Forgiveness

[Muhammad_Ali]

Hi, I’m a Muslim and it’s sad to see the level of misunderstanding this forum has of Islam. Anyway, as a Muslim I have many problems with the Christian story of salvation which differs greatly from Judaism and Islam, the two other major monotheistic Abrahamic world faiths The biggest problem I (personally) have is that the God of Christianity does not and can not forgive.

In the Christian view, “forgiveness” is not forgiveness. As John Hick wrote “'a forgiveness that has to be bought by full payment of the moral debt is not in fact forgiveness at all”. In the Christian view, through sin man departed from God’s holiness and to be brought back to Him they have to accept God’s deliverance through the sacrifice of Jesus, His son and incarnation. As exciting and brilliant as that sounds, scripturally speaking, it is not only redundant but in contradiction to the whole message of the old testament. In the Old Testament, forgiveness is almost identical to the Islamic way of forgiveness: turning away from sin, doing works to appease God (but importantly, these are only a means not an end) and God, through His infinite mercy, in turn, turns to His bondsmen and forgives. This is most clearly presented in Ezekiel 18 and 33. In Ezekiel 18 a grandfather, father and son are described, the grandfather righteous, the father wicked and the son righteous. And it says neither shall be credited or afflicted with the sins or rewards of the other: “The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him” (Ezekiel 18:20). But the interesting part is what follows:

“But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? 24 But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die”

Ezekiel 18 goes on to say: “I will judge you, each one according to his ways …Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall…I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!” in complete harmony with Judaism/Islam and in contradiction to Christianity. Christ does not need to die for us. It is us that needs to repent and obey God.

This message is repeated many times throughout the Old Testament. In Psalms 103 (verse 10 onwards), it says God does not reward according to our good or the injustice done to us and he does not punish according to the sin that we have done i.e. this is flexible and God simply removes our transgressions. Thus in the Jewish and Islamic perspective God’s forgiveness is up to Him: He can forgive when He pleases and punish when He pleases and He is not being unjust since the sins are against Him and it is His prerogative to deal with them.

About blood sacrifice, the book of Leviticus makes it clear it is not necessary, it is symbolic and a gesture, since simply giving flour for a poor man is sufficient (Leviticus 5). The Bible makes it clear these sacrifices are for unintentional sins and sins done unaware (see Leviticus and Number 15). For actual intentional sin, repentance and turning away from sin is required before God envelops us in His mercy to be forgiven.

The Book of Jonah is an excellent example: in chapter 3 it says God saw that the people fasted and turned away from their sins and forgave them. Forgiveness therefore is a result of turning away/repenting from sins. For a clear picture of sin from an orthodox Jewish perspective (with references) see: whatjewsbelieve.org/

Hence, from a Jewish OT scriptural perspective a human blood sacrifice to redeem man is not only redundant but anti-scriptural because it goes against the very message of Ezekiel 18: “the soul who sins will die” (and Deut 24); it also goes against Deuteronomy 12 and other places where God says He hates human sacrifice especially that of the innocent.

Finally, it should also be noted Jesus’ own view of forgiveness is the Judeo-Islamic one. In the wonderful Lord’s prayer he says “Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us”. The way we forgive each other is simple: we let the trangression go. So, for example, if I hit person X and asked her forgiveness, she would not say “yeh i forgive you but now Im gonna have to hit your brother” (!!) but rather she’ll just let it go. That’s what forgiveness is. Unfortunately the message of the cross is just as ridiculous as the above phrase: God lets the criminals go free but punishes an innocent human. The parable of the prodigal son is one of pure forgiveness. The parable of the unmerciful servant in Matthew 18 is one of forgiveness: Jesus simply lets the debt go. Forgiveness is beautiful; a blood sacrifice is ugly.

I guess the question, then, is: how do you, as a Christian, reconcile the clear Judaic old testament teaching that it is every man for himself and God forgives and punishes at His own discretion each person individually depending on faith, works, and turning away from sin (repentence) with the Christian belief (which is not clear in the Jesus’ words in the new testament) that Jesus had to die for man’s sins and there is no real forgiveness?

