How do we forgive Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?

[DaveBj]

Hi Dave,

snip

Lets ponder together…

FTR, I have found it easy in my life to ignore actions that other people might find offensive. If I don’t allow myself to be offended, then there is nothing for me to to forgive, whether or not the person apologizes. I have had people come up to me and say that they were sorry for actions that, quite frankly, I couldn’t remember happening. I also explained early in this thread that “forgiving” Tsarnaev was not an issue for me, because he had not offended me personally.

 

[Robert_Sock]

FTR, I have found it easy in my life to ignore actions that other people might find offensive. If I don’t allow myself to be offended, then there is nothing for me to to forgive, whether or not the person apologizes. I have had people come up to me and say that they were sorry for actions that, quite frankly, I couldn’t remember happening. I also explained early in this thread that “forgiving” Tsarnaev was not an issue for me, because he had not offended me personally.

I’m not sure about you, but I feel that that terrorist attack affected me greatly even though I was not there.

 

[DaveBj]

I’m not sure about you, but I feel that that terrorist attack affected me greatly even though I was not there.

It affected me in that I recognized it as a crime that would require a certain process for resolution (and that process has taken place), but it was not a “personal affront” to me because it did not happen to me. It should be obvious that my reaction might be different if I or a relative had been directly affected.

 

[OneSheep]

FTR, I have found it easy in my life to ignore actions that other people might find offensive. If I don’t allow myself to be offended, then there is nothing for me to to forgive, whether or not the person apologizes. I have had people come up to me and say that they were sorry for actions that, quite frankly, I couldn’t remember happening. I also explained early in this thread that “forgiving” Tsarnaev was not an issue for me, because he had not offended me personally.

So…

You are not offended by murder? Abortion (murder)? Environmental destruction? Rape? Only when the offense is “personal”?
You must be kidding.

And if you never took offense, why are you involved in this discussion? You would not wish to discourage others from forgiving, right?

Offense is a triggered response. We do not “will” it, like “Gee, I think I am going to get offended by that.”, right? No, offense is a triggered response, a healthy human reaction borne in a normal conscience. We are supposed to act upon offense, though modified by human experience. We learn that an-eye-for-an-eye is not appropriate, and only makes matters worse. We learn that there is the appropriate use of human-made laws and policing to deal with offenders, when possible, or to intervene ourselves, when necessary. And when the crisis is over, we can stop and forgive.

Jesus does not call us to ignore offense, He calls us to protect people, and He calls us to forgive.

That said, there may be some offenses that are much more glaring for you, ones that are much more personal, that you have yet to address. Or, perhaps you are surrounded by so many offending circumstances that you have become a bit desensitized. In these cases, and all other scenarios, avoiding forgiveness is understandable and definitely forgiveable. A person may judge desensitization as “calloused”. This judgment is an offense taken, and another opportunity to forgive. We all have our own journeys.

When we grow in a love so inclusive that we truly see and encompass all humanity as brothers and sisters, then all offense is “personal”. Actually, though, the triggered reaction has little to do with how “close” we are to the victim. An action that violates our conscience takes place, and our minds react immediately and offense is triggered before we have time to think about it. Studies of the brain have proven this.

I’m still pondering… are you? reactions?

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

FTR, I have found it easy in my life to ignore actions that other people might find offensive. If I don’t allow myself to be offended, then there is nothing for me to to forgive, whether or not the person apologizes. I have had people come up to me and say that they were sorry for actions that, quite frankly, I couldn’t remember happening. I also explained early in this thread that “forgiving” Tsarnaev was not an issue for me, because he had not offended me personally.

It affected me in that I recognized it as a crime that would require a certain process for resolution (and that process has taken place), but it was not a “personal affront” to me because it did not happen to me. It should be obvious that my reaction might be different if I or a relative had been directly affected.

Terrible things happen every day. Why should I not get just as upset over a family who got killed in Keokuk Iowa by a drunk driver over the weekend, leaving dozens of grieving family members? The Boston thing has celebrity and somehow I’m supposed to feel obligated to emote negatively over it. There are wars, earthquakes. There is enough to be negative and anxious and upset and angry about to keep anyone’s ego upset and huffy for 1000 lifetimes.

The problem is, very few people I talk to even get to this. They hold grudges against people they have less chance of interacting in a salient way than they will get taken up by space aliens with a tractor beam, after this evening’s news.

So…

You are not offended by murder? Abortion (murder)? Environmental destruction? Rape? Only when the offense is “personal”?
You must be kidding.

And if you never took offense, why are you involved in this discussion? You would not wish to discourage others from forgiving, right?

Offense is a triggered response. We do not “will” it, like “Gee, I think I am going to get offended by that.”, right? No, offense is a triggered response, a healthy human reaction borne in a normal conscience. We are supposed to act upon offense, though modified by human experience. We learn that an-eye-for-an-eye is not appropriate, and only makes matters worse. We learn that there is the appropriate use of human-made laws and policing to deal with offenders, when possible, or to intervene ourselves, when necessary. And when the crisis is over, we can stop and forgive.

Jesus does not call us to ignore offense, He calls us to protect people, and He calls us to forgive.

That said, there may be some offenses that are much more glaring for you, ones that are much more personal, that you have yet to address. Or, perhaps you are surrounded by so many offending circumstances that you have become a bit desensitized. In these cases, and all other scenarios, avoiding forgiveness is understandable and definitely forgiveable. A person may judge desensitization as “calloused”. This judgment is an offense taken, and another opportunity to forgive. We all have our own journeys.

