “C” to forget about the twenty bucks. He says you never gonna see it and now you know what kind of person he is. He points out it cost twenty bucks to be rid of this jerk for the rest of your life.

   As for the punishment, which is not proscribed, (don’t forget that even the Almighty punished Adam & Eve, Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot’s wife, the Israelites’ 40 years in the desert, etc.) the biblical exhortation is for “an eye for an eye.” While we oftentimes see this as calling for rigorous punishment, the other side of that statement is quite humanitarian. In other words, let the punishment fit the crime; don’t overdo it. A death sentence for stealing a loaf of bread does not satisfy that dictum; neither does throwing a gay man off of a building to his death, or crucifying man for his beliefs, something the left is wont to do on an internet cross.

10. And to the point of taking away liability, we may be forgiven, but the penitential debt remains. We do penance here and now, or in the next life (purgatory).

    DNW – in your example, the priest would not give absolution. Some form of contrition is required. And we should NOT want to do the sinful thing again.

    One can lie to others and even oneself, but not to God.

11. JuliB: A good point!

    If we ask God to treat us as we treat others, then, to paraphrase Mencken, we’re basically asking to get our karma and get it good and hard. Powerful stuff.

12. My $.02:

    There are two components to forgiveness. In fact, there should be distinct words, but I suppose that the ideal is that the two ultimately be merged.

    The first part is what I will call a mental-emotional component. It refers to a wilful change of *attitude* towards the offender and a mastery of one’s own emotional response. The instinct would guide one towards hatred, resentment, or at least some lingering ill-will; forgiveness here means fighting this instinct and growing into a different mental and emotional state where one is capable of genuine good will towards the offender. (On a side note: this is also where “loving your enemies” kicks in. It does not mean that one is a bad Christian if one fails to indulge in warm effusions towards people who have wronged him, but he should overcome ill will as his mental framework.) So, forgiving 1.0 clears up the offended, not the offender. The offended refuses to indulge in the negative emotional reaction and in the vindictive frame.

    The second part is more complicated and has more to do with the offender than with the offended. Forgiveness 2.0 is a sort of post factum “clean slate”: the offended not only cleans up *himself* in *his* response to the situation, but he cleans up the offender. He still remembers being wronged – it is not synonymous with forgetting – but it no longer has *practical* impact. In *practice* it is as if no offense has been committed. In order for the forgiveness 2.0 to take place, *because* it clears up the slate for the offender, some sort of active good will to mend things on his part must be demonstrated. I believe that we can *elect* to “fogive 2.0” regardless of whether that happens, especially if a lot of time has passed or if minor things are concerned, but for big things it is psychologically counter-intuitive. Thus the need for the other party to repent, to wish to mend things.

    I also believe that forgiveness 2.0 is, at the end of the day, up to one’s discretion. Forgivenes 1.0 – I wish you no ill – is what I believe mandatory, but forgiveness 2.0 – I let it go entirely as if it has not happened – for very grave offenses may be even impossible.

13. JuliB:

    Actually, the prayer is not so explicit. It’s a translation, remember. And there is disagreement about how to translate it. Some people say that instead of “sins” it means “debts,” for example.

    See this:

    Though Matthew 6:12 uses the term debts, the older English versions of the Lord’s Prayer uses the term trespasses, while ecumenical versions often use the term sins. The latter choice may be due to Luke 11:4, which uses the word sins, while the former may be due to Matthew 6:14 (immediately after the text of the prayer), where Jesus speaks of trespasses. As early as the third century, Origen of Alexandria used the word trespasses (παραπτώματα) in the prayer. Though the Latin form that was traditionally used in Western Europe has debita (debts), most English-speaking Christians (except Scottish Presbyterians and some others of the Reformed tradition), use trespasses. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Established Presbyterian Church of Scotland as well as the Congregational denomination follow the version found in Matthew 6 in the Authorized Version (known also as the King James Version), which in the prayer uses the words “debts” and “debtors”.

    All these versions are based on the text in Matthew, rather than Luke, of the prayer given by Jesus…

14. My view is that forgiveness means to give up resentment. It does not mean forget or go back for more. It is also not necessarily a one time decision. Who does it hurt to hold resentment? Forgiveness is for the person who has been wronged not for the wrongdoer.

15. I would also offer for our consideration:

    The quality of mercy is not strain’d,
    It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
    Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
    It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
    ‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
    The throned monarch better than his crown;
    His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
    The attribute to awe and majesty,
    Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
    But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
    It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
    It is an attribute to God himself;
    And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
    When mercy seasons justice. . . .

16. Remember though that forgiveness isn’t something we should do just so that G-d will forgive us. That’s not forgiveness at all. It’s a tactic.

    The notion of forgiving others only makes sense if it comes from loving others. Again, not as means for a better plea-bargain, but genuinely. St. Catherine of Siena (second reference this week!) said that we cannot love G-d ridiculously, because there is no amount of love for G-d that is too much. But we can love our neighbor ridiculously, and that is what G-d calls us to do, because it’s what He does. He died for us while we were still sinners; he pled for forgiveness for us while hanging on the cross. That kind of love goes beyond justice – and we have to be careful that we don’t go beyond justice into injustice, which is I think Neo’s point. But we have to be absurd in our love.

17. I think the trouble I have with the immediate forgiveness of the people who spit on him is that there is a missing component to this exchange: the acknowledgement by the spitters that they have misbehaved and their repentance.

    Not saying there are never situations in which you can forgive without this component. For example, you might forgive a small child for saying something honest that is also unintentionally mean. However, as a habit, immediately forgiving people such as these spitters while completely glossing over acknowledging the offense does nothing to assist them in not committing the sin again. While he was being charitable, he was not helping them become better/reform themselves so that they could (if desired) not repeat the sin in the future.

18. Not just “some scholars” think that the original was in Aramaic, but practically all of them. There is a phrase in New Testament about camel going through a needle eye. This wild comparison make sense only as a translator’s mistake. There is a word in Aramaic, “kanut”, which means a camel, and another word, “kanat”, which means a rope. These two words are written the same in Hebrew letters (all Aramaic texts were written by Hebrew letters without vowels, their pronunciation was supposed to follow from context). This Greek translator erroneously mistook “camel” instead of “rope”. The whole sentence must be read “It is easier to draw a rope trough a needle eye than a rich man to go trough Heaven gates” – it makes much more sense.
    In Roman period all official documentation not only in the Land of Israel, but in the whole Middle East was written in Greek. In Israel seaside resort town Cesaria, built by Herod the Great, I have seen an ancient stone with inscription on it in Greek asserting that the town was erected with permission from the Roman governor of the province, Pontius Pilat.

19. Love and forgiveness (both of the human variety, that is) are not identical. The Hebrew word selikha is more akin to loving the person who wronged you. The word “mekhilah” is the more formal forgiveness.

