Forgiveness

[fr0d0]

I volunteered to take a swipe at this, so here goes

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.

I agree. I don't see why it has to be logically accepted. What is is what is in my book.

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.

Again I agree. But when talking about something 'other worldly' we have to talk in a language that we on this world understand. The common analogy used is human relationships, and especially parent to child. It's an analogy, and stands and falls on that. We can pick it apart where it fails, but should be open to the parallels where they exist.

Now, if you are trying to make coercion, or blackmail, look like forgiveness, then yes, you will have to use analogies, and side notes, and re-defined 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.

K we're at the meaty bit And here's another analogy just to wind you up

So here's me giving out rewards and punishments. Mr Head Teacher me. I have a kid outside... always in trouble and an attitude to match. Today is my birthday and I'm having an amnesty just for him. I'm going to tear up his bad report and give him a clean slate. All I want from him is to say sorry and mean it, then he's free to have a great life. Nothing more ever said.

So here's me offering unconditional forgiveness. A clean slate.

Is this blackmail; coercion or forgiveness; or a mixture?

To call it the first two, I guess you're going to have to argue that I set the rules for the kid to break. I could forgo the rules and not put him through having to choose. Question: how do people that break the rules then know the difference between following the rules and breaking them? If they're forgiven anyway, with no need for acceptance?

Another option would be to not have any rules to begin with. I'm not an anarchist so I don't get how that works. I'm guessing you'd have some kind of alternative like positive affirmation. Gently encourage a moral standard in the hope that your pupils would rise to it. I know of a special 'school' that does just this. The staff get a lot of slaps in the face and not much respect ( a bit like theists on this forum! ). The school spend a fortune in staff and resources to go out to these problem kids with little success.

Same with someone wanting to get a job. Employees offer a job, and people has to ask for it and work for it. You don't just get given a job. If you did you'd most likely have no motivation to do it. Because you didn't try... the reward is gone.

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. I'm sorry, but even trying to be easy going I cannot accept what you have added on to the definition..you are dead wrong.

I think Tack is right. (Surprise surprise ). The relationship isn't something different from the forgiveness offered. It's just more of the same. You develop in that forgiveness, and realise your full potential as a free person.

You want parole... so you convince the parole board that you deserve it. You're not lying and you now live the life of the reformed you with your new liberty.

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.

Ok on to the punishment.

So what if I'm the kid and say "FO Head Teacher". FO employer you can stick your job. FO parole board I'll sweat it out here in prison. Is it my fault as the forgiver that you end up suffering for those choices? Again how does any alternative even work?

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 you are 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?

Hmmm that sounds a little screwball. It doesn't fit the definition because the guilty party is removed. Only you have to deal with the forgiveness. You are God, and the guy has already died and gone to hell. Too late for forgiveness.

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.

You couldn't forgive him because he's already dead. You have to deal with your own loss of privilege to forgive. Unless you think he can receive it posthumously.

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.

According to the doctrine, God is in a constant state of offering maximum forgiveness towards everyone at all times. We're all forgiven. Woot.

If any of us chooses to turn around and say we're sorry, the deal is done. God doesn't have to walk up to anyone to offer forgiveness... that's already a done deal. What needs to happen is the reciprocation. We're not forgiven if we don't work for the reward.

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.

Just like to say I'm totally with Tack on that one.

Hopefully I've done justice to your points there Rev.