 

[kell0618]

I guess there are misunderstandings on both sides of the theological fence. You say that God does not forgive in Christian teaching.

Christians understand God to be very merciful, loving and forgiving.

Jesus made it clear that God forgives us “as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Then he himself showed us how it’s done when he prayed for those who were crucifying him: “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.”

Source

*You have favored, O Lord, your land;
You have forgiven the guilt of your people;
You have covered all their sins.
Show us, O Lord, your kindness,
And grant us your salvation.
I will hear what God proclaims — *
The Lord — for he proclaims peace
To his people, and to his faithful ones,
And to those who put in him their hope.
Near indeed is his salvation to those who fear him,
Glory dwelling in our land.
Kindness and truth shall meet;
Justice and peace shall kiss.
Truth shall spring out of the earth,
And justice shall look down from heaven.
(from Psalm 85)

Peace be with you.

 

[swariffin]

Dear Muhammad Ali,

First, you are not Muhammad Ali, who is the legendary boxer are you?. That is not a problem since you can use any name you want to. My sympathy to you and other Muslim posters who tried their outmost to introduce Islam to us. No matter how different we are, I still respect you guys.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

In the Christian view, “forgiveness” is not forgiveness. As John Hick wrote “'a forgiveness that has to be bought by full payment of the moral debt is not in fact forgiveness at all”. In the Christian view, through sin man departed from God’s holiness and to be brought back to Him they have to accept God’s deliverance through the sacrifice of Jesus, His son and incarnation. As exciting and brilliant as that sounds, scripturally speaking, it is not only redundant but in contradiction to the whole message of the old testament.

The death of Christ was not strictly necessary, it was an added dimension to just how much God loves us. Further, this was no ordinary sacrifice, the sacrifice was Jesus living a life of PERFECT love and obedience, not the Protestant idea of Jesus getting punished with the punishment we deserve.

Further, to say this is a contradiction to the whole Old Testament is very incorrect, the animal sacrifices for example were an essential part of the Torah. Further, in the OT and Islam there exists a fundamental pillar of ‘justice’ which is described as: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
This goes directly against what Jesus taught. In the Old Testament and Islamic systems you must retaliate, the idea of dropping the whole issue is impossible.

The hardest teaching of Jesus is this:Matthew 5: 43"You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons 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. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
This goes directly against Judaism and Islam, in fact it goes against our fallen human instinct.

In the Old Testament, forgiveness is almost identical to the Islamic way of forgiveness: turning away from sin, doing works to appease God (but importantly, these are only a means not an end) and God, through His infinite mercy, in turn, turns to His bondsmen and forgives. This is most clearly presented in Ezekiel 18 and 33.

There is nothing here that goes against Christian idea of forgiveness.

Ezekiel 18 goes on to say: "I will judge you, each one according to his ways …Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall…

All of your quotes so far are in line with Christianity.

I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!" in complete harmony with Judaism/Islam and in contradiction to Christianity. Christ does not need to die for us. It is us that needs to repent and obey God.

The problem here is you are reading the death of Christ as STRICTLY necessary, when that was simply the way God chose to reveal His love for us.

Thus in the Jewish and Islamic perspective God’s forgiveness is up to Him: He can forgive when He pleases and punish when He pleases and He is not being unjust since the sins are against Him and it is His prerogative to deal with them.

True, and supposed God chose to DEMONSTRATE what type of life He required of us!! Jesus demonstrated the life we are to live to please God! When attacked Jesus did not retaliate, he did not pick up the sword and have a call to war!
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

About blood sacrifice, the book of Leviticus makes it clear it is not necessary, it is symbolic and a gesture, since simply giving flour for a poor man is sufficient (Leviticus 5).

It is not symbolic, it is necessary in so far as you have the means. And the case you cite was the poorest of the poor still had to scrounge up something to offer.