20. The thing is, Jesus was the supreme idealist bent on perfection and he was asking all of us to be the same, and Father Morris was aiming for that. Matthew 5:38-48:

    38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

    39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

    40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

    41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

    42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

    43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

    44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

    45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

    46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

    47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

    48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

21. I had the same reaction to the black parishioners who so readily, and publicly, forgave the killbot who murdered their elderly friends and relatives in Church so recently. I didn’t want to say so at the time but my first impression was that the quick forgiveness of these cold-blooded and cowardly murders seemed … ostentatious. Or really, really, really great of heart; I’m not a good enough Christian to know the answer. I’ve always assumed that’s for God to sort out. Does “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” apply to gunning down grandmothers and children in Church? OTOH, does it really apply to petty small-minded perpetual victims hawking their resentment phlegm at you from the safety of their marching multitudes? The first example seems like much more than a mere trespass that can be forgiven and the second one seems like much less.

22. Neo said:
    “I realize I’m probably treading on a lot of toes here. Let me reiterate very strongly that I’m not saying I know better than Christians about what Jesus said or thought about forgiveness, or even that I know at all.”

    Since Jesus was a Jew speaking to Jews, Neo, a Jew, has as much right to interpret his sayings as any Christian. The only possible drawback is that modern Judaism has changed considerably since the second temple era which will decrease any advantage a person familiar with modern Judaism has in applying Judaism to their understanding of Jesus. In that regard ancient Christian tradition is probably just as accurate or even more accurate although even then there are sometimes centuries between Jesus and the Church father who passed on the tradition.

    I’m ashamed to say that I used to listen to the Oprah show sometimes before I knew about her inner racism. On one show, Oprah talked about how forgiveness is a step in achieving inner healing even when the other person has not repented. In that context forgiveness has nothing to do with whether the offender needs punishment. This forgiveness is especially appropriate if the offender is too powerful or too distant to punish. Under those circumstances forgiveness provides the ability to free yourself from the other person so that you can live free from their continuing influence and can undergo emotional healing.

23. “Forgive us as we forgive others”.
    Simply, If we repent for You to forgive us, then as others repent, we will forgive them.

24. 1, Thanks for the insights, neo-neocon.

    2. Dennis: I call the forgiveness you describe as “let it go” forgiveness. The offended party is neither forgiving nor forgetting, he or she is just moving on.

25. The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

    “AND FORGIVE US OUR TRESPASSES, AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESPASS AGAINST US”

    2838 This petition is astonishing. If it consisted only of the first phrase, “And forgive us our trespasses,” it might have been included, implicitly, in the first three petitions of the Lord’s Prayer, since Christ’s sacrifice is “that sins may be forgiven.” But, according to the second phrase, our petition will not be heard unless we have first met a strict requirement. Our petition looks to the future, but our response must come first, for the two parts are joined by the single word “as.”

    And forgive us our trespasses . . .

    2839 With bold confidence, we began praying to our Father. In begging him that his name be hallowed, we were in fact asking him that we ourselves might be always made more holy. But though we are clothed with the baptismal garment, we do not cease to sin, to turn away from God. Now, in this new petition, we return to him like the prodigal son and, like the tax collector, recognize that we are sinners before him. Our petition begins with a “confession” of our wretchedness and his mercy. Our hope is firm because, in his Son, “we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” We find the efficacious and undoubted sign of his forgiveness in the sacraments of his Church.

    2840 Now – and this is daunting – this outpouring of mercy cannot penetrate our hearts as long as we have not forgiven those who have trespassed against us. Love, like the Body of Christ, is indivisible; we cannot love the God we cannot see if we do not love the brother or sister we do see. In refusing to forgive our brothers and sisters, our hearts are closed and their hardness makes them impervious to the Father’s merciful love; but in confessing our sins, our hearts are opened to his grace.

    2841 This petition is so important that it is the only one to which the Lord returns and which he develops explicitly in the Sermon on the Mount. This crucial requirement of the covenant mystery is impossible for man. But “with God all things are possible.”

    . . . as we forgive those who trespass against us

    2842 This “as” is not unique in Jesus’ teaching: “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”; “Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful”; “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.” It is impossible to keep the Lord’s commandment by imitating the divine model from outside; there has to be a vital participation, coming from the depths of the heart, in the holiness and the mercy and the love of our God. Only the Spirit by whom we live can make “ours” the same mind that was in Christ Jesus. Then the unity of forgiveness becomes possible and we find ourselves “forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave” us.

    2843 Thus the Lord’s words on forgiveness, the love that loves to the end, become a living reality. The parable of the merciless servant, which crowns the Lord’s teaching on ecclesial communion, ends with these words: “So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.” It is there, in fact, “in the depths of the heart,” that everything is bound and loosed. It is not in our power not to feel or to forget an offense; but the heart that offers itself to the Holy Spirit turns injury into compassion and purifies the memory in transforming the hurt into intercession.

    2844 Christian prayer extends to the forgiveness of enemies, transfiguring the disciple by configuring him to his Master. Forgiveness is a high-point of Christian prayer; only hearts attuned to God’s compassion can receive the gift of prayer. Forgiveness also bears witness that, in our world, love is stronger than sin. The martyrs of yesterday and today bear this witness to Jesus. Forgiveness is the fundamental condition of the reconciliation of the children of God with their Father and of men with one another.

    2845 There is no limit or measure to this essentially divine forgiveness, 146 whether one speaks of “sins” as in Luke (11:4), “debts” as in Matthew (6:12). We are always debtors: “Owe no one anything, except to love one another.”

26. Dennis:

    But Judaism distinguishes that sort of “love” and empathy forgiveness (selikhah) from the other kind (mekhilah).

    The first is of the heart; it is internal and intrapersonal rather than interpersonal. The locus of forgiveness is in the forgiver, and nothing is required of the transgressor. It is perfectly okay for a person to give that sort of forgiveness to someone who has wronged him/her, but it is not required.

    That is distinguished from mekhilah, however, which is interpersonal, and is required of the person if and only if the transgressor has fulfilled his/her obligation of repentance. The locus of that sort of forgiveness is in both the forgiver and the forgivee, but the impetus starts with the transgressor.

    The two types of forgiveness can exist together in the forgiver, but they are different from each other and sometimes one is appropriate but not the other.

    It seems to me that the Christian point of view has tended to merge the two types of forgiveness together. The Jewish point of view is that forgiveness of the second kind (mekhilah), a forgiveness which is formal and more complete, and is communicated to the wrongdoer, should be withheld unless the wrongdoer has gone through the steps of repentance, or else the wrongdoer will go on to transgress again.