When we grow in a love so inclusive that we truly see and encompass all humanity as brothers and sisters, then all offense is “personal”. Actually, though, the triggered reaction has little to do with how “close” we are to the victim. An action that violates our conscience takes place, and our minds react immediately and offense is triggered before we have time to think about it. Studies of the brain have proven this.

I’m still pondering… are you? reactions?

These are some good points. Offense is triggered. But I claim these triggers are installed, not inborn. Babies learn by operant conditioning what bring pain/pleasure. They have certain instinctive responses like suckling and one that makes them curl their toes when you touch their foot. But “offense” is something that presumes a moral code, that we hold others responsible to. So I contend that even though “offense” is often triggered unconsciously – sorry but if it offends me it can be hard to hide it, kind of thing – that these triggers were once planted there by some interaction between my own mind and its perceived environment.

There is a “disgust” response that seems to apply to all humans, as cataloged by cross-cultural studies of facial expressions. Also the strongest human sense to evoke immediate reactions is that of smell. So we do seem wired up to take on different forms of aversion, and here I’m suggesting that “offense” involves more socialization than the inborn “disgust” but that’s my personal thoughts based on how I see the term “offense” used.

 

[OneSheep]

These are some good points. Offense is triggered. But I claim these triggers are installed, not inborn. Babies learn by operant conditioning what bring pain/pleasure. They have certain instinctive responses like suckling and one that makes them curl their toes when you touch their foot. But “offense” is something that presumes a moral code, that we hold others responsible to. So I contend that even though “offense” is often triggered unconsciously – sorry but if it offends me it can be hard to hide it, kind of thing – that these triggers were once planted there by some interaction between my own mind and its perceived environment.

There is a “disgust” response that seems to apply to all humans, as cataloged by cross-cultural studies of facial expressions. Also the strongest human sense to evoke immediate reactions is that of smell. So we do seem wired up to take on different forms of aversion, and here I’m suggesting that “offense” involves more socialization than the inborn “disgust” but that’s my personal thoughts based on how I see the term “offense” used.

Good Morning Seeker,

I didn’t know that this thread was going to go in a “heady” direction, but yes, the actual stimuli for the triggers are not innate. What we all have is the “hardware/software” for such triggers, and “nurture” fills in the blanks. Once the stimuli are set, the triggering happens subconsciously. Common triggers: violence, deception, disrespect, property damage/theft. These triggers happen automatically, though in my own experience if I am “ready to get offended” I may be able to override the trigger. Everyone has triggers, right?

Yes, I think disgust is more inborn. I once worked for a veterinarian, and my own disgust reactions became more subdued as time went on. Was it a desensitization or a modification? Not sure.

In addition, studies show that we can and do modify our reactions over time. Our reactions are constantly in a state of flux based on experiences, there has been shown to be a feedback loop. On the other hand, I occasionally react to something and I am surprised at my own reaction, even if it seems “natural”. A stimuli implanted long ago and left unused can resurface. “Gosh, where did that come from?”

As far as that occurrence in Iowa, I don’t know about you, but when I hear about a bunch of people being killed, say, by an explosion, there is a period of time where my mind wants to know, “was it an accident, or was it intentional?”. We grieve, but do not take offense about accidents, generally speaking. The drunk driving was offensive, yes, but a bombing, an intent to kill innocent people, triggers a greater offense. Since it was obviously a crime against Any American, we were all targeted, so to speak.

Forgiveness, of course, is a Spirituality issue. Jesus lived in a land, among a people, filled with resentment toward a violent occupier and puppet Israeli leaders. We complain about our own democratic govt, imagine the offense taken by Jesus’ contemporaries!

And He preached forgiveness of enemies! Some people on this thread demonstrated resistance about forgiving one man. Imagine the resistance toward the call to forgive an occupier!

Thanks for your response.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

And He preached forgiveness of enemies! Some people on this thread demonstrated resistance about forgiving one man. Imagine the resistance toward the call to forgive an occupier!

I think this really gets to the point that however we got to this point, it seems our obligation to be offended by things that are “agreed upon terrible” – and it doesn’t hurt when they have celebrity so that going against the “mob” becomes its own social or even physical threat.

And yes we hear “love our enemies” but like you say give one example and we can’t. So how are we to love “unconditionally” which by definition means no matter HOW evil we believe them to be? Or how about this – confidence in being able to love and forgive a person, without even first hearing how serious the charges are? Woo boy, now we’re getting somewhere, eh?

Sure there are real threats in the world, and I support those who fight on my behalf that I have the freedoms that I do have. But maintaining a constant state of agitation and being offended and upset and angry about the world not being as We Would Like It, does absolutely zero to fix the problem. Instead, it causes the person who can’t forgive to allow his brain to stay in “fight or flight” mode continuously, thus interfering with natural growth and healing processes, and especially the building up of immune system. We can read the news and every ten minutes find something to renew our upset about. Our minds and bodies were designed to handle an immediate threat, then resume normal blood chemistry and functions in about 20 minutes. So it’s like running a self-destruct routine on our own brains, just because things I can’t control are not as I would have them be if I were God – frankly I think this touches on whether we really trust the Holy Spirit to guide us and open our hearts and minds to the actual words of Jesus … big whoop people forgiving someone who is our friend and did a wrong thing and comes crawling back. But how long will we hold a grudge when we judge the person as unrepentant or insufficiently contrite. Our judgments of them kill us with the very evil thoughts we attribute to them. It’s crazy to think that somehow if we hate them enough, they’ll stop being bad? If that’s crazy then we must forgive for the sake of sanity.