The Bible makes it clear these sacrifices are for unintentional sins and sins done unaware (see Leviticus and Number 15). For actual intentional sin, repentance and turning away from sin is required before God envelops us in His mercy to be forgiven.

Sacrifices were for BOTH intentional and unintentional sins.

The Book of Jonah is an excellent example: in chapter 3 it says God saw that the people fasted and turned away from their sins and forgave them. Forgiveness therefore is a result of turning away/repenting from sins. For a clear picture of sin from an orthodox Jewish perspective (with references) see: whatjewsbelieve.org/

The ideal manner in which the Jews were to live was in accordance with the rules and regulations laid down in the Torah. Turning to Jonah or a poor man and flour doesnt mean the whole and significant sections on sacrifices are purely symbolic. In the case of Jonah, those people were pagan and not bound to the rules and regulations of the Torah.

Hence, from a Jewish OT scriptural perspective a human blood sacrifice to redeem man is not only redundant but anti-scriptural because it goes against the very message of Ezekiel 18: “the soul who sins will die” (and Deut 24); it also goes against Deuteronomy 12 and other places where God says He hates human sacrifice especially that of the innocent.

You dont understand Christ’s death. Christ was murdered, He didnt kill Himself, His sacrifice to God was offering up love to all even as they were trying to murder Him. The OT sacrifices FORESHADOWED Christ’s sacrifice. As for Deut 12, that is a bad misunderstanding of the passage, that is in reference to pagan sacrifices of pagans murdering their sons (and to false gods).

Finally, it should also be noted Jesus’ own view of forgiveness is the Judeo-Islamic one. In the wonderful Lord’s prayer he says “Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us”. The way we forgive each other is simple: we let the trangression go.

That is the Christian understanding yes, AS WE FORGIVE others. In other words if we dont forgive we cannot be forgiven (Mat 18:32-35).

So, for example, if I hit person X and asked her forgiveness, she would not say “yeh i forgive you but now Im gonna have to hit your brother” (!!) but rather she’ll just let it go. That’s what forgiveness is.

Unfortunately that is precisely the retaliation mentality which are central to Judaism and Islam but is forbidden in Christianity.

Unfortunately the message of the cross is just as ridiculous as the above phrase: God lets the criminals go free but punishes an innocent human.

Ah, but again you misunderstand. Protestants MISTAKENLY think Jesus was PUNISHED. The truth is Jesus was not punished by God.

The parable of the prodigal son is one of pure forgiveness. The parable of the unmerciful servant in Matthew 18 is one of forgiveness: Jesus simply lets the debt go. Forgiveness is beautiful; a blood sacrifice is ugly.

You dont understand the sacrifice of Jesus, hopefully my explanation helps.

I guess the question, then, is: how do you, as a Christian, reconcile the clear Judaic old testament teaching that it is every man for himself and God forgives and punishes at His own discretion each person individually depending on faith, works, and turning away from sin (repentence) with the Christian belief (which is not clear in the Jesus’ words in the new testament) that Jesus had to die for man’s sins and there is no real forgiveness?

How can you say this is not clear from Jesus’ words that He came to offer up His life? That message is taught throughout the Gospels. Matt 16:21From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. 22Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”
23Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

 

[FaithofAbraham]

I guess the question, then, is: how do you, as a Christian, reconcile the clear Judaic old testament teaching that it is every man for himself and God forgives and punishes at His own discretion each person individually depending on faith, works, and turning away from sin (repentence) with the Christian belief (which is not clear in the Jesus’ words in the new testament) that Jesus had to die for man’s sins and there is no real forgiveness?

This is all misunderstanding of what the NT really says. Jesus had to die as a martyr obeying God so he can be in the position of Messiah who is judge over humans.

John 5:26-27 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

He is the one who can show mercy as King and Judge of God’s Kingdom, but you still have to repent of your own sins, nothing about that changes.

Matthew 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

 

[Harpazo]

Jesus, being God in flesh, stretched out His arms on the cross to wait for us to embrace Him. He forgave all of us of our sins, we have to cooperate with His grace and mercy in our lives.