    Neither types are considered the same as divine forgiveness, either. Although Judaism sees God as a forgiving God, Judaism is also very concerned with justice. In Judaism, human forgiveness of the interpersonal type requires something of the transgressor because Judaism believes this is the best way to get that person to change his/her ways rather than to persist in wrongdoing towards other people:

    The rabbis go even further in the ethical demands made upon the injured party, for not only must he be ready to forgive his injurer, he should also pray that God forgive the sinner before he has come to beg forgiveness (Yad, loc. cit.; Tosef., BK 9:29; Sefer Ḥasidim ed. by R. Margalioth 1957, 267 no. 360). This demand is based on the example of Abraham, who prayed to God to forgive Abimelech (Gen. 20:17). The reasons the injured party should be ready to forgive the injurer are mixed. On the one hand is the self-regarding consideration, already mentioned, that forgiveness to one’s fellow wins forgiveness from Heaven. As Philo states: “If you ask pardon for your sins, do you also forgive those who have trespassed against you? For remission is granted for remission” (ed. by Mangey, 2 (1742), 670; see also Yoma 23a). On the other hand there is the purer motive of imitatio dei. Just as it is in the nature of God to be merciful to His creatures, so man in attempting to imitate the ways of God should be forgiving toward those who have injured him (Shab. 133b; see Lev. 19:2). R. Naḥman combines both motives when he says: “Imitate God by being compassionate and forgiving. He will in turn have compassion on you, and pardon your offenses”

    You can see that this is very similar to what Jesus said when he said “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” This is squarely within the Jewish tradition, which also requires something of the wrongdoer.

27. Lastly, on the Cross Jesus said, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” Notice that he is quoted as asking God (the Father) to forgive them (kapparah, in other words). He does not say that he himself forgives them; I leave it up to you to decide why. I certainly don’t know, but I think it’s an interesting omission in the New Testament.

    John 10:30 “I and the Father are one.” One of the mysteries of the Trinity.

28. I recall Pope John Paul 2nd, when he advised against the death penalty being enacted for capital crimes,
    he was informed that not everyone is on board for that & he wisely pointed out that “forgiveness” is the most difficult act for a fellow human to do.
    So I guess we have to be in a special place & really
    pray so that we can forgive those who trespass (the
    word my Lord’s Prayer uses) against us.
    I guess Christ knew this too, as the author of the prayer.

29. Bumsrush:

    As a non-Christian, the Trinity is completely opaque to my understanding. It is my impression that many Christians are puzzled by it, as well, and consider it a mystery.

    But why then doesn’t Jesus say “I forgive them, because they know not what they do?” If he is also the Father, why does he address the Father as though the Father is something outside himself?

30. @Bumsrush, I guess enduring his agony on the cross it was nearly impossible for the humanity in Jesus to do the forgiving so He prayed to the Father for them.

31. Neo, We believe Jesus has 2 natures, fully human & fully divine.

32. Molly NH:

    But my point was not whether forgiveness is difficult, which it certainly is. It was “Did Jesus mean to be saying, ‘forgive them even if they haven’t shown repentance'”? Doesn’t Christianity usually (or at least often or sometimes) consider repentance necessary for forgiveness? Or are all sinners automatically forgiven the minute they sin, without any repentance at all? Because it seems to me that Christians often seem to think that they are required to automatically forgive without seeing any repentance from those who’ve wronged them.

33. Neo i appreciate your confusion !
    As I recall (from the dear nuns who gave us reams of religious education, oy vey !) they would say that
    Jesus’ Passion & crucifixion (esp the crucifixion) was a dire sin to the Father, so Jesus prays on the perpetrators behalf *that the father forgive them*
    since they are not even aware of the grievous act they have committed.

34. Just to add to the confusion, it seems it’s possible Jesus didn’t say those words on the cross because some of the earliest Greek manuscripts don’t contain those words. See discussion here.

35. Thanks! My working theory, as a Messianic gentile, is to where possible *start* my theology from the Jewish perspective. I have most often found that Jewish insights into Christian theology enhance the theology.

    :WM

36. JuliB Says:
    June 30th, 2015 at 4:00 pm

    DNW,

    We have in Catholicism the notion of imperfect contrition. Ideally, we should be truly sorry for our sins (perfect contrition). However, that’s not always possible. So the Sacrament of Confession allows the priest to give absolution for imperfect contrition. “

    My knowledge of, interest in, and sympathy for, touchy-feelie Catholicism, is approximately very little, none, and less than none.

    I do however have a copy of the Baltimore Catechism that was provided to my father as he undertook instruction prior to a mixed marriage.

    It defines, I believe, imperfect contrition as contrition rightly motivated by fear of punishment, but lacking proper sorrow per se, over having offended God.

    Now, whether that understanding of imperfect contrition matches what is left unstated in your rendering, I cannot say.

    But as I understand it, with imperfect contrition there is at least some genuine, if not ideal, contrition: an intellectual admission of wrongdoing, an outright expression of regret, accompanied by the promise or act of repentance.

    The trend of this discussion reminds me of that entertaining and noteworthy, but highly irritating pseudo-western message movie, “Hombre”.

    Newman/Hombre’s listening to Diane Cilento’s masochist/humanist yammering ends with Newman dead; for no real purpose at all, given the nihilist worldview premise.

    Hombre ends his life in the dust, a sacrifice for clearly undeserving, self-centered but as it turns out, needy others. He lies there, arms out-stretched in a very obvious, and intentional visual parallel to the Christ figure.

    Apparently it’s a very satisfying conclusion for director Martin Ritt, or Elmore Leonard, or whoever it was that liked to see the good die without purpose for the unrepentant worthless.

    The kid is too cowardly to take the shot. Mrs. Favor is not worth saving anyway (the boy should have shot through her if he had to), and Hombre ultimately dies for a bunch of sniveling grazers and opportunists, who are transformed not at all by his sacrifice.

    Of course Hombre could have sent the boy down with the saddle bags full of rocks, and used the Winchester on Grimes himself – if the author had not wished to force the conclusion he wanted.

    Again, for the third time: what moral obligation has one to defend people who refuse to defend themselves?

    “Ann Says:
    June 30th, 2015 at 5:41 pm

    The thing is, Jesus was the supreme idealist bent on perfection and he was asking all of us to be the same …”

    If that is all Jesus is, you would do just as well in erecting shrines to Beowulf.

37. I’m not so sure that the Jewish interpretation of forgiveness Neo describes is much different from Christian forgiveness. What may be different from modern Judaism is the following saying of Jesus:
    
    Matthew 5:43-48New International Version (NIV)

    Many of the sayings of Jesus describe skills which are necessary to lubricate human interactions when groups of unrelated people interact on a daily basis. This particular saying describes a fundamental principle of Western Civilization which is under direct assault by the left who envision groups of people fighting against each other in eternal conflict between the oppressed and the oppressors.

38. Neo, to complicate things further there are NT passages (Matthew I think) where we are told we will be held to account for *idle* words & deeds,
    also, if we know we should do something & neglect to do it ! The nuns would put this down to God being
    Perfect & not merely somewhat Perfect, but 100%
    Perfect. So *nothing* will slip through the cracks, so to speak.

39. I’m not sure how I lost the quote above. Here it is

    Matthew 5:43-48New International Version (NIV)

    Love for Enemies
    43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

40. Neo, re your question “are all sinners forgiven the minute they commit a sin”, well Christians who want to personally forgive someone who has wronged them can do it *anytime* they want.
    Whereas the *sin*I commit that affronts God has to be
    acknowledged to God with repentance & request that
    God forgive me .