 

[OneSheep]

… But how long will we hold a grudge when we judge the person as unrepentant or insufficiently contrite. Our judgments of them kill us with the very evil thoughts we attribute to them. It’s crazy to think that somehow if we hate them enough, they’ll stop being bad? If that’s crazy then we must forgive for the sake of sanity.

Good Morning MS!

I know that you have read some Fr. Rohr, so I am going to frame some of my responses in some of his words. I can state that what you wrote above could have been written by Fr. Rohr himself, and I would like to take it a little deeper. What people likely do not see is that in what you wrote there is a bit of a contradiction, a very understandable contradiction, a very human contradiction. Famous psychologists are also unaware of the same contradiction. It may seem a bit superficial or silly when I point it out, but it is not. It is a contradiction that takes us to the very deepest part of our own shadow.

The contradiction is in the words “being bad”. Fr. Rohr says that when we judge, we are seeing with our False Self. That said, when we say that a person is bad, vs behaving badly we have judged, we are seeing with our “false self”. When we forgive someone completely, we no longer see them as bad; our resentment disappears. We see the other as no different from ourselves, so the word “bad” as a comparison no longer pertains. When we forgive, the ordinary use of “bad” as a description of character, a word packed with negative emotion, disappears. Our eyes change.

But if you don’t mind, let’s leave that contradiction for a moment and address “crazy”. “Crazy” is also, often, a judgement, a negative (though you probably did not intend for it to come across that way) And yes, forgiveness not only contributes to our spirituality, our holiness, but it also contributes to our sanity.

So, Jesus calls us to “seek”. This was the call that He repeated more times than any other call. Shall we “seek” together for a bit? The trickiest part, in my experience, is to find the question. A wonderful priest once told me, “It is not to condemn or condone, but understand.” Understanding, a gift of the Spirit, is guided by a question.

Here is the question:

Why do we think, “If I hate them enough, they’ll stop behaving badly.”?
Note: this is a very normal, natural, human way to think.

Try to look at the question as objectively as possible, without condemning or condoning.

Have a great day.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

The contradiction is in the words “being bad”. Fr. Rohr says that when we judge, we are seeing with our False Self. That said, when we say that a person is bad, vs behaving badly we have judged, we are seeing with our “false self”. When we forgive someone completely, we no longer see them as bad; our resentment disappears. We see the other as no different from ourselves, so the word “bad” as a comparison no longer pertains. When we forgive, the ordinary use of “bad” as a description of character, a word packed with negative emotion, disappears. Our eyes change.

This is a good point. Especially since I just finished a class on sensation and perception, when we say “seeing is believing,” well you see what you believe. What we actually see and hear is quite a complicated mental construct that requires the cooperation of quite a few systems to put together into a “story”. Some say if they see it, they will believe it. It is at least as true to say if they believe it, they will see it.

I like the distinction you’re making between a “bad person” and a “person with bad behavior.” Like I can have two perfectly good computers side by side and one running a program of healing and the other one of war and destruction. Do I say the left computer is bad, or that it is running images that make me think of negative things?

But if you don’t mind, let’s leave that contradiction for a moment and address “crazy”. “Crazy” is also, often, a judgement, a negative (though you probably did not intend for it to come across that way) And yes, forgiveness not only contributes to our spirituality, our holiness, but it also contributes to our sanity.

Here by “crazy” I meant a certain type of what I’d call illogic. Or maybe “magical thinking”… and it’s completely ridiculous when spoken explicitly, but implicitly I think the mindset has it as a component. That the anger I feel will somehow hurt the other person. Or maybe it is more of a separation: if I’m angry at that person, they must be in the “out” group and therefore their behavior is not a challenge to “me” because of course I’m in the “in” group. A “depressed person” could turn that whole thing around.

Why do we think, “If I hate them enough, they’ll stop behaving badly.”?
Note: this is a very normal, natural, human way to think.

I think it starts when children are very young, and authority figures “control” them with looks and moods. Before children have any capacity to to any “metacognition” or thinking about their own thinking, they are constantly told that adults are either happy or angry with us for our behavior. And this gets wired “under the radar” so we don’t even realize it’s going on, and each person has a slightly different programming so they can’t completely understand each other.

Basically adults teach children that to be an “adult” you must take things others do “very seriously” and emote appropriately. We must cheer on those wearing the “white hats” and hate the “black hats” actors.

And when we are built upon these marginally stable platforms, we can trigger each other with even simple compliments. Like if my wife surprises me one night for the first time in years with a candlelight meal and slippers and I say, “thank you, you are such a great wife” then that begs the question, was she a “great wife” before this? If you instead say, “thank you very much… this is my favorite meal and it’s a great surprise!” then you are still expressing gratitude but without the manipulating, and the equating of “good wife” with “good thing she did”

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning!

This is a good point. Especially since I just finished a class on sensation and perception, when we say “seeing is believing,” well you see what you believe. What we actually see and hear is quite a complicated mental construct that requires the cooperation of quite a few systems to put together into a “story”. Some say if they see it, they will believe it. It is at least as true to say if they believe it, they will see it.