There’s an article on my website that I recently wrote. It might be able to explain some of what the Christian view on the matter is.

Al-Masih qam!

Andrew

 

[mike7795]

I guess the question, then, is: how do you, as a Christian, reconcile the clear Judaic old testament teaching that it is every man for himself and God forgives and punishes at His own discretion each person individually depending on faith, works, and turning away from sin (repentence) with the Christian belief (which is not clear in the Jesus’ words in the new testament) that Jesus had to die for man’s sins and there is no real forgiveness?

“Whoever puts his hand to the plow and looks back is not fit for the Kingdom of God.” Luke 9:62

Every day is a new day, my friend, a new chance. Once you set yourself to the work of Union with God, looking back is counterproductive.

That’s in your own Sufi tradition. I’m sure you know Rumi. There is no difference between you and I.

Mike

 

[Muhammad_Ali]

Further, in the OT and Islam there exists a fundamental pillar of ‘justice’ which is described as: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
This goes directly against what Jesus taught. In the Old Testament and Islamic systems you must retaliate, the idea of dropping the whole issue is impossible.

Not true. Dropping the whole issue is exactly what was done by God to the people of Jonah after their disobedience when they turned away from their wickdness. When somebody murders (in an Islamic state), the family has the right to forgive the murderer. An “eye for an eye” is God’s way of saying this is the highest form of punishment, but letting go is an expression of mercy. You do not have to retaliate. The Koran says “repel the evil deed with one which is better” (41:34). The punishments exist to give the victim a right to exact revenge in order for it to be a fair system, but forgiveness is always the better option.

The life of the Prophet Muhammad is an example of this flexibility. When he retaliated he had every right to retaliate, but the final gesture was forgiveness: when he returned home to Mecca, the very people that drove him out and killed his daughters and persecuted his companions, he said to them “you are free today; this day let no reproach be (cast) on you”.

In the Islamic understanding therefore, the one against whom the sin is done has the right to choose his or her own course of action, whether that person be God or creation.

The problem here is you are reading the death of Christ as STRICTLY necessary, when that was simply the way God chose to reveal His love for us.

What was the point of Christ’s death? How are you forgiven? Why did God have to reveal His love in such a brutal way?

It is not symbolic, it is necessary in so far as you have the means

I did not say it wasn’t obligatory according to Jewish Law, but it was not necessary to gain God’s forgiveness. Blood sacrifices were not necessary, hence God forgives without blood sacrifices.

Sacrifices were for BOTH intentional and unintentional sins

Again untrue. In Leviticus 4 it says “'When anyone sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD’s commands…” and in Numbers 15 verses 22-31 it makes it absolutely clear that sacrifices only atoned for unintentional sins, whereas intentional and deliberate sins are not forgiven by sacrifices alone.

Please answer the following: What was the significance of Christ’s supposed death and resurrection? And how are our sins forigven in Catholicism?

 

[Tomster]

Muhammad Ali,

Sacrifice is the natural and spontaneous reaction of man in his relation to God. He expresses his dependence and desire for communion with his Maker and Final End by an act which exhibits homage, the offering of the best he has, and by an eating of the oblations. The object offered passes from being profane into something sacred, something belonging to God, if accepted by Him, and in a special manner associated with Him. This fundamental notion of sacrifice takes usually a special form when the worshippers are conscious of sin and wish to make expiation. Here repentance has to precede union, and the repentance is seen in the treatment of the offering. It is made to suffer, its blood is shed, and the blood symbolizes the expiation and wins atonement. It must be observed that the propitiatory element does not oust that of union. The latter is always present, and as culture grows the symbolism of the ritual becomes more and more pronounced. The external act is the symbol of love and self surrender. That is why the definition of St. Augustine, quoted by St. Thomas Aquinas, is an accurate as well as ideal statement. “A true sacrifice is every work which is done that we be made one with God in a holy society, being referred that is to that attainment of the good, in which we can most truly be happy.”