41. Here’s a Protestant minister discussing forgiveness and reconciliation, which involves repentance, and distinguishes between them:

    ..forgiveness is giving over to God the wrong done to you … forgiveness is not the same as reconciliation, though it is almost always part of reconciliation. Forgiving someone is giving the offense and hurt to God. You can do this no matter what the offending party does. Reconciliation, on the contrary, requires that the other person own the wrong and repent of it. Reconciliation, therefore, is dependent on the other person. Forgiveness is not.

42. At the risk of further displaying my ignorance, with semantics aside, Jesus prayed to God to forgive the people who had beaten, tortured, humiliated, and nailed him to a cross. I don’t know if he meant something else than our general understanding of forgiveness. I guess it’s possible, but I wouldn’t have a clue.
    I’m also not sure if history would remember him the same if he had followed up with something along the lines of “disciples, go exact revenge for my wrongful death” or “see the face of evil and what it has done, etc”
    At least to me, if the story is true – that he in fact prayed for his murderers to be forgiven, it was an act of immese courage and what makes his message and life remarkable. Jesus accomplished more as a martyr and dying true to what he preached, than he ever could have by inciting resistance and violence. Forgiveness goes against every instinct – humans aren’t wired that way- you have to will yourself to be forgiving when you have been hurt, or people you know have been harmed.
    I may have the whole message wrong, but that’s how I interpret Jesus’s life and what he said. And again, I’m no theologian, and quit being a Catholic 20 years ago. And I don’t have the ability or the belief that forgiveness is always the right path. But he did change history, and forgiving others was a big part of what he taught.

43. Hi Neo…since we believe that Jesus was God(the Son of God, and the 2nd person of the Trinity), he would have forgiven his executioners too. God could not be in disagreement with Himself.

    With regards to forgiving in general, it’s my understanding that God forgives a repentant sinner. If a person is not in a state of repentance, and plans on continuing in the sin, the forgiveness would be a waste. One exception would be the case that Jesus references on the cross, where he asks his Father to forgive, because “they know not what they do”. This is the case with so many people today, as so many Are living in a state of sin and totally unaware of it.

44. As a non-Christian, the Trinity is completely opaque to my understanding. It is my impression that many Christians are puzzled by it, as well, and consider it a mystery.

    You’re not alone in that, Neo, and you’re quite right that many Christians find it very puzzling. It was sort of unpuzzled for me by something C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity:

    All sorts of people are fond of repeating the Christian statement that ‘God is love’. But they seem not to notice that the words ‘God is love’ have no real meaning unless God contains at least two Persons. Love is something that one person has for another person. If God was a single person, then before the world was made, He was not love. Of course, what these people mean when they say that God is love is often something quite different: they really mean ‘Love is God’. They really mean that our feelings of love, however and wherever they arise, and whatever results they produce, are to be treated with great respect. Perhaps they are: but that is something quite different from what Christians mean by the statement ‘God is love’. They believe that the living, dynamic activity of love has been going on in God forever and has created everything else.

    And that, by the way, is perhaps the most important difference between Christianity and all other religions: that in Christianity God is not a static thing–not even a person–but a dynamic, pulsating activity, a life, almost a kind of drama. Almost, if you will not think me irreverent, a kind of dance.

45. But why then doesn’t Jesus say “I forgive them, because they know not what they do?” If he is also the Father, why does he address the Father as though the Father is something outside himself?

    It seems to me Jesus always deferred to the Father. Would it not have been presumptuous for Jesus to in a sense usurp the Fathers prerogative to forgive in this case? I can’t imagine Jesus not forgiving them while at the same time asking his father to forgive them.

46. Trinity is a concept that describes a superposition of entities comprising a whole. Consider an analogous concept: human reproduction, where the mother, father, and child are independent but connected entities.

    That said, God is more than a Trinity. God also created Satan, angels, demons, humans, etc. from himself. Judging from his creations, God is imperfect, but striving. So, God created us with a freewill (i.e. elevated degrees of freedom and capacity for causality) for the purpose of determining the functional character of God’s spirit and filtering the dysfunctional streams. It follows that God is neither omniscient nor omnipotent in a universal frame (not Universe), but possesses a superior sense of functional or goodness. Perhaps a perfect sense of functional or goodness, notwithstanding his potential for dysfunction or evil.

47. Would it help to know that the origin of the word has two roots in completely give and for marriage? that the core of sin is the betrayal of love?

    I guess it depends on whether your grounded in reality being real, or reality not being real… think on it.. ultimately to the christian sense, reality is not real, and the afterlife with god in his presence is the real life… in a sense, your soul is marred or given back to that which it came from… (same as in other religions like Buddhism where you go back to infinity).

    the question of understanding comes from the degree in belief in god. if you really really believe, then its kind of easy that you would not want to be seen poorly in the eyes of the infinite you wish to be with forever. especially when the thing that is poking you to act is not even real, or rather, is a person who believes reality to be so real, he does not see god, does not care or believe that god sees him, and does not think of how he would be seen by something he calls the big spegetti monster in the sky (or other monikers).

    in fact, given that the action in question in the prior thread was a gay man spitting, its been my experience that usually they are angry at religion and god for wanting to be catered to and not catering to them!! and even worse, they have to drum up a huge amount of anger over some set of rules they think of when they think at all about it, and kind of get it all wrong, and get angry as the actual thing is the same as you not wanting to be seen by the one you love in a bad light.

    this is how you reconcile the Jesus on the cross.. talking to god he is acknowledging that the people acting out are acting out of a sense that their condition is real and they do not see that its not and that gods place is the real place, and the world or reality is transitory… that no one gets out alive or takes anything with them, except their reputation of how they acted.

    to the christians of the baptist church where the shooting goes on, is the idea that people go to heaven. no matter what horror you visit on them, you cant damage their soul, and they go before god. whether they go at 90 in bed or 19 in a car is of little consequence to someone who actually believes that you dont really die, but just move on.

    if you really believe that, then someone killing someone is bad, but the person killed is with god, so its a wash. to be angry at them is to be angry at people in a dinner play who forgot they were in a dinner play.

    those that dont get it will all have their explanations grounded in some moral or ethical theory that ignores the nature of what is being described. reality is a transitory place your born into that has all kind of ills and tests, and so on in it, and that we navigate this unreal space until we are chosen to leave and return to whence we came…

    think to the movie the matrix. the people in the matrix do not know they are in a matrix.. or even if they did, they would only know by faith, not knowlege, and there would be no way out. their actions are dictated by the belief that what they are living is real, and that there is nothing else outside, or beyond it.

    to have the matrix fit christian religion, the reality would give way to biblical heaven (not secular ideas of heaven), and not another reality (which might be in another reality… how many times can that regression go?)

    maybe all it is, is that your a 15 year old someone, and what your living through is a lifetime game in a hotel game room, and when you die, the game ends, and you wake up, and want another quarter from dad so that you can play the other lifetime games – live a lifetime in an instant says the VR machines side.

