|
Post by hostaddict on Sept 13, 2020 16:47:34 GMT
I was wondering whether one should cope with (1)the forgiving of a sin against oneself, the same way that with (2)the forgiving of a sin against the neighbour, or God, or Truth, etc..
Indeed, in the second case, Jésus, as Son of Man, forgave his sins to the sick of the palsy, before to heal him. Well, the sick of the palsy had probably not sinned against Jésus personnally. The sins Jésus forgave were against a third party.
So, are we, christians, as disciples of Jésus, members of his Church, allowed to forgive a sinner for the sins he sinned against a third party? Rather, does it not look like resignation from one's duty? I mean : is the answer to :"who, but the victim is allowed to forgive a sin?" every christian (since we have to imitate Christ), or only the victim?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 14, 2020 22:31:42 GMT
The whole point of the story is that Jesus is God, and all sins are sins against God, so God can forgive them. In the Miserere, David (having had Uriah murdered and stolen Uriah's wife Bathsheba, which implies he has sinned to some degree against her) says to God "Against You, You alone have I sinned - what is evil in Your sight have I done". For Jesus to say He can forgive sins means He is claiming to be God; it would be outrageous presumption if he were not. The question of whether it is always obligatory to punish the guilty (for example, when it would lead to a civil war because so many are implicated) is a different issue from forgiveness.
|
|
|
Post by hostaddict on Sept 24, 2020 20:00:40 GMT
Thank you for your answer Hibernicus. I agree. But i assume it implies for the victim he or she possibly might have to do without any apology from the evildoer. i find it a bit annoying. Do you think we shouldn't necessarily expect apology from a catholic person?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 25, 2020 20:51:53 GMT
Eva Moses Kor, an Auschwitz survivor who was experimented on by DR Mengele, said she eventually felt she had to forgive Mengele, not for his sake but her own. (Note that this involved forgiveness only for what he did to her, not for what he did to others.) The late Ms Kor was Jewish in religion, but I believe her example is to be imitated. This has to come over time and be deeply felt though; expecting someone to forgive hurt instantly and as a matter of course is asking too much. The film TWO MINUTES OF HEAVEN (a very fictionalised version of a true story) in which Liam Neeson plays a repentant loyalist killer and James Nesbitt is the brother of his victim, who is being pressurised to reconcile with him on live TV, portrays some of the problems with the expectation of "cheap grace" quite well.
|
|
|
Post by hostaddict on Sept 28, 2020 16:05:45 GMT
Eva Moses Kor, an Auschwitz survivor who was experimented on by DR Mengele, said she eventually felt she had to forgive Mengele, not for his sake but her own. ( Note that this involved forgiveness only for what he did to her, not for what he did to others.) The late Ms Kor was Jewish in religion, but I believe her example is to be imitated. This has to come over time and be deeply felt though; expecting someone to forgive hurt instantly and as a matter of course is asking too much. The film TWO MINUTES OF HEAVEN (a very fictionalised version of a true story) in which Liam Neeson plays a repentant loyalist killer and James Nesbitt is the brother of his victim, who is being pressurised to reconcile with him on live TV, portrays some of the problems with the expectation of "cheap grace" quite well. i noted the underlined sentence. The problem i feel, is : it would have likely been beyond her possibility to forgive for what he did to others. Does Jesus require from us to forgive as far as this?(Especially if these persons themselves don't forgive ? And would it yet be more moral, would they have forgiven?)May be the movie you speak of gives the answer, i never watch tv, nor go to cinema.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 28, 2020 22:30:12 GMT
Jesus does not require us to forgive crimes committed against other people, because they are not ours to forgive. Let me illustrate this. Let us suppose that some evening next week as I am going out for a walk, a thug decides he doesn't like the look of me and hits me over the head with an iron bar. I wake up in hospital several days later to discover that I have suffered irreparable brain damage and that my ability to earn a living, to interact with my family, to function independently have all been permanently wrecked. Despite this, after whatever struggles it takes, I forgive the thug. That would be a good thing. Now let us suppose that instead it is you who gets hit over the head with the results mentioned, and the first thing you hear after discovering the full extent to which your life has been devastated is me announcing that I gladly forgive the thug for what was done to you. Can you see the difference between these two hypothetical examples?
|
|
|
Post by hostaddict on Sept 29, 2020 17:03:09 GMT
Can you see the difference between these two hypothetical examples? So do i, deeply. It was actually the reason why i asked these questions. Yet i fail to find the answer to my question, since Christ forgave the sick of the palsy, however the latter did not harm Jesus as man I know we can't imitate Jesus as far as forgiving all the sins (of the sick of the palsy), besides, when performed against a third party. There is not any problem stemming from his forgiving as regards anything but justice. Your little story was perfectly illustrating this; Let's assume instead of you is Jesus, forgiving the thug (the sick of the palsy, that can't be thought to never have caused any wrong to anyone). Well, how is Jesus' justice occuring for me in this assumption? Should we fetch the answer in the parable of the mercyless servant whose debt was forgiven? Have you the solution?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 1, 2020 0:23:02 GMT
Jesus is God, so any offence is an offence against him and therefore he can't be forgiven. The point about the story of the merciless servant (whose forgiveness is revoked at the end) is that the debt he insisted on was infinitely less that what he had been forgiven, and having been shown mercy himself he should not have insisted on strict justice from others. (Note that the debt was really owed to him; he was not being asked to revoke a debt owed to someone else. Note also that he was not even asked to forgive the debt, but to allow delayed payment.) Since the servant has no authority over the master, who forgave the debt out of sheer mercy, he cannot complain that the master now insists on his strict rights. Once again, you forget that the story is about God's conduct to man - God created us out of nothing, so we have no claim on him and all he gives us is sheer grace. Not being God, we cannot make such a gift but we should give what we can to our fellows.
|
|
|
Post by hostaddict on Oct 8, 2020 23:00:36 GMT
Once again, you forget that the story is about God's conduct to man - God created us out of nothing, so we have no claim on him and all he gives us is sheer grace. Not being God, we cannot make such a gift but we should give what we can to our fellows. Yes, i must confess i've never noticed the full meaning of Jesus' forgiving, as regards the indirect but solemn affirmation of his divine nature. Which nature allows him to affirm truly an identity obviously noone but him can affirm. Thank you, Hibernicus
|
|