What a great way of putting it! Yes, if we believe it, we see it! What is important is how we come to that belief, and how solid that foundation is. In my experience, the solidity has to do with prayerful understanding of every nook and cranny, everything within the realm of conscious. Specifically, it means addressing every little thing (and big thing) that I resent (in the self of other). It is also helpful to address what I condone, but condonation only mirrors the condemnation.

I like the distinction you’re making between a “bad person” and a “person with bad behavior.” Like I can have two perfectly good computers side by side and one running a program of healing and the other one of war and destruction. Do I say the left computer is bad, or that it is running images that make me think of negative things?

What I am specifically addressing is how one feels toward the computer. Do I resent the computer? It is a focus on the emotional. For example, if the computer seems to trigger negative images is one thing, but if you feel negatively toward the computer itself, that is another thing.

Jesus asks us to forgive those we hold anything against. Whether it is a whole person or part of a person, in my experience, this is very pertinent. If I condemn part of the other, I am assuredly condemning this specific aspect in myself. This goes back to the believing/seeing you brought forth.

Here by “crazy” I meant a certain type of what I’d call illogic. Or maybe “magical thinking”… and it’s completely ridiculous when spoken explicitly, but implicitly I think the mindset has it as a component. That the anger I feel will somehow hurt the other person. Or maybe it is more of a separation: if I’m angry at that person, they must be in the “out” group and therefore their behavior is not a challenge to “me” because of course I’m in the “in” group. A “depressed person” could turn that whole thing around.

I think it starts when children are very young, and authority figures “control” them with looks and moods. Before children have any capacity to to any “metacognition” or thinking about their own thinking, they are constantly told that adults are either happy or angry with us for our behavior. And this gets wired “under the radar” so we don’t even realize it’s going on, and each person has a slightly different programming so they can’t completely understand each other.

Yes, nurture has a huge effect, and anger has been shown to be very effective in modifying the behaviors of those around us. It has been proven that anger is effective in the workplace, people “don’t want to make him mad”. Also, studies have shown that when “attractive” children get angry, they are much more effective than “unattractive” children at getting parents to cater to them. All kids get angry, but unattractive children learn that their anger works against them. The attractive kids have their anger rewarded, and then grow up with more of a sense of entitlement, which was also part of the study I read. I could try to find the studies if you want, they came out of UCSB I think. With either child, the resulting effect of the nurturing is subconscious.

Here is an example of anger, and resentment, in a different species:

“One balmy evening at the Arnhem Zoo, when the keeper called the chimps inside, two adolescent females refused to enter the building. The weather was superb. They had the whole island to themselves and they loved it. The rule at the zoo was that none of the apes would get fed until all of them had moved inside. The obstinate teenagers caused a grumpy mood among the rest. When they finally did come in, several hours late, they were assigned a separate bedroom by the keeper so as to prevent reprisals. This protected them only temporarily, though. The next morning, out on the island, the entire colony vented its frustration about the delayed meal by a mass pursuit ending in a physical beating of the culprits. That evening, they were the first to come in.”

Frans de Waal

Basically adults teach children that to be an “adult” you must take things others do “very seriously” and emote appropriately. We must cheer on those wearing the “white hats” and hate the “black hats” actors.

Yes, I agree, there is an element of “should” in the “reason” part of the brain about who we “should” see as good or bad. However, it has been proven that our judgments are gut reactions, they happen before our frontal lobes can even “touch” an observation. The immediate resentment we feel when we hear about a case like Dzhokar and his brother is from a deeper part of the mind, we don’t think to ourselves “I should resent those guys, so I will.”, right? Resentment is triggered in a place in our mind, and resentment has an effect on those against which the resentment is directed, at least those within proximity.

The question is, how do you feel about that place in the mind we are referring to? This is one of the many “places” in the mind, parts of ourselves, drives, emotions, capacities, etc. that we normally, naturally, and commonly resent. For example, I think it is also very common to resent human desire for status.

(cont’d)

 

[OneSheep]

Mystical Seeker:

And when we are built upon these marginally stable platforms, we can trigger each other with even simple compliments. Like if my wife surprises me one night for the first time in years with a candlelight meal and slippers and I say, “thank you, you are such a great wife” then that begs the question, was she a “great wife” before this? If you instead say, “thank you very much… this is my favorite meal and it’s a great surprise!” then you are still expressing gratitude but without the manipulating, and the equating of “good wife” with “good thing she did”

Yes, our conscience rewards us when we behave well and punishes us when we behave badly. It manipulates us, and it drives us to correct those around us.

How do you feel about this manipulative aspect? I am hearing a little bit of aversion to this aspect, which is very normal, because you are trying to find ways of expressing gratitude without involvement of the manipulating aspect. (Which of course is also a very good idea, interpersonally.)

What we want is freedom, autonomy, from the coercion, right? How do you feel (emotionally) about the coercive part of yourself, the part of you that wants others to do what you want them to do?

So, I think I am addressing two parts of the human in these posts: desire to be in control, and the workings of the conscience.

I do want to “check in” a little here. Does this post and the last seem a little annoying to you? I do not intend to annoy, but let me know if I have hit the “annoyed” button, okay? We can deal with that if and when it happens. This is all very uncomfortable for people, and I don’t know you well enough to gauge your reactions from written communication. Oh, and please let me know if I am not getting the gist of what you are saying. Forgive me for sounding educational about stuff you already know.

Thank you, so much, for your response.