    🙂

48. n.n

    what your saying in your prior post reminds me of the idea that the answer is really that we are gods children… and children of god, grow up to be gods… and if your the source of that, you would not want to let the cruel gods, the bad gods, the evil ones, grow up. one must winnow them out of the mix, or eternity would not be even bearable..

    one can have a lot of fun with the concepts, especially if one knows them in more detail than the average person who does not know there has been several covenants with man…

49. God also created … from himself

    Perhaps not. It is recorded that God “breathed into his nostrils the spirit of life”. With this, it can no longer be concluded that God is imperfect, but rather that the “spirit of life” has an indeterminate nature, uncontrolled by God, which may yield imperfect or dysfunctional souls.

50. Paul R:

    But if God forgives a repentant sinner, why would people forgive unrepentant sinners and say they were doing it to be more like God?

51. To my knowledge and in my understanding, you are far more correct in your assessment than almost all so-called Christians. I think the fault is that those who sin, wish to be forgiven without having, or needing to ask, so they don’t mind giving it in such a manner. Few, if any, modern Christians churches teach the truths anymore. Then again, the church as the body of Christ has never been very strong or well. Most likely the only grace that has saved her so far.

    In the face of evil, best to be the beggar widow, I suppose, than the powerful, bold, and proud? Just a light by which others can, often from afar, take a mark and by that develop a heading in a very dark place? Still… even that seems to be… weakening. It has to happen from time to time, and will not end well as the worldly gauge things anyway. We know this. So… *wink*

    You done well in your assessment. You get and A for the day, and an apple should you not live so far away. Or maybe some of my precious kefir. Oh, you ought to try making that stuff if you don’t. Even reasonable for those with lactose intolerance. If you like yogurt, you might like that.

52. The Protestants and the Catholics (I don’t know about the various Orthodox branches) have traditionally differed on the point of what it takes to be forgiven by God for sin: the debate has raged for centuries over whether faith or good works are the most crucial in justifying the believer in God’s eyes. Jesus tells parables on both sides of this divide. Protestants of the Puritan/Calvinist tradition are very strong on doing good works and repenting in sackcloth and ashes. Some early Christians (one of the various heresies, per the majority; can’t keep it straight) actually said we should sin MORE so that God’s forgiveness might be more abounding….

    IOW, you’re not the only one who finds this confusing. Oh, as far as the Trinity goes, Freeman Dyson the theoretical physicist (Anglican) said his father used to refer drily to the “Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible.”

    The nature of the Trinity has also been the subject of fierce debate over the centuries. Jesus, in Matthew, says he himself isn’t perfect; only “the One who sent me.” But he also says “I and the Father are one.” If you suppose an incarnate God, that Incarnation would necessarily have limitations (located in a physical space), and would be God having a Human experience.

    The Holy Spirit is the Comforter who was sent at Pentecost to be with and guide the apostles when Jesus returned to the Father.

53. Re the Trinity: here is the Nicene Creed (agreed to at the Council of Nicea, A.D. 325).

    I BELIEVE in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible:
    And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God; Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God; Begotten, not made; Being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, And was made man: And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried: And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures: And ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of the Father: And he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end.
    And I believe in the Holy Ghost, The Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spake by the Prophets: And I believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church: I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins: And I look for the Resurrection of the dead: And the Life of the world to come. Amen.

54. AND here is the General Confession (Episcopal Church, 1928 Book of Common Prayer — before it was watered down by the 1960s revision committee!). This also is a statement of what the Anglicans believe about repentance and forgiveness, to give some Protestant input. (This is mostly the historic Thomas Cranmer translation of the Latin Mass, BTW):

    YE who do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbours, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways; Draw near with faith, and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort; and make your humble confession to Almighty God, devoutly kneeling.

    ¶ Then shall this General Confession be made, by the Priest and all those who are minded to receive the Holy Communion, humbly kneeling.

    ALMIGHTY God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Maker of all things, Judge of all men;
    We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness,
    Which we, from time to time, most grievously have committed,
    By thought, word, and deed, Against thy Divine Majesty,
    Provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us.
    We do earnestly repent,
    And are heartily sorry for these our misdoings;
    The remembrance of them is grievous unto us;
    The burden of them is intolerable.

    Have mercy upon us,
    Have mercy upon us, most merciful Father;
    For thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ’s sake,
    Forgive us all that is past;

    And grant that we may ever hereafter
    Serve and please thee
    In newness of life,
    To the honour and glory of thy Name;
    Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

    ¶ Then shall the Priest (the Bishop if he be present) stand up, and turning to the People, say,

    ALMIGHTY God, our heavenly Father, who of his great mercy hath promised forgiveness of sins to all those who with hearty repentance and true faith turn unto him;

    Have mercy upon you; pardon and deliver you from all your sins; confirm and strengthen you in all goodness; and bring you to everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.”

    –Lest you think this too easy, we were taught that if you take Communion without the proper attitude of genuine contrition, you risk damnation: you are supposed to get your mind and heart right first. Likewise, if you take Communion without believing that Jesus is the Savior, you risk damnation.

    Now? they shove the Host into the mouths of unknowing children, who have not learned anything about the true meaning of the Lord’s Supper.

    (Jesus also said if we are lukewarm in our faith, he will “spew” us “out of my mouth.” There’s a lot of granite in His character, along with the great love.)

55. One last thing, on the Anglican point of view about repentance. This is from the Book of Common Prayer (1928 – 1971), where the minister gives the pre-Communion exhortation and warning:

    “DEARLY beloved in the Lord, ye who mind to come to the holy Communion of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, must consider how Saint Paul exhorteth all persons diligently to try and examine themselves, before they presume to eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup.

    For as the benefit is great, if with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive that holy Sacrament; so is the danger great, if we receive the same unworthily.

    Judge therefore yourselves, brethren, that ye be not judged of the Lord; repent you truly for your sins past; have a lively and steadfast faith in Christ our Saviour; amend your lives, and be in perfect charity with all men; so shall ye be meet partakers of those holy mysteries.

    And above all things ye must give most humble and hearty thanks to God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, for the redemption of the world by the death and passion of our Saviour Christ, both God and man; who did humble himself, even to the death upon the Cross, for us, miserable sinners, who lay in darkness and the shadow of death; that he might make us the children of God, and exalt us to everlasting life.

    And to the end that we should always remember the exceeding great love of our Master, and only Saviour, Jesus Christ, thus dying for us, and the innumerable benefits which by his precious blood-shedding he hath obtained for us; he hath instituted and ordained holy mysteries, as pledges of his love, and for a continual remembrance of his death, to our great and endless comfort.

    To him therefore, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, let us give (as we are most bounden) continual thanks; submitting ourselves wholly to his holy will and pleasure, and studying to serve him in true holiness and righteousness all the days of our life. Amen.”

56. Jeepers, I didn’t mean to go on and on! but I found the second “Exhortation” (to be given to the congregation the week before Holy Communion) is right on point about what we must do in order to be forgiven and prepare:

    “The way and means thereto is:

    First, to examine your lives and conversations by the rule of God’s commandments; and whereinsoever ye shall perceive yourselves to have offended, either by will, word, or deed, there to bewail your own sinfulness, and to confess yourselves to Almighty God, with full purpose of amendment of life.

