How do we forgive Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?

[Mystical_Seeker]

It is also helpful to address what I condone, but condonation only mirrors the condemnation.

I agree. If I “condone” something, that implies that I could judge it, but choose not to – so yes it is a judgment.

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.

It’s easy for me to see that computer is a relatively “neutral” means of exchanging remarks with other humans. (For the moment I will leave aside wrestling with difficult websites, in favor of computer-enabled interpersonal messages such as this one.) I can also see that it usually has little “interest” in portraying what I write in one fashion or another. That doesn’t always seem to be the case, of course, when using a phone that second-guesses what you write! But this is to digress…

But this raises the point, if I don’t feel angry “toward” the computer, but I feel angry while I am “at” the computer because of what “other presumed humans” have conveyed, then as long as it seems “impartial” in its handling of how alleged “truth” is presented, then if another person speaks from his/her “own truth” (as opposed to obfuscating on purpose) then why should I judge the manner in which they said it, except for the content itself? And yet the particular wording seems to be a Big Bickering Point for interpersonal discussions.

Example dialog: “I only said this” “yes but it sounded like that” “it only sounded like that because you must feel guilty quit reading things into me I’m not like that” “well how should I know maybe next time you should put a winking face or something” blah blah blaah and not a bit is about the actual content of the discussion, but ego posturing!! It’s really kind of hilarious if you can stand back and let it be, and trust the Holy Spirit somehow will get all of this orchestrated and worked out!

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.

I can see, however, that it may reach a “dark part” of yourself that has never been tested, or has not in itself failed, and still produce negative feelings. Because sometimes people really do Bad Things that would never have occurred to me – but when I see them I immediately empathize with not only the victim if any, but the perpetrator. I think, "what kind of angry rant or BS programming in their head could produce this.

So I see if you can reduce the condemnation to a certain aspect in yourself, it makes it easy to do “experimentation” if you will, to become more self-aware for the purposes of learning where you might spend time improving your outlook.

One difference we may have in opinion, and my opinion is a bit fluid, is whether you can really, thoroughly “erase” these triggers, or just learn not to let them take control of the rest of the body.

And btw the “tongue” has an important part. It has great power, and effectively the computer is assisting in the part of our tongues:

James 3:
1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you realize that we will be judged more strictly, 2 for we all fall short in many respects. If anyone does not fall short in speech, he is a perfect man, able to bridle his whole body also. 3 If we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we also guide their whole bodies. 4 It is the same with ships: even though they are so large and driven by fierce winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot’s inclination wishes. 5 In the same way the tongue is a small member and yet has great pretensions.

Consider how small a fire can set a huge forest ablaze. 6 The tongue is also a fire. It exists among our members as a world of malice, defiling the whole body and setting the entire course of our lives on fire, itself set on fire by Gehenna. 7 For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by the human species, 8 but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings who are made in the likeness of God. 10 From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. This need not be so, my brothers. 11 Does a spring gush forth from the same opening both pure and brackish water? 12 Can a fig tree, my brothers, produce olives, or a grapevine figs? Neither can salt water yield fresh.

For me, I look at the fact no living human is a perfectly good, nor a perfectly bad, tree. We get some things right and fail at others; speak some truth and some falsehood. If you combine this with Jesus enjoining his disciples not to pull up the weeds lest the wheat comes up with it, it sounds like He’s saying that we don’t condemn the whole person because of one or more faulty thoughts or behavior patterns (s)he exhibits to the outside observers.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

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.

Yes, I think we place entirely too much emphasis on telling kids they should do this and not that because it makes one or more other people angry. We usually don’t admit it, and lie or cover up if caught doing it, but we are trained from an early age that our behavior is directly coupled to others’ feelings.

“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

I can just imagine Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, with safety/survival needs overshadowing social connection needs. But I have to ask about the motives of the beating. Was the motive to punish the perpetrator because we think he needs to be punished for some idealistic reason or for our own personal venting, or do we punish him as an assumed deterrent for future “troubling” behavior?

So if I hurt someone so they will stop hurting me or others, is that different than hurting someone just because I’m mad and get triggered to – and oh by the way maybe that also has a deterrent effect?