You are obviously a Very Good Person for responding.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, our conscience rewards us when we behave well and punishes us when we behave badly. It manipulates us, and it drives us to correct those around us.

I didn’t know that a conscience rewards and punishes. Really? I think the human conscience is a judgment of reason enabling us to recognize the moral or the immoral, the right or the wrong of an action. It is something like an interior voice whispering, that is, telling us about the law of God. Our conscience calls us to love and do what is good and when we come upon evil, our conscience calls us to avoid and resist all evil temptations. Obviously, people can ignore their conscience or they can manipulate it to agree with personal preferences.

 

[OneSheep]

I didn’t know that a conscience rewards and punishes. Really? I think the human conscience is a judgment of reason enabling us to recognize the moral or the immoral, the right or the wrong of an action. It is something like an interior voice whispering, that is, telling us about the law of God. Our conscience calls us to love and do what is good and when we come upon evil, our conscience calls us to avoid and resist all evil temptations. Obviously, people can ignore their conscience or they can manipulate it to agree with personal preferences.

Hi Granny,

Yes, in blindness and ignorance, a person can manipulate their conscience. In addition, an adult with an inadequately formed conscience does have the ability to work on forming a more inclusive conscience (inclusive of aspects of righteousness that were absent previously).

I “lump” guilt and the feeling of righteousness under “conscience”. When we behave badly, we feel guilty. When we behave righteously, we feel “good”, there is a shot of “happy” in our brains. This is the reward/punishment I am talking about. I include it under “conscience”, but it need not be lumped, if the reward and punishment falls into some other aspect of mind, that is fine with me. It’s there, (the reward/punishment mechanism) and it is very closely tied to the conscience if it not part of the conscience itself. Something in our minds is much more “hands on” than a passive call, and it is beautiful in construct and function.

The brain is much too complex to divide into “parts” that have to do with particular drives and capacities.

thanks!

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Yes, our conscience rewards us when we behave well and punishes us when we behave badly. It manipulates us, and it drives us to correct those around us.

How do you feel about this manipulative aspect? I am hearing a little bit of aversion to this aspect, which is very normal, because you are trying to find ways of expressing gratitude without involvement of the manipulating aspect. (Which of course is also a very good idea, interpersonally.)

Yes, mostly the interpersonal aspect is my concern. I’ve hurt people by making what I thought was a positive or supportive statement, only to find out much has been read into it.

I have recently hired a guy who coaches me with Skype sessions, and can help me observe myself to the extent where it’s almost comical when I see my own ego playing games – and what I found out that I can be very manipulative when I don’t even know it. I think it’s one of those things that have stood in the way of honest communication with my wife, so you have correctly picked up that this is a recent “hot button” for me… I won’t say a “bad button” because I have come to actually love doing shadow work. In fact, what I learned about unguarded honesty, is that it can be messy especially at first; it takes time and experience for the ego to deprogram it’s facade convincing to even the most sensitive observer of me, the one who has lived with me for 30 years.

I tend to be passive-aggressive. Since I never really understood aggression and blaming and shaming and other seemingly useless mental activities that lead to arbitrary decisions that may not IMO be in anybody’s best interest, when things aren’t right I would just try to stay under the radar so I don’t get into a fight when I don’t even know why there is contention. Then later I would figure out nefarious ways of getting back at them, most of which I never did. Once I came up with a scheme that was so brutal, I actually started feeling sorry for the person I was mad at – after time I recognized that as hilarious!

In the past I’ve used great numbers of words to try to be very clear, and disclaim ill intent. That has not worked well, either, so this old dog is having to learn some new tricks. Nothing is impossible with the Lord, right?

What we want is freedom, autonomy, from the coercion, right? How do you feel (emotionally) about the coercive part of yourself, the part of you that wants others to do what you want them to do?

Usually I’m happy with doing what the others want to do. So I’m more likely to become offended because they think they have to coerce me or manipulate me into something they could have just asked me to do. I thank the Lord that I have the ability to help someone, and it hurts me that others think I only offer it quid pro quo. But honestly we seem to think of quid pro quo a lot when we really might be better off looking at pure love, which does not seek reward because it comes out of love which is our essence in the image of God.

So, I think I am addressing two parts of the human in these posts: desire to be in control, and the workings of the conscience.

I do want to “check in” a little here. Does this post and the last seem a little annoying to you? I do not intend to annoy, but let me know if I have hit the “annoyed” button, okay? We can deal with that if and when it happens. This is all very uncomfortable for people, and I don’t know you well enough to gauge your reactions from written communication. Oh, and please let me know if I am not getting the gist of what you are saying. Forgive me for sounding educational about stuff you already know.

No, not annoyed. I’m to the point where I almost never get annoyed as far as the content or subject matter. It does happen, but less frequently as time goes on because when I get good and triggered, it is my joy to find the root and observe the foolishness from which it came – laughing at that foolishness can remove some of its power or at least if I understand it, I can design anti-viral seed thoughts to plant among them, that will relegate them to powerless as the other Silly Thoughts that keep us imprisoned.

That said, I finally can fully appreciate “loving an enemy”. First, I’m not much into physical fighting so I’m only talking about emotions and ego and motivation and pretty much those communications that can be done over the Internet, for example. Like belittling someone, or simply not hearing what they have to say to the point they become exasperated and give up, whether or not they think I’m doing it on purpose!! Or I’ll ask a question that is relevant to something they want me to say or do, and they take it as an affront.