    And if ye shall perceive your offences to be such as are not only against God, but also against your neighbours; then ye shall reconcile yourselves unto them; being ready to make restitution and satisfaction, according to the uttermost of your powers, for all injuries and wrongs done by you to any other; and being likewise ready to forgive others who have offended you, as ye would have forgiveness of your offences at God’s hand: for otherwise the receiving of the holy Communion doth nothing else but increase your condemnation.

    Therefore, if any of you be a blasphemer of God, an hinderer or slanderer of his Word, an adulterer, or be in malice, or envy, or in any other grievous crime; repent you of your sins, or else come not to that holy Table.”

57. Artfldgr:

    I thought the core of sin (e.g. original sin) is a betrayal of faith or trust, which I suppose could be translated to a concept of “love”.

58. Everyone including Neo probably assumes that the jerks who spat on the priest did it out of hatred because of Christianity’s condemnation of homosexuality, and The Church’s current opposition to same sex marriage. Consider another possible reason. Maybe the two were altar boys. That could also explain the priest’s remark that he deserved worse.

    Hey, you opened this up Neo. You want a thorough discussion, or are you going to go on assuming that the priest’s hands are clean because he was assaulted and ipso facto is a victim. It’s not like the Catholic Church hasn’t sullied it’s moral authority beyond redemption by giving refuge to child molesters for decades. And then instead of paying just compensation to ITS victims, it declares bankruptcy. Or in the case of Irish priests and nuns, in Ireland, arranging for the mass burial of bastard children wrenched from their mothers. No wonder the Irish voted by 2/3 for gay marriage. The Catholic Church there has definitely lost its grip and control, and it’s moral authority.

59. The Other Chuck:

    That reason may possibly have a worse implication. It indicates that they do not respect individual dignity, and maintain a class prejudice based not on principle or uniform behavior, but through extrapolation from the exception.

60. For the record, I attended parochial schools operated by the Sisters of Notre Dame who were almost living saints…and was lucky enough to have never been an altar boy.

61. my brother & husband were altar boys & NOTHING ever happened to them !
    The nuns though, all 3 of us got wacked
    a few times over the years from them! lol

62. @the other chuck, seems the exploitation of children boys & girls has been picked up in fine fashion by the public school system all over the USA. There is at least one story per week in the US where an incident occurs, & THAT has been going on for several years
    now, & it s not looking like there is an end in sight
    & it s never addressed how this will stopped !

63. Neo, thanks for this article. My dad, a retired Physicist turned farmer (He raises and sells vegetables for the Farmer’s market in spite of being a heart patient) and Baptist Deacon, has sometimes tried to use an analogy for the Trinity in terms of The Triple Point of Water. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_point

64. I just usually use the Egg as an analogy-white, clear and yolk-while explaining that as an analogy it is incomplete and we will likely not fully understand the Trinity in this life. Since you are looking at original language, look back in the Genesis story and I am told that there is a place where there is implied Plural associated with the Creator.

65. I am curious as to what the Jewish thought is of whom these verses are talking about if the Entity mentioned here both reigns on David’s Throne yet is identified as Deity is? “6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
    7 Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this. Isaiah 9:6-7 (NIV)

66. To me, the Christian command to forgive has everything to do with changing one’s own heart, and basically nothing to do with reconciliation. Reconciliation is often a good thing, and will be facilitated by forgiveness, but it’s only a possible (wonderful) consequence of forgiveness.
    The basis of the command to practice forgiveness goes back to the fundamentals of who we are and what our relationship is to God: that we are his creations and were loved into being; that we are however all so very imperfect, and sinners, and in need of salvation. Yet God loves us ALL with a wild and total love. So, if God loves the men who spit on me JUST AS MUCH as he loves me; if he can see their precious worth, then I have to put aside my judgment of them as “inferior” to me; release the anger and hurt; and let only God judge or punish as he might see fit. You have to also cultivate humility by an ongoing examination of your own imperfections. Otherwise your heart will hear only itself. When you take those hard honest looks at your true self, you really should be all like, “Whoa, I really truly suck a lot of the time! I can hardly bear to think of how many times I have missed the mark, and even done some terrible terrible things.” Ergo, just as I have to admit that I am in constant need of forgiveness, I must be willing to extend that forgiveness to others.

67. Two other points, maybe these have been dealt with:

    1. Just because I forgive a thief doesn’t mean that I’m not going to kindly lock my doors to prevent further temptation.

    2. The government can’t forgive for you. If someone murders your family, the judge can’t forgive the murderer. That would be a lack of justice.

68. jon baker:

    If you do an online search, you can find a number of responses to your question. Some are here, for example.

    More information in the same general vein is here and here.

69. @AMartel: The Amish forgiveness of the 2006 shootings comes to mind as well.

70. @Chuck: My brother and I were alter boys, as were many of my friends through out grade school. I was never touched and I don’t think any of the boys were either. Our parish priest was removed from our because he was stealing from the parish’s funds (drove a Cadillac). Other than that no scandal in my grade school parish nor at the dozen or so parishes that surround near by.

    You state that you were never an alter boy yet you express relief that you weren’t. If anything, I think those who were alter boys and weren’t molested should be relieved. Not you. You have no right; you’re just jumping on the undeserved indignation bandwagon.

    It seems you got an axe to grind – that you blame the Church’s failure to adequately address the molestations and to bar men with strong homosexual leanings away from priesthood making way for Ireland’s vote. All debatable and I’d probably agree with you.

    Anyways, what are the chances that the two guys at the parade who spat on the priest were altar boys and were molested? Not saying it’s not possible but it’s clear you want to seek some sort of penance from the priest.

71. After watching how the media distorts and attacks anything and everyone who stand in the way of the left wing onslaught, I question whether the homosexual priests who had relations with altar boys were any more common than homosexuals in the general population who secretly molest boys. The church was apparently infested with a group of homosexuals who looked out for each other to keep from being properly dealt with and who were good at pretending to repent and to change their ways. That is not good, but now that the Boy Scouts have been forced to keep known homosexuals as counselors, how long will it be before the same thing is happening in the Boy Scouts on a massive scale? We might not hear about the abuses since the Boy Scouts with their homosexual counselors will be part of the left but the abuses will undoubtedly happen anyway.

    The media is clearly not searching for truth. Right now the left wants to take over police departments so they have manufactured the meme that the US is over run by racist community white cops who are killing innocent black men for no reason other than that they are black. When the media can not find any events that fit their meme they lie and distort instances in which blacks have been injured or shot in order to make it appear that the cops are murdering racists. Now the left is set to destroy Southern culture. Even though Dylann Roof, the follow who shot up the black church, was a drug user and former convict who had no obvious ties to any racist organization the media is manufacturing the meme that he committed the crime because of racist Southern culture and that Southern culture must be destroyed.