This is of great interest to me in public discourse about punishing criminals. Personally I think victims have certain rights to be protected as citizens, but I think they have no “right” to see that a certain punishment is enacted. We say the victims “deserve justice” meaning they should get to see the others suffer. I think this is terrible policy; punishment IMO should be based on factors such as the person involved, their history, the nature of the crime, how likely to be done again, or whatever. But not as emotional gratification for vindictive victims. It makes me sad to see one after the other sensationalist news media reporting on whether the victims are going to get satisfaction – what a sick, sick, sick, sick, sick way to look at justice. “I have suffered to that person needs to suffer too.” It’s as much about bloodthirsty revenge as it is about keeping the streets safe IMO.

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.

But I honestly don’t resent them at all. Or my self-cloaking is working really well. I know that according to societal BS, I am “supposed” to be angry – but why? Doesn’t Jesus teach us that we can not only not control things, but that being anxious and angry about them is not helping anybody?

Of course there is using anger as emotional manipulation, and frankly this is what is presented as the end-all authority on this earth. Might does make “rights” for those who have it, and if they can exert authority by emoting toward those they want to control, well they are going to do that.

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.

How I feel is freedom, because over the last 15 years I’ve gone from the sense that part of my mind has a great deal of control over my thoughts, moods, and actions, and now it doesn’t – because of the great progress in the shadow work I’ve done, and many blessings from the Lord through many good interpersonal and environmental experiences.

MS

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Mystical Seeker.

My computer crashed, and work has kept me too busy to deal with it. I hope to get back to you tomorrow.

If anyone would like to continue with other insights concerning forgiving DT, please feel free to add your comments!

Thanks.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Hi Mystical Seeker.

My computer crashed, and work has kept me too busy to deal with it. I hope to get back to you tomorrow.

If anyone would like to continue with other insights concerning forgiving DT, please feel free to add your comments!

Thanks.

 

[OneSheep]

I agree. If I “condone” something, that implies that I could judge it, but choose not to – so yes it is a judgment.

Good Morning, MS

What I am thinking is that condonation is not only a choice to avoid judging negatively. It is a positive judgment, “he is good” or “that part of me is good”. In the context of the conscience, if I behave in the “good” way, my brain gives me a shot of happy neurotransmission. It is subtle, but research show that it occurs. (Note: the judging I am talking about is really not a matter of choice anyway, it is a reaction coming from the subconcious.)

It is very common for a person to say, “If you understand it, you condone it.” The mind that is set on condemnation is resistant to understanding the actions of the person who causes harm. What I am suggesting is that the conscience is built upon “saving”, hanging onto, some grudges so that the images of those hurtful acts continue to act as a guide to our own behaviors, i.e. “If I do this, I am acting like that guy”. This is a largely subconscious process I think. “That guy” may be a “good” image, or it may be a “bad” image. This is what I am thinking is part of the functioning of the conscience. Understanding, as a part of forgiveness, to some degree neutralizes the images. Such neutralization would not contribute to helpful behavior (nor discourage hurtful behavior) unless the individual has developed empathy and love of others to the degree that love could truly be the guide; the carrot-and-stick workings of the conscience becomes a bit of an obsolescence.

It’s easy for me to see that computer is a relatively “neutral” means…

However, is such “seeing” a secondary “seeing”, one in which you have reflected on an initial reaction? For example, when my computer crashed, I was tempted to punish it in some way. The garbage can was tempting, and perhaps imagining the sound of it being sent through a closed window. This could also be a matter of frustration, so it might not be a pertinent example.

But this raises the point, if I don’t feel angry “toward” the computer, but I feel angry while I am “at” the computer because of what “other presumed humans” have conveyed…

Example dialog: “I only said this” “yes but it sounded like that”… It’s really kind of hilarious if you can stand back and let it be, and trust the Holy Spirit somehow will get all of this orchestrated and worked out!

Yes, as long as there is an openness to forgiveness and reconciliation, the Holy Spirit has a way of working things out.

I can see, however, that it may reach a “dark part” of yourself that has never been tested, or has not in itself failed, and still produce negative feelings. Because sometimes people really do Bad Things that would never have occurred to me – but when I see them I immediately empathize with not only the victim if any, but the perpetrator. I think, "what kind of angry rant or BS programming in their head could produce this.