But a “real enemy” who really wishes to hurt my feelings or prove I am wrong and they are right or whatever, has a vested and persistent interest in finding out any little things that can set me off. And maybe it isn’t even a personal enemy, but a situation that is “nobody’s fault” except it isn’t how I want it, and a part of me is going to have a tantrum. These enemies supply me with keys to my dungeons, that “friends” would not even notice. So that’s part of their value; to test and prove me, to bring me closer to Christlike “perfection”.

You are obviously a Very Good Person for responding.

I appreciate that, and you are an astute observer of human character by noticing, and by boldly proclaiming it as you have, I can tell you are of excellent character as well. :bowdown:

Wow that just gave me a weird idea. You know how on earth if we met the actual pope, we would bow down and kiss the ring of the Pope? Think of what Jesus might just do if we meet Him in physical person? He would ask us to sit down while He washes our feet.

Makes me go hmmmmmm…

 

[OneSheep]

Hello Seeker!

Thank you for your response. I think you may have missed post 90. I am interested in your thoughts on that one.

Feel free to cut out parts and respond to the most pertinent, as I will do on yours in order to avoid exceeding the “limit”.

Yes, mostly the interpersonal aspect is my concern. I’ve hurt people by making what I thought was a positive or supportive statement, only to find out much has been read into it.

It was easy for you to see that you had no ill intent.

I have recently hired a guy… and what I found out that I can be very manipulative when I don’t even know it. ‘’…
I won’t say a “bad button” because I have come to actually love doing shadow work…

I think it really helps to say something about ourselves is “bad” if we resent it in any way. Denial saves the ego, but it is unproductive in shadow work. For me, one of the biggest parts of shadow work is to make what I call “painful admissions”, driving right through the denial, straight to the humility.

Is there a “bad” button? That is a starting point…

I tend to be passive-aggressive. Since I never really understood aggression and blaming and shaming …Then later I would figure out nefarious ways of getting back at them, most of which I never did…

Hmmm. Well, blaming is what our conscience does when it is working on someone else, and when it is working on our self it is called guilt. The next step in the routine is for the conscience to compel us to punish the violator, self or other, with shame and or other consequences. It functions, and has a purpose.

In the past I’ve used great numbers of words to try to be very clear, and disclaim ill intent. That has not worked well, either, so this old dog is having to learn some new tricks. Nothing is impossible with the Lord, right?

That disclaim of ill intent is a great start! However, sometimes we do intend to do bad, but still for the sake of some type of good, as St. Augustine and Aristotle (or was it Plato?) observed. So, the problem is not in the underlying intent, but the ignorance and blindness we have in carrying out the intent. Try to think of a counterexample. I can’t find one.

… But honestly we seem to think of quid pro quo a lot when we really might be better off looking at pure love, which does not seek reward because it comes out of love which is our essence in the image of God…

Quid pro quo is very common in the mammalian world, it is in our nature (there are many examples). Yes, love that demands no return is supernatural.

That said, I finally can fully appreciate “loving an enemy”. First, I’m not much into physical fighting so I’m only talking about emotions and ego and motivation and pretty much those communications that can be done over the Internet, for example. Like belittling someone, or simply not hearing what they have to say to the point they become exasperated and give up, whether or not they think I’m doing it on purpose!! Or I’ll ask a question that is relevant to something they want me to say or do, and they take it as an affront.

But a “real enemy” who really wishes to hurt my feelings or prove I am wrong and they are right or whatever, has a vested and persistent interest in finding out any little things that can set me off. And maybe it isn’t even a personal enemy, but a situation that is “nobody’s fault” except it isn’t how I want it, and a part of me is going to have a tantrum. These enemies supply me with keys to my dungeons, that “friends” would not even notice. So that’s part of their value; to test and prove me, to bring me closer to Christlike “perfection”.

Well, yes! Our “enemies” can provide us a test, but to me such a test is not one where endurance, tolerance, or even ability to remain charitable is the most enduring outcome. What I have is a list, in my journal, of everything that “sets me off”, it’s my personal rule book. It is a great exercise, and the list is finite. The next step that is helpful for me: Why does this set me off? It is this process of discovery that leads to an inner beauty, in my experience. And then? When I realize that a button has been pushed, I can see the beauty in the button.

When D.T. set off the bomb at the marathon, almost all of our buttons were pushed, so to speak. We got angry and became resentful, which was exactly the mindset of D.T. when he planned to set the bombs. To point angrily at D.T. is to ignore the post in our own eye, but hypocrisy is the rule rather than the exception; even such hypocrisy has its place! Forgiveness involves forgiving both of us, myself and D.T., at the same time. Do you see what I mean? We are all guilty of resentment. We are all innocent of intent to do (as a net effect) evil, though insanity may provide extremely rare exceptions. Again, I have yet to find a counterexample.

See attempts here

Wow that just gave me a weird idea. You know how on earth if we met the actual pope, we would bow down and kiss the ring of the Pope? Think of what Jesus might just do if we meet Him in physical person? He would ask us to sit down while He washes our feet.

It must be a bit of a struggle for the Holy Fathers to accept such adoration. Jesus was a model by being both a washer of feet, but allowing the woman to wash his feet with her hair. It can be much harder to receive than to give, for many. I would think that the Holy Fathers have to sort of get used to the ring-kissing stuff. In this era, those that would expect it, let alone demand it, would not likely end up Pope.