72. In Judaism being able to ask one’s forgiveness is required for repairing (Teshuva).
    In the Bible story when Cain kills Abel G-d said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood(s) cries out to Me from the ground!” (Gen. 4:10)
    Rashi, the famous commentator in Sanhedrin 37a says the word blood in Hebrew used in the sentence is in the plural, signifying “Cain’s crime was not limited to one person; he had shed Abel’s blood and the blood of his potential descendants.”
    When you look at that way it really shows the depth of the crime of murder and emphasizes on the difficulty of Teshuva. One cannot fully repent if he cannot ask the person he wronged for forgiveness.

73. neo-neocon Says:
    June 30th, 2015 at 6:55 pm

    Bumsrush:

    As a non-Christian, the Trinity is completely opaque to my understanding. It is my impression that many Christians are puzzled by it, as well, and consider it a mystery.”

    It is opaque to everyone’s understanding, that is why, literally, it is termed a “mystery”.

    It is considered a revealed truth, “allowed as true” (to use my favorite hillbilly formulation) on the basis of trust justified on other preachments believed to be demonstrably true.

    Thus, Catholics have precising dogmatic formulas – one substance three “persons” – but no underlying explanation that comports with our understanding of space-time and existence.

    Some have attempted to formulate it in terms of three manifestations, or “faces”, or activities, which men encounter, but from what little I remember those are rejected as non-orthodox and incorrect ideas.

    Now that I’ve had my say, I’ll refer you to those who actually know a little of what they are talking about on this matter.

    The doctrine of the trinity

74. jon baker Says:
    June 30th, 2015 at 11:43 pm

    Neo, thanks for this article. My dad, a retired Physicist …”

    That is very interesting.

    If you read this question and have time, I’d like to know more.

    Research, theoretical, or teaching? University, government or possibly industry? Any specific area? Cosmology, mechanics, etc.?

    What did he consider the greatest challenge in the field today?

75. Hmm

    “(On the essential difference between St. John’s doctrine as to the Person of Christ and the Logos doctrine of the Alexandrine Philo, to which many Rationalists have attempted to trace it, see LOGOS.) “

    I should have read this myself 35 years ago when I was doing a paper on “Philo the Jew” for a course on Judaism taught by an adjunct professor at the school I was attending.

    He was so generous that it would not have improved my grades any, but it might have made for a better, if less superficially ecumenical, paper.

    Great guy, very kind to me. But he basically read his class lectures. Unfortunately -from my perspective – the readings contained lots of apologetically effusive descriptive language, making the narrative seem a little grandiose. Overall, there was a noticeable lack of critical distance and philosophical precision.

    I think we all know the kind of language: ” … establishing a glorious light that endured through …”, ” … stood among the Aristotles and Platos of that era …”, ” a towering presence …”. That kind of thing,

    Richard C Hertz. Didn’t know he was so accomplished.

    Well, he was a minister and significant social figure – not a professional historian.

76. Dennis The Leftist alliance infiltrated various agents into the Roman Catholic church around 1930s. This was either a direct infusion of homos, or the agents ranked up and ensured that these cliques went un noticed.

    Other Leftist influences can be seen in the current Pope, Liberation Theology, and Christian doctrine in Europe. It was being eroded from the inside out for quite some time.

    The Left wants to put homos into Boy Scouts because they need more targets. Child Protective Services and Hollywood child actors can only produce so many targets for Leftist child predators to pick from.

77. http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/209796/#respond

    What’s the concrete response to Chisolm then, are people going to forgive him and allow him to do as he pleases? Do people even have the authority to forgive him?

78. Ymarsakar Says:
    “Dennis The Leftist alliance infiltrated various agents into the Roman Catholic church around 1930s.”

    Thanks.

79. The Other Chuck:

    You are incorrect in what you assume I assume.

    Actually, I assumed from the start that Morris thought the spitting had something to do with the Catholic church’s child sex abuse scandals, or at least that that’s what the priest meant when he said he deserved worse. I assumed that he considered himself a representative of a priesthood some of whose members had abused children, but I was not assuming he meant he’d abused anyone personally, much less these particular spitters.

    Certainly the vast majority of priests never did anything of the sort, either. The statistics indicate that Catholic priests abused children at the same rate as other clergy. One child is too many, of course, but there was nothing special about priests as compared to clergy of other denominations, or men in general, in terms of the statistics for child sexual abuse. I’ve written here about the rates of sex abuse among Catholic priests compared to other clergy.

    Are you suggesting that it’s okay to spit on a member of a group in which certain members have committed crimes? Should we excuse spitting on all clergy, then? Should we excuse spitting on all men, because some are abusive? How about on all people—because, after all, women are sometimes abusers? Does it matter if the spitters were themselves abused, or can others spit on behalf of the abused? I actually think spitting on representatives of a group because a small percentage has done offensive things is in itself offensive.

    Here are some relevant links about sexual abuse by priests and the coverup thereof: this, this, and this.

    Also, some statistics about it on the Wiki page.

80. Here is one Baptist’s view on this very complex issue. The most fundamental teaching on the nature of God’s grace toward us–that is, His forgiveness and favor–is that it precedes and provokes repentance.

    For example, Psalm 130:3,4: 3 If You, LORD, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? 4 But there is forgiveness with You, in order that You may be feared.” That is, the fear of God, including repentance toward Him, arises out of an awareness that He does not count our sin against us. Fear of God is the purpose of forgiveness. Grace precedes repentance.

    The two great Old Testament passages about the new covenant, Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36, are even clearer. (We Christians believe that Jesus Christ instituted this new covenant by His death, “This is the new covenant in My blood.” (1 Cor 11:25; Luke 22:20))

    Jeremiah 31:31-34:

    31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke . . .for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

    The failure of the old covenant was that it was broken. God, therefore, would make an unbreakable covenant that would be based on a lavish, free forgiveness of sin as well as internal heart transformation. Jer 32:40 adds that the Lord “will put the fear of Me in their hearts that they will not turn away.” God’s free grace, forgiveness and transformation, precedes the fear of God.

    Finally, Ezekiel 36:23-32:

    23 “I will vindicate the holiness of My great name which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD,” declares the Lord GOD, “when I prove Myself holy among you in their sight . . . 25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. . . . 29Moreover, I will save you from all your uncleanness . . . 31Then you will remember your evil ways and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and your abominations. 32 “I am not doing this for your sake,” declares the Lord GOD, “let it be known to you.”

    God acts entirely for His own sake, not ours. His action is not conditional upon human response; instead it creates the response, including a healthy self-hatred and sorrow for sin. Note that the prophet Ezekiel says self-loathing for sin follows from cleansing. Such is the nature of this new covenant.

    Those of us who believe we have become participants in this new covenant believe we must forgive freely, “Freely you received, freely give” (Matt 10:8). In some scenes in the gospels, Jesus forgave sins when no one was seeking forgiveness. For example, Mark 2:1ff, the paralytic and his friends sought physical healing, yet Jesus’ first words were “Your sins are forgiven.” The same is true in John 5.

    So, Christians believe that this should be our basic stance toward those who offend us, forgiving freely. But there are limits. Some limits are associated with relationships inside the church. The Matthew 18 passage you, Neo, quoted relates to church disciplinary issues. It ends, “Tell it to the church.”