The part of the priest in the sacrifice is to be the representative of the whole people. He acts in its name. The victim offered is generally something which can serve for a repast. The higher its worth the greater the sacrifice, and the victim should be something very closely associated with with the lives of the offerers. The repast at the end is the consummation of the sacrifice already offered and admits man into the society of God.

continued

 

[Tomster]

Now after the Fall mankind not only lost the supernatural life, but lost it by sin. Hence a pleasing sacrifice would have to be propitiatory - that is, inclusive of two elements, expiation and reunion. It must further be made by one who represented human nature as such and gave to God a love which would be filial and supernatural. This double work Christ accomplished. He was the representative of mankind, the Word made flesh, and this communion with the children of men enabled Him to offer in their name, to suffer on their behalf, to merit for them and share His reward with them. But He was also by nature a mediator, because, human though He was, He could offer God a supernatural love willingly: “Christ offered Himself in His Passion for us: and this fact that He voluntarily endured the Passion was most pleasing to God, since it proceeded from the highest love: hence it is clear that the Passion of Christ was a true sacrifice.” (Summa III, Q. xlviii, art. 3.) Love therefore is the motive of the sacrifice, and decides the issue between God and man, and because the Priest and Victim are one, were the identical God-Man and representative of human nature, human nature dies to the old Adam in the blood poured out and is rrestore to the new Adam, the risen Victim. Thus the sacrifice is propitiatory, the offering is the most precious conceivable, and the love the highest because the offerer offers Himself even to the giving of His life. “He has delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness.” (Ephesians 5:2) “But now in Christ Jesus, you who some time were afar off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For He is our peace who hath made both one, breaking down the middle wall of partition, the enmities, in his flesh.” The acceptance of this sacrifice is seen in the Resurrection. The blood with which we were redeemed becomes the food of worshippers, the all holy food which incorporates us into the life of Christ and so into a supernatural union with God.

continued

 

[Tomster]

The restoration therefore of humanity by God is achieved through the sacrifice of the Redemption. God becomes incarnate - represents human nature as priest and victim, offers to God willingly a sacrifice of supreme love, goes down to a death which is mystically ours, propitiates God for sin, and restores us to communion with the life of God by giving us to eat of the victim of the sacrifice, His own risen and glorified body and blood.

I hope this answers your questions.

 

[inJESUS]

Salaam Muhammad Ali,

there is a common line of reasoning among Muslims that runs as follows:

the “Christians” *departed *from the teachings of Judaism, and so they “killed” Jesus in order to teach an “erroneous” idea of salvation.

This reasoning is absurd not only historically and theologically, but it opposes history, logic, theology AND the Quran which does speak of a crucifixion ( of Allah knows who) *prior to *all the arguments you are questioning. So the correct starting point is Jesus’ death, and then follow the arguments as to whether He *had *to die or whether He did not have but *accepted *it.

And do not forget that the ones who spoke about Jesus’ salvation were Jews themselves, His disciples who had the same scriptures of the Jews who denied Jesus. So we have the interpretations of the Jews who deny Jesus, and we have the interpretations of the Jews who had the same scriptures but whose interpretations parallele what Jesus said, did or explained.

As long as you have a Jewish belief that the Messiah will not die, you will not only deny His death, but you will deny the “why” whether whether He had to die or whether He did not have but accepted it.

When you understand the starting person, you will either believe in what Jesus said and did, or you will deny He is the Messiah.

 

[ralphinal]

Tomster,
Great posts.

There is a difference between forgivness of one and salvation of all. Christ died that all might live, but we each have to do our part.

I find it troubling that the OP states that Christains cannot be forgiven. That is not true at all. We understand all to well about turning from sin and being faithful to God. We just don’t always find it easy. I find it more torubling that the OP sees the OT ways as being every man for himself. It is not. The story is one of a people, not individuals. It was always about the salvation of all.

 

[Tomster]

Tomster,
Great posts.

There is a difference between forgivness of one and salvation of all. Christ died that all might live, but we each have to do our part.