Thanks for your response! Please feel free to disagree with whatever I say here. I am only learning too…

 

[grannymh]

Hmmm. Well, blaming is what our conscience does when it is working on someone else, and when it is working on our self it is called guilt. The next step in the routine is for the conscience to compel us to punish the violator, self or other, with shame and or other consequences. It functions, and has a purpose.

My sincere apology because I am replying in the middle of a post. These simple sounding words did not sound like the conscience in humans.
“The next step in the routine is for the conscience to compel us to punish the violator, self or other, with shame and or other consequences.”

It is very hard for me to understand just how a conscience can compel (a very serious word) when the human conscience is a judgment of reason enabling us to recognize the moral or the immoral, the right or the wrong of an action. Our conscience tells us to love and do what is good and when we come upon evil, our conscience tells us to avoid and resist all evil temptations. That does not harmonized with “compel us to punish …” Maybe the word compel is used to cover up our own free choice of actions. ???

 

[OneSheep]

My sincere apology because I am replying in the middle of a post. These simple sounding words did not sound like the conscience in humans.
“The next step in the routine is for the conscience to compel us to punish the violator, self or other, with shame and or other consequences.”

It is very hard for me to understand just how a conscience can compel (a very serious word) when the human conscience is a judgment of reason enabling us to recognize the moral or the immoral, the right or the wrong of an action. Our conscience tells us to love and do what is good and when we come upon evil, our conscience tells us to avoid and resist all evil temptations. That does not harmonized with “compel us to punish …” Maybe the word compel is used to cover up our own free choice of actions. ???

Good Morning Granny, and great points.

As I said in the last post to you, I tend to be a “lumper” when it comes to the conscience. For example, let’s say that I write something that you may find atrocious; your conscience, your sense of right and wrong, has a negative reaction. (you may be having such a reaction as you are reading this!) You wouldn’t have thought to yourself, “I should have a negative reaction”, instead the conscience has reacted on its own; the reaction came from the gut.

Next, a big flashing red light says “unacceptable!” and one is compelled to communicate such non-acceptance in some way. Compulsion, however, does not usurp free will or our power to choose. If someone bad-mouths me, I am compelled to punish the wrong, but my choice of punishment, and whether to carry out such punishment, is hopefully tempered by reason and disciplined to be carried out in the light of complete forgiveness. Is this compulsion part of the conscience itself, or is it part of a separate neural “grid”, i.e. desire to be in control? Hard to say, but the compulsion I am talking about is universal in the human, and at least intricately tied to our sense of right and wrong. When we say and do wrong things, our mind punishes us, and when we say/do right things, our minds reward us.

Dzhokar Tsarnaev did not temper his compulsion to punish. He had not forgiven, though his faith called him to do so. If he had forgiven, he would have sought justice through other means.

We can come to see that even the mechanism within ourselves that compels us to punish comes from a benevolent God. The mechanism has its place and function, Granny, it is a thing of beauty.

Did that address your concerns?

Happy Pentecost!

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

This part about being compelled intrigues me. I’m not convinced that it is “nature” and not “nurture” that has placed this compulsion within us; therefore I do not concede that it is impossible to be without it.

But this part about a “benevolent God” has me scratching my head, too, because frankly the more I think about it with the freedom I’ve allowed myself, the more I really Do Not Like this “God the Father” and/or do not identify with Him. Do I enjoy the life and the world He gave me? Yes. Do I want to be like Him?

After all, if I were like God, I would place narcissistic bets against Satan, allowing for those who love me the most, to suffer greatly for the sake of my proving my ego to someone who deserves nothing. If you can stomach watching anti-Christian “humor” by atheists, how can you argue with the way they portray God the Father in this video? The Book of Job

If I were like God, I’d consider taking out entire cities for the sake of one evil person in it, if it weren’t for the cooler head of Abraham, talking Him out of it. Face it; God the Father is a crazy guy that we can never understand, which is why He had to send the Living Word to translate it into words and experiences to which we can hopefully relate.

Even Jesus refers to the indifference with which God the Father behaves toward those who believe and those who don’t. This may be “divine justice” but I’m pretty sure no humans would allow a system of “justice” to operate like that. I’ve never really heard commentary on the part of this passage where Jesus talks about how arbitrary His Father is, when it comes to punishing the bad guys and rewarding the good guys. Maybe it’s because we human beings think we have the superior way?

Consider some of the very subtle implications in this. Consider that God does not, in fact, differentially love those who love Him, nor does he differentially withhold blessings from evildoers… Jesus is calling us to the same, only on the “love” side of the equation only. He is IMO advocating a system of non-justice, if “justice” means to punish those who do wrong. Here is a quote from NABRE; I’ve left the section headings in…

Matt 5:
Teaching About Retaliation. 38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on [your] right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. 40 If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. 41 Should anyone press you into service for one mile,[z] go with him for two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow.

Love of Enemies. 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of **your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. **46 For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? 48 So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.

I’m learning more and more that God really just gives us everything. He doesn’t protect us for being righteous, although His Spirit may guide us in such a way that regardless of our own personal fate, it all works out for the good as in Rom 8:28.