    And we recognize that there are times that we will be taken advantage of, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men” (Rom 12:18). Sometimes it’s simply not possible.

81. Molly – That is one thing that irks me about anti-death penalty people – they assume it’s all about revenge. I see it more as restoring the balance of justice in the world. If someone harms me, I may forgive them, but I don’t think it means they can walk free.

    I thank God Himself for Pope Emeritus B16 in his Cardinal Ratzinger days for clarifying that Catholics may have differing opinions on the death penalty.

    Perhaps my ‘dig em up and kill em again, harder’ opinion pushes the limit of what’s acceptable, but I do read Christian theological arguments against the death penalty with a docile nature. (Meaning an open mind that entertains changing to be more in line with the Church’s teaching.)

82. GRA – “Anyways, what are the chances that the two guys at the parade who spat on the priest were altar boys and were molested?”

    I see the point you’re trying to make, and yes, Chuck was looking to stir the pot. But I’d say that you’re more likely to find people who have been molested at a gay pride parade than you are most other places. That kind of abuse in early development often leads to identity issues.

83. JuliB – I’ve come to think about the death penalty as more about security, for fellow prisoners and prison guards alike. There are only so many supermax facilities in the world. I’m not going expect someone, even a prisoner, to risk his life coming in contact with a person who has proven that he will indiscriminately kill.

84. Nick:

    Actually, when I was doing research for my response to Chuck, I researched the question of whether young boys molested by priests are more likely to be gay as adults.

    I could find no statistics on it. I did find this, however, about child sexual abuse of boys not just by priests but in general:

    Finally, when the abuser is male (and even sometimes when she is female), many boys – whether straight or gay – develop fears and concerns about sexual orientation. Conventional wisdom says sexual abuse turns boys gay, although there’s no persuasive evidence that premature sexual activity fundamentally changes sexual orientation. Nevertheless, a heterosexual boy is likely to doubt himself, wondering why he was chosen by a man for sex. A homosexual boy may feel rushed into considering himself gay, or may hate his homosexuality because he believes it was caused by his abuse. Whether boys are gay or straight, these manipulative introductions to sexuality can set lifetime patterns of exploitation and self-destructive behavior.

    I’ve worked in the field of child sexual abuse research and read a lot of it, and it is my impression that child sexual abuse does not change sexual orientation. However, the victims chosen are not a random group. Abusers tend to target children who are already somewhat needy and/or fearful and/or love-deprived, who may already have significant problems or be questioning their sexual identity. So it’s a very very complex issue.

    Research seems to indicate that a higher percentage of gay men were abused as children than the percentage of straight men abused as children. The more determinative question, though, is what are the percentages of adult straights vs. adult gays in the population of people who were abused as children? And does that mean abuse makes people more likely to be gay, or does it mean that children and adolescents who already are gay are more likely to be targeted for abuse in the first place?

    And I have no idea whether victims of child abuse are more likely to be found at a gay pride parade or celebration. Victims of child abuse may in fact be less likely to do so, if they are suffering from “lifelong patterns of exploitation and self-destructive behavior.” And of course this tells us nothing whatsoever about whether those two particular spitters had any such history. Nor would it excuse their behavior if they did have a history of child sexual abuse. “I was once molested by a priest, so hey, let’s go spit on a random priest in the street!”

85. “The media is clearly not searching for truth.”
    –Dennis @4:16 am

    The media never searches fro truth; it searches for stories which will draw eyes.

86. JuliB Says:
    July 1st, 2015 at 1:41 pm

    Molly — That is one thing that irks me about anti-death penalty people — they assume it’s all about revenge. I see it more as restoring the balance of justice in the world. If someone harms me, I may forgive them, but I don’t think it means they can walk free.

    I thank God Himself for Pope Emeritus B16 in his Cardinal Ratzinger days for clarifying that Catholics may have differing opinions on the death penalty.

    Perhaps my ‘dig em up and kill em again, harder’ opinion pushes the limit of what’s acceptable, but I do read Christian theological arguments against the death penalty with a docile nature. (Meaning an open mind that entertains changing to be more in line with the Church’s teaching.)”

    But why even kill them? We have alternatives. Let’s be humane. Isn’t that why God invented South Georgia island and canned food?

87. Neo – “Nor would it excuse their behavior if they did have a history of child sexual abuse.”

    No disagreement here.

88. Chuck says that he dislikes the Left, but then goes to cover for Democrat totalitarian, Stazi, Gestapo, and Gaystapo tactics by claiming they don’t exist and that we are crazy for worrying about it.

    Thus that’s why I described Chuck as a future informant in the Stazi in the previous thread.

89. @JuliB, if you d scroll up to my post @6:54
    I refer to the 2 opposing but legitimate opinions
    a person can hold regarding the *death penalty*.

90. Molly – That’s the post I was replying to, but I don’t see 2 opinions?

91. DNW,

    My dad had/has a Masters in Physics and spent pretty much his entire career working in a research lab for two different oil and gas companies. (The second one bought the other one out). He seems to have taught math or science at a junior college at some point at night. My impression of his duties based on various comments over the years include that he seems to have been the computer guy for the lab, among other things. He has spoken of working on computers when they took up a whole room and still used punch cards and later in the 90’s he was the Network Admin for the lab and based on comments he would make at the time, seemed to spend a lot of time doing computer work for the older generation of chemist, etc who were not so computer savvy. I know he did not seem to like it on those occasions when he had to baby sit a “pilot plant”-a miniature chemical plant- at odd hours. He could, and still can when pressed , talk a bit about Relativity and Quantum Entanglement, etc, but he spends his time with his Garden, keeping his antique tractors running and grandkids and church stuff and honey-dos.

92. Neo, I’m sorry for putting words in your mouth. But you didn’t make it clear why you thought the priest accepted quilt. As to the implication by others that I have it in for The Church, well yes to some extent. I believe it has tarnished the teachings of Christ. There is nothing more despicable than authority figures abusing the trust of children. I mean, we call them Father. And The Church not only allowed this but covered it up.

    As to your figures comparing priests with other clergy, I don’t believe them. First of all most all other clergy are allowed to marry. And second, The Church has spent years covering it up. And the so-called conservative pontiff, Benedict, was complicit. No wonder he retired.

93. “I believe it has tarnished the teachings of Christ. There is nothing more despicable than authority figures abusing the trust of children. I mean, we call them Father. And The Church not only allowed this but covered it up. ”

    Unfortunately, allowing for some subtle distinctions concerning age and the type of attraction, you are right.

    http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/what-bishops-have-wrought

94. Neo Neo:

    I have read elsewhere that what you are calling Mekhila also requires restitution
    In the simplest example if you defrauses domeone is a bisuiness transaction you must restore the money,article to the victim you defrauded.
    Simple enough. But what about the sin of murder? How is restitution accomplished? who is authorised to forgive,after all the victim is dead?
    Or perhaps you have commited the sin of adultery. How do you accomplish restitution (at least in western society)
    Does that mean that some sins are unforgiveable because no restitution is possible?

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>