I find it troubling that the OP states that Christains cannot be forgiven. That is not true at all. We understand all to well about turning from sin and being faithful to God. We just don’t always find it easy. I find it more torubling that the OP sees the OT ways as being every man for himself. It is not. The story is one of a people, not individuals. It was always about the salvation of all.

Thanks, but credit for my response must be given to Father M.C. D’Arcy, S.J. which was taken from his brilliant treatise “Christ, Priest and Redeemer.”

Laudator Jesus Christus and a Happy Easter to you!

 

[Muhammad_Ali]

@ Tomster. A lot of flowery language but very little by way of explanation. I still do not understand what was the purpose of Christ’s sacrifice and what implication it has for us. What I got from what you posted:

1. blood sacrifices atone sins and repentance is contained within the offering
2. a preist or representative carries out this sacrifice for his people
3. after the Fall a supernatural sacrifice was required and that is what Jesus fulfilled, as a representative of us all

I really cannot continue the discussion until i fully get the Catholic message. Ok, Christ’s sacrifice was a gesture of God’s love, but why and how? What did it achieve exactly? Are our sins forgiven and do we have to work for forgiveness? It may be my modest ability to understand, but please put it as simply as possible. thnx

 

[Tomster]

Muhammad Ali,

According to Catholic teaching the Passion of Christ was the one great mediating sacrifice in which Christ was both High Priest and Victim. This dogma has been denied by non-Catholics who profess to see in the suffering of Christ nothing but an example of high moral worth, but the history of the Jews, the express statements in the New Testament, and the very nature of Christ’s passion are overwhelmingly clear in their evidence. We have in the Old Testament the record of the sacrifices of Abel, Noah, Abraham, and Melchisedech, which point to a more perfect sacrifice of which they are the types. Type and prophecy are seen again in the story of Exodus, when we are told, a lamb was eaten with unleavened bread and blood was sprinkled on the lintels and side posts and the Feast of the Passover instituted. In the twenty-fourth chapter we read in connection with the promulgation of the Law that Moses "took the blood (of sacrifice) and sprinkled it upon the people and said: “This is the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.” But the favorite type of the sacrifice and priest to come is, to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Melchisedech. He says that “no one takes the honorable office of High Priest upon himself, but only accepts it when called to it by God as Aaron was. So Christ did not claim for Himself the honor of being High Priest, but was appointed to it by Him who said to Him, my Son art thou: I have today begotten thee; as also in another passage he says, Thou art a priest forever, according to the order of Melchisedech.” And he goes on a few verses afterward to repeat, “For God Himself calls Him a priest forever, according to the order of Melchisedech,” and gives in a later chapter a short account of the sacrifice of this Priest-King of Salem, and proves from the difference between his priesthood and the Aaronic priesthood the perfection of the New Covenant instituted by him, of whom God said: “The Lord has sworn and will not recall his words, thou art a priest forever.” All the old sacrifices were inferior to the unique new sacrifice and but types of it. Christ it was who “once for all entered the holy place securing an eternal redemption, and He is the mediator of the New Covenant, in order that, since a life has been given in atonement for the offences committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the eternal inheritance which has been promised to them.” These inspired words state clearly the priesthood of Christ, and they are full of significance as unfolding to us the meaning of the Redemption.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Not true. Dropping the whole issue is exactly what was done by God to the people of Jonah after their disobedience when they turned away from their wickdness.

I never said forgiveness didnt stem from God’s mercy, and that ultimately it is about mercy not revenge, but the fact is sacrifices were required according to the Torah. Turning to Jonah where pagan people were doing their best to repent does not overturn the long passages of the Torah which command sacrifices. The Torah is God’s chosen path for the Jews to follow.

When somebody murders (in an Islamic state), the family has the right to forgive the murderer. An “eye for an eye” is God’s way of saying this is the highest form of punishment, but letting go is an expression of mercy. You do not have to retaliate. The Koran says “repel the evil deed with one which is better” (41:34). The punishments exist to give the victim a right to exact revenge in order for it to be a fair system, but forgiveness is always the better option.