MS

P.S. In case this post makes it sound like I am anti-God, I will add the following: I am very much against some of the “images” of God that have been widely presented and accepted, as I perceive it, by both Christians and some others. The Bible specifically states that human minds cannot comprehend God’s mind, but still we base entire belief systems around the presumption that we actually do understand “the mind of God”. What we can do, is listen to His Son, because that’s what He told us to do from the cloud. He didn’t say, “my Son will teach you to figure me out” but just “listen to Him”. Maybe God is “full range” and the Son is that part of God that is good? And since the Son is good, when He says “only my Father is good” it’s because “good” is all He perceives, never having been trained by original sin to recognize “bad” things? Frankly, I think Jesus and Lao-Tzu would make a great teaching team to reach both eastern and western audiences alike, in addition to being driven by the same Spirit.

 

[OneSheep]

This part about being compelled intrigues me. I’m not convinced that it is “nature” and not “nurture” that has placed this compulsion within us; therefore I do not concede that it is impossible to be without it.

Good Morning MS!

You might check my post 90, I would love to know your thoughts on it. The chimpanzees: nature or nurture? It boils down to nature, because even if it is mostly nurture, it is in our nature to have the capacity to nurture in this way. Reward and punishment neurotransmission is very real in the human mind, as well as non-human minds. Humans get a “happy” charge out of their own righteous behavior.

But this part about a “benevolent God” has me scratching my head, too, …
watching anti-Christian “humor” by atheists, how can you argue with the way they portray God the Father in this video? The Book of Job

I could not argue their point, but the depiction of God in the OT is not to be taken literally for the most part. In the case of the book of Job, the point (I think) is about how to remain in faith while undergoing great trials, though there are other themes too. We are talking about a people who were certain that God wanted them to slay whole villages. Thankfully, Jesus has shown us a different image.

If I were like God, I’d consider taking out entire cities for the sake of one evil person in it, if it weren’t for the cooler head of Abraham, talking Him out of it. Face it; God the Father is a crazy guy that we can never understand, which is why He had to send the Living Word to translate it into words and experiences to which we can hopefully relate.

Even Jesus refers to the indifference with which God the Father behaves toward those who believe and those who don’t. This may be “divine justice” but I’m pretty sure no humans would allow a system of “justice” to operate like that. I’ve never really heard commentary on the part of this passage where Jesus talks about how arbitrary His Father is, when it comes to punishing the bad guys and rewarding the good guys. …

If you can find the passage, (on the arbitrariness) I can probably help a little. Jesus challenged the mechanism of the human conscience itself in many ways:

1. The conscience functions, in part, on holding grudges, at least initially. Images of bad behavior in the subconscious remind us not to behave “like they did”. Jesus call us to forgive, to allow love to guide our behavior, beyond the functioning of the human conscience. (love your enemies, forgive those you hold anything against)
2. The conscience has several categories of “fairness”. Researchers have found something like 4 or 5 categories. Jesus challenges us to transcend “fairness”. (Workers in the vineyard, last first, etc.)
3. The conscience calls us to leave no bad act unpunished. Jesus, again, calls us to love and forgive, to consider the sinner and deal with the problem directly. (Adulteress story, call to remove the post-in-our-eye)

The God depicted in the Abraham story is a God equated with our conscience. The conscience, like I said, compels us to punish. Add to that the desire the tribes had to acquire more territory, and blindness to the humanity in those other villages is doubly stimulated.

Consider some of the very subtle implications in this. Consider that God does not, in fact, differentially love those who love Him, nor does he differentially withhold blessings from evildoers… Jesus is calling us to the same, only on the “love” side of the equation only. He is IMO advocating a system of non-justice, if “justice” means to punish those who do wrong. Here is a quote from NABRE; I’ve left the section headings in…

Matt 5:
Teaching About Retaliation. 38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, offer no resistance…

Love of Enemies. 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies,… 48 So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Yes, desire for justice comes directly from the conscience, and Jesus calls us to transcend the conscience from a position of love. The conscience itself is a gift, and has its place, but in its functioning it stifles our ability to love freely. Perfection is to love without limitation, which means watching our conscience and loving beyond it.

Note: V.38 & 43 come directly from the conscience.

I’m learning more and more that God really just gives us everything. He doesn’t protect us for being righteous, although His Spirit may guide us in such a way that regardless of our own personal fate, it all works out for the good as in Rom 8:28.

MS

P.S. In case this post makes it sound like I am anti-God, I will add the following:… Maybe God is “full range” and the Son is that part of God that is good? And since the Son is good, when He says “only my Father is good” it’s because “good” is all He perceives, never having been trained by original sin to recognize “bad” things? Frankly, I think Jesus and Lao-Tzu would make a great teaching team to reach both eastern and western audiences alike, in addition to being driven by the same Spirit.

I am not familiar with Lao-Tzu, but I can truly see God the Father through Christ the Son. God is comprehensible through unconditional love. We are carved in the palm of His hand, He has every hair on our heads counted. Everything we say about bad or good in terms of existence rather than occurrence is the conscience speaking. Jesus openly defies the judgmental ways of the pharisees, and encourages us to love beyond the confines of the conscience, which we do through forgiveness.

Make sense?

God Bless your day.

 

[OneSheep]

To put my last post in the context of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev; he was following the “love your neighbor and hate your enemy” default of the normal human conscience. He finds the behavior of the U.S. toward his fellow Muslim people unconscionable, and Americans are in his psychological “out-group”.

Dzhokhar sought justice against a great evil, in his mind. He was blind to the humanity of the victims, just as the crowd was blind to Jesus’ humanity when they hung Him on the cross. We are all subject to such blindness when we resent others.

Included in our prayers for Dzhokhar we can pray that he learn how to forgive his enemies.