Forgiveness

[reverendjeremiah]

I see this as 3 seperate things we're trying to coalesce on. 1) suitable analogy for God's forgiveness 2)hell as an influence on acceptance 3) logical acceptance

That sounds about right...accept the "logical acceptance". If it is coercion, then logic plays no part in it.

1)As far as analogies go, I'm attempting to give a reasonable analogy with either relationship or material value for God's forgiveness. As it's quite unique that's difficult. Bottom line, fogiveness is an act. It's not words (just saying I forgive you) alone. It's not object actions (here's your forgiveness token, reclaim at pearly gates) alone. I see it as more of a relationship. forgiveness requires someone forgiving and someone to forgive, that's necessarily at least an interpersonal relationship between 2 people. It implies something to be forgiven for, which is a causal action at the least, which I'm using as an object in this relationship (metaphorically).

Analogies suck, they are never good enough to explain something even if it DOES exist, much less your gods foriveness. Forgiveness isnt that unique or difficult to explain. Now, if you are trying to make coercion, or blakcmail, look like forgiveness, then yes, you will have to use analogies, and side notes, and redefinied definitions, etc.. Forgiveness is a ONE WAY act from the one giving the forgiveness. Acceptance of such forgiveness is in NO WAY part and parcel of the definition of forgiveness no matter how much you try to say otherwise. Now, if you want to say "but that is what Christians think forgiveness is", then I will just have to accept your definitions as "Tack's special definition of forgiveness = to forgive someone, but only if they accept it along with a relationship to the forgiving entity" and that is what I would do. So, if you want to accept your special definition, then by all means. But if you are trying to argue with me that the REAL definition of forgiveness includes accepting such forgiveness, then I put my foot down and flat out refuse to budge, and I believe the people who wrote the dictionary would agree with me. Im sorry, but even trying to be easy going I cannot accept what you have added on to the definition..you are dead wrong.

To recieve your forgiveness (as a metaphorical object) person A (or God in this case) issues/gives/offers/hands over the forgiveness freely. He would then need someone to hand to or someone to acknowledge receipt of said forgiveness, that's where it turns into a relationship. The other person isn't required to reconmpense/requite/satisfy anything to claim the forgiveness. They would by default have to acknowledge their want of forgiveness (or it makes it disingenuous), the entity issuing the forgiveness (acknowledging God isn't likely for an theist), then they could claim that they were forgiven.

What you are describing is an "EXCHANGE" where either forgiveness is offered in exchange for recognition and life view changes, or flat our coercion that one side fears punishment so has no choice but to accept. To claim that your example is what happens during forgiveness is preposterous.

If someone got into a car wreck with me, and not only killed himself, but killed my infant son, yet I still lived...I would be very pissed at that driver who killed my son. What youare telling me, according to YOUR definition of forgiveness, that I will be unable to forgive that driver unless he is able to accept my forgiveness...but he is fucking dead man, how can he accept it?

Do you not see how utterly WRONG your description of forgiveness is? In reality I would be able to forgive that driver any moment I wanted to. Because forgiveness is one sided and NOTHING like you are describing it to be.

Is your perspective that someone can "walk in a room" forgive, then "walk out". I can't see that being effective for either side, and implies that the forgiver has the need of issuing forgiveness. My perspective is opposite, The forgiven is the one needing forgiveness, not the forgiver.

NO. it is the persepctive of the correct definition that one doesnt even need to walk into a room to do it. One doesnt even have to say words. One must merely think that they forgive those who wronged them. THATS IT. Forgiveness is for the wronged to let go of the anger, nothing more. That is the definition of forgiveness, and all you need to do to issue forgiveness..is to just forgive the person. Sure, I can walk up to the guy and tell him that I forgiven him, and that would not stress the definition of forgiveness, but it is unnecesary. The man was already forgiven before I made him aware of it. That is forgiveness.

) I stated above no recompense is necessary. I see you carefully worded your response. I also feel that Hell is very much an eternal flaming lake, I won't try and change your view of that. For the sake of this point I'll conceed that there is punishment or reward based on your decision of acceptance. The very nature of will would require a choice. Accept or not. you can either factor out all of the influences to that decision possible, or none. I'm sure you've had a lot of Christians preaching to you you'll burn in Hell for not accepting Christ. I've had a lot of Christians telling me there are eternal rewards for accepting Christ. I think both methods are completely wrong. First you gather info then decide then you stand by your decision and face whatever consequences come after that informed decision. Fear, longing , emotionalism have always been a hinderance to my decision making process in this life and I can't see them as being viable factors for deciding anything.

But see, I am over fearing your religion. I used to fear it and Hell, but not anymore. I refuse to accept coercion and blackmail in the name of a fictional savior and a fictional hell

3)"Then please explain to me how you can ask and accept forgiveness from a fictional character named Jesus?"
I can't, are you talking to yourself, playing with an imaginary friend? I see where you're at with this as an atheist/absurdist. You don't accept God's existance by default, and hopefully I've illustrated in 1 how that's not taking you to the logical conclusion that you're genuinely accepting of Christ or his forgiveness. I see personal evidence indicative that God is real, so I do accept that. However logically it doesn't make sense to me why you would claim you've accepted something you don't feel is necessary, from someone who you feel doesn't exist, and expect me to take it seriously.

You almost got it. From my point of view, you are playing with your imaginary friend and asking him to forgive you and you play act like he forgave you. So I asked forgiveness and I have been forgiven as well. I know this in my heart the same way YOU know that you are forgiven "in your heart".