The “eye for eye” is stated clearly in places like Lev 24:19-20 (among others). Im not sure where it appears in the Koran, but someone around here could probably find such passages.

The life of the Prophet Muhammad is an example of this flexibility. When he retaliated he had every right to retaliate, but the final gesture was forgiveness: when he returned home to Mecca, the very people that drove him out and killed his daughters and persecuted his companions, he said to them “you are free today; this day let no reproach be (cast) on you”.

But this “flexibility” is very different than what Jesus taught. In your case Muhammed retaliated when he felt like it, Jesus never taught retaliation. Im not sure of the history of Muhammed returning to Mecca, but I am skeptical that he just dropped the issue. I would request further information on this. I am under the impression he was a warlord from the beginning, anyone with information please respond.

In the Islamic understanding therefore, the one against whom the sin is done has the right to choose his or her own course of action, whether that person be God or creation.

Again, the hardest teaching of Jesus (Matthew 5: 43-47) allows no such “right to choose”. Is there a passage in the Koran that even comes close to Mat 5:43ff?

I know we should be careful about forming judgments about what we see on tv, but it appears there is violent outrage by a significant amount of Muslims all over the world whenever they dont approve of what the local rulers are doing. The random acts of violence, such as the murder of the Christian Bishop of Iraq a few weeks ago is another example of the “right to choose” rather than the “let it be”. The absolute violence against Iraqi Christians, who did nothing wrong, is another issue to be raised regarding the “merciful” approach you advocate and which Christianity doesnt teach.

What was the point of Christ’s death? How are you forgiven? Why did God have to reveal His love in such a brutal way?

God didnt have to forgive anyone, but He chose to. He ALSO chose how He would go about displaying His love and mercy. Christ was sent to demonstrate a perfect life of love and obedience, God knew that Jesus would be murdered (just as all the great prophets before had been). But the testimony of Christ’s life of love and obedience was so powerful that it gained favor with God, a favor which extended to beyond just forgiving of sins (not punishing with death) but giving the opportunity for a resurrection after death. The Father and Son chose this path as the way to demonstrate God’s love, a plan that had mercy at its very root.

I did not say it wasn’t obligatory according to Jewish Law, but it was not necessary to gain God’s forgiveness. Blood sacrifices were not necessary, hence God forgives without blood sacrifices.

The fact is God chose, not was forced, to use the sacrificial system. To say the sacrifices were not really that important in the system of forgiveness makes long passages of the Torah meaningless, including the purpose of the Temple and priestly generation of Levi. While sacrifices are not strictly necessary, they are required for those who wish to obey the Torah.

Again untrue. In Leviticus 4 it says “'When anyone sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD’s commands…” and in Numbers 15 verses 22-31 it makes it absolutely clear that sacrifices only atoned for unintentional sins, whereas intentional and deliberate sins are not forgiven by sacrifices alone.

Sacrifices did NOT only atone for unintentional, but also intentional sins. The sacrifice on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16) was for all sins.

What was the significance of Christ’s supposed death and resurrection? And how are our sins forigven in Catholicism?

The significance of Christ’s death was to demonstrate the life of love and obedience that God desires of us, even if it leads to our own death. It also signifies the blessings anyone who is faithful to God will receive. The significance of the Resurrection was that God would not leave any righteous man in the grave, in fact to raise Christ from the dead was the highest form of justice and love. Death was for sinners, so death could not keep a hold of Christ, the man who did not sin. The act of love and obedience of Jesus was so pleasing to the Father that the Father’s grace and mercy would be on anyone who would believe in Jesus and model their life around Him.

Sins are forgiven in Catholicism for anyone who follows the plan Jesus laid out for us, especially through Faith and Baptism. God forgives sins for those who trust in His Son and are willing to model their life around Jesus. As all the great prophets of the Old Testament interceded between God and sinners, Christ in a most perfect way intercedes for us.