I can immediately empathize with victims, but it usually takes me awhile to empathize with a perpetrator. I have to forgive, and then the empathy follows. I had no empathy for Osama Bin Laden until I forgave him. Before forgiving him, I was compelled to want his death, he was of negative value. Sure, I may have had the questions in my mind, but the tone of those questions would have been accusatory, not conciliatory. For me, my tone becomes conciliatory through prayer; the Spirit develops in me a willingness to forgive. Another important item: I know the outcome will be reconciliation, but it does no good to simply say “I will get over this, I always do”, and then write off the resentment. It is helpful for me to go ahead and give myself the freedom to resent and recognize the hatred I am feeling. Denial only prolongs the process.

So I see if you can reduce the condemnation to a certain aspect in yourself, it makes it easy to do “experimentation” if you will, to become more self-aware for the purposes of learning where you might spend time improving your outlook.

For me, forgiving my shadow was a process that involved an amazing feeling of holiness (wholeness) as it was happening. When I started, I just couldn’t stop. It was so fulfilling. If it was just an intellectual endeavor, then I would have just dropped it.

One difference we may have in opinion, and my opinion is a bit fluid, is whether you can really, thoroughly “erase” these triggers, or just learn not to let them take control of the rest of the body.

We may have no differences. To me, the triggers are very difficult to erase, but anything is possible especially when we are aware of our triggers. It has been proven that the thinking part of the mind can modify the gut-level reactions. In addition, even when we have gut-level reactions, we always have control over what comes out of our mouths or what we do with our bodies.

And btw the “tongue” has an important part. It has great power, and effectively the computer is assisting in the part of our tongues:

James 3:… 8 but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. …

It was reading Paul Glasser that convinced me the opposite. Such inability to tame is an illusion. Now, I grant that there are plenty of times when I have said things that I later regretted, and still do so. However, I was still in control of my tongue in the moment. The problem was not with the tongue, the “problem” was in my internal reaction, that a trigger was hit. We can forgive our triggers and become aware of them. We can work on modifying them. In the mean time, when our reactions lead to consequences, forgiveness remains the center of the solution.

Is that too vague?

(cont’d)

 

[OneSheep]

(cont’d)

For me, I look at the fact no living human is a perfectly good, nor a perfectly bad, tree. We get some things right and fail at others; speak some truth and some falsehood. If you combine this with Jesus enjoining his disciples not to pull up the weeds lest the wheat comes up with it, it sounds like He’s saying that we don’t condemn the whole person because of one or more faulty thoughts or behavior patterns (s)he exhibits to the outside observers.

Another way of looking at it: When I see anything in terms of good or bad, then I am seeing with my conscience, dualistically. When I am seeing all as beautiful, I am seeing with awareness, with my “true self” as Fr. Rohr says. For me, forgiveness of the shadow changed the model of good and evil entirely, it changed a one-dimensional linear continuum of bad - shades of grey - good into something multidimensional. Discipline would never have placed this model in my mind; it was an effect of inner reconciliation.

But yes, we should be patient with the process of forgiveness. If we see weeds, we can deal with those one at a time. In the mean time, may we watch our condemnation, and recognize that each thing we resent presents an opportunity to forgive.

If one has not forgiven Dzhokhar, or someone else for that matter, we can at least see our resentment and resist “pulling the weeds”. Forgiveness, not destruction, is the answer, and I’m sure you agree.

Thanks for the thoughtful response! I’ll get to your next post when I can. In the mean time, have a great Sunday!

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

It was reading Paul Glasser that convinced me the opposite. Such inability to tame is an illusion. Now, I grant that there are plenty of times when I have said things that I later regretted, and still do so. However, I was still in control of my tongue in the moment. The problem was not with the tongue, the “problem” was in my internal reaction, that a trigger was hit. We can forgive our triggers and become aware of them. We can work on modifying them. In the mean time, when our reactions lead to consequences, forgiveness remains the center of the solution.

Is that too vague?

I’ve thought about these things too, and come to the conclusion that the “tongue” (and by way of extension other verbal communication and maybe even body language) will at some point reveal clues to what is inside (“what is hidden will be revealed”) so I had an idea of the inability to “tame” the tongue, as making a deal with it to keep things hidden that we don’t like it to say. One way or another it will “slip out” even by word choice, inflection, even “Freudian slips” in which I do believe.

So the moral of the story is you had better be clean on the inside, because you are living in a “glass house” with the tongue there ready to tell what it knows.

For me, forgiveness of the shadow changed the model of good and evil entirely, it changed a one-dimensional linear continuum of bad - shades of grey - good into something multidimensional. Discipline would never have placed this model in my mind; it was an effect of inner reconciliation.

This has happened for me too. Dimensions I never knew became obvious, little bits at a time and sometimes in big chunks!

MS

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, I think we place entirely too much emphasis on telling kids they should do this and not that because it makes one or more other people angry. We usually don’t admit it, and lie or cover up if caught doing it, but we are trained from an early age that our behavior is directly coupled to others’ feelings.

Hi MS,

Been a bit busy, but I’m going to try to sneak in a couple responses here.

Yes, people think “he made me angry”, which is inaccurate and puts the responsibility on the other for ones’ emotions. Nurture is obviously very important, but if it is not in our nature to have the capacity to blame another, it would not happen. Blame has so much hard-wiring involved, just like the chimps. They blamed those juveniles. Capuchin monkeys do the same when one cries “snake!” in order to get the troop to run away so he can eat something without sharing it. If the group finds out, they punish the liar.

Do you see the good intents and functional beauty of it all? Even the compulsion as part of our nature is a well-intended addition, it functions!

I can just imagine Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, with safety/survival needs overshadowing social connection needs. But I have to ask about the motives of the beating. Was the motive to punish the perpetrator because we think he needs to be punished for some idealistic reason or for our own personal venting, or do we punish him as an assumed deterrent for future “troubling” behavior?

This was in reference to the chimps, but humans too? When I feel compelled to punish, am I really thinking rationally about it, or is there an emotional aspect, a driver that is pushing me to punish? There is a tension, people strive to be objective, because if we act in anger we are doing something that may have been the root of the very behavior we are trying to punish. On the other hand, if we are not angry at all, there is less incentive to punish; absent anger we punish so that we are being “fair” to our other children or whomever.

I’m pretty sure that the chimps had anger, they were not stifling their compulsion to punish.

So if I hurt someone so they will stop hurting me or others, is that different than hurting someone just because I’m mad and get triggered to – and oh by the way maybe that also has a deterrent effect?

This is that tension I am talking about. The conscience sorts it all out. Notice that “thou shalt not assualt” is not one of the 10 commandments. If it was, early punishing behavior would have been outlawed.

This is of great interest to me in public discourse about punishing criminals. Personally I think victims have certain rights to be protected as citizens, but I think they have no “right” to see that a certain punishment is enacted. We say the victims “deserve justice” meaning they should get to see the others suffer. I think this is terrible policy; punishment IMO should be based on factors such as the person involved, their history, the nature of the crime, how likely to be done again, or whatever. But not as emotional gratification for vindictive victims. It makes me sad to see one after the other sensationalist news media reporting on whether the victims are going to get satisfaction – what a sick, sick, sick, sick, sick way to look at justice. “I have suffered to that person needs to suffer too.” It’s as much about bloodthirsty revenge as it is about keeping the streets safe IMO.

It is not restorative justice, which focuses on reconciliation.

But I honestly don’t resent them at all. Or my self-cloaking is working really well. I know that according to societal BS, I am “supposed” to be angry – but why? Doesn’t Jesus teach us that we can not only not control things, but that being anxious and angry about them is not helping anybody?

Of course there is using anger as emotional manipulation, and frankly this is what is presented as the end-all authority on this earth. Might does make “rights” for those who have it, and if they can exert authority by emoting toward those they want to control, well they are going to do that.

How I feel is freedom, because over the last 15 years I’ve gone from the sense that part of my mind has a great deal of control over my thoughts, moods, and actions, and now it doesn’t – because of the great progress in the shadow work I’ve done, and many blessings from the Lord through many good interpersonal and environmental experiences.

MS

When I take the path “it is not to condemn or condone but understand”, I also find it useful to figure out why I do the things I am more “proud” of, that I have condoned. It is humbling to admit why I do not get angry about some tragedies. Maybe I dont know the victim well enough. Maybe I am desensitized. Maybe I actually don’t care about the victims.

I wanted to get onto you next post, but I cannot. I may pm you though, tomorrow.

Thanks

 

[meltzerboy]

Hello Forum-visitors,

As the trial of the Boston Marathon bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, concludes, there is a challenge to us Christians. First, there is the call to love our neighbors, and though it is very difficult to love some people, it is very easy to love and empathize with the innocent.

In addition, we are compelled to protect those we love, and when we see innocent people killed and maimed as happened in Boston, we immediately see the injustice. By our nature, we react with immediate resentment and hatred toward those who do evil. It is human to think of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as a monster, an evil presence, an evil person.

An adult with a normal conscience will react to that reaction, refuse to hate and dehumanize and will stand in that balance, denying the compulsion to hate, but demanding that the guilty pay for their sins, and such payment may include wanting death to the perpetrator of evil. All of this is natural, it is the act of the natural conscience.

In contrast, Jesus calls us to the supernatural:

Mark 11:25

New International Version
And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins."

Forgiveness is for the forgiver, not for the one we forgive. It is an act of love that brings us to holiness. The question is, how do we forgive, and how do we know when we have truly forgiven?

Please post insights as to what works for you. If you disagree with the call to forgive, feel free to voice that also!

Based on the tenets of Judaism, it is not for us to forgive or not to forgive. It is for the families, friends, and targets of the attack who survived to make that decision.

 

[simpleas]

I think we are only called to forgive those that directly harm us in some way. There are many evil actions that accure around the world, one need only to watch the 24hr news or read the local paper. Most things are instantly shocking, and may as you Onesheep refer to as trigger an emotion, such as I experienced yesterday when I read something in the paper. My first reaction was anger, the sort of angry gut reaction that happens when we see something as a pure evil, unnecessary act. Then some frustration as to understanding why a person would do such a thing. I think of it every now and then, but as I can’t do anything about it I let it go.
Just like when DT and his brother blew up innocent people, I’ll admit my blood didn’t boil as it did yesterday, but my feelings were ones of sadness, frustration and prayful for the people involved, and when I decided, a pray too for the bombers.

 

[OneSheep]

Based on the tenets of Judaism, it is not for us to forgive or not to forgive. It is for the families, friends, and targets of the attack who survived to make that decision.

Good Morning Meltzerboy,

Yes, there is a bit of a distinction to be made between the tenets of Christianity and those of Judaism. Jesus gives us a new criteria for who to forgive, as I brought forth previously:

Mark 11:25

New International Version
And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins."

So, the criteria for the Christian is not by family, friends, or whom is targeted. The criteria is that we hold something against someone. You may recall that I started a thread about how to forgive Hitler. Only the calloused, antisemitic, or desensitized could not hold something against that man. Yet, we Christians are all called to forgive Hitler if we do hold something against him. It’s not easy.

It wasn’t easy for me. Sure, I only knew a few Jewish people, but I loved the ones I knew, and still do. I read The diary of Anne Frank as a child, and I thoroughly demonized the Nazis. I held something against them. What human would not? True forgiveness for me did not “turn the table”. Yes, I admit I was a judeophile, and many Christians are in this post-holocaust era. Mature forgiveness meant also seeing the Jewish people as people no different than I am, not better, not of a “victim status”, but just ordinary God-loved people.

I later held something against those who want to expand Israeli territory. It is easy to empathize with the victims of such expansion. Yet, we are called to forgive those we hold something against, and I knew that I needed to forgive the “expansionists”. Do you see what Jesus is saying? It is about looking into our hearts, and seeing who we resent. It is about forgiving, from the heart, those we hold something against. Do you see the global impact of such forgiveness? If you are thinking “Yeah, dude, then the worst get away with murder” then you are missing the point, missing the definition of forgiveness, what it is and what it is not in the Christian sense.

Antisemitism is blindness, bro. Anti-Islam is blindness. Anti-Christian is blindness. We are all capable of inadvertently becoming blind; it is function of our nature.

Do you see what I mean? Yes, Eva Kor had more “right”, in the Judaic sense, to forgive the Nazis than I did. But such a “right” can be a diversion, a means by which the bystander can avoid forgiving those they resent. Eva Kor was criticized for forgiving the Nazis, but in doing so she was more “Christian” than most Christians. I mean that in a very positive way. Perhaps you don’t see it that way. ?

As usual, you bring up some very important points. Thanks; your participation is an asset to the CAF.

 

[OneSheep]

I think we are only called to forgive those that directly harm us in some way. There are many evil actions that accure around the world, one need only to watch the 24hr news or read the local paper. Most things are instantly shocking, and may as you Onesheep refer to as trigger an emotion, such as I experienced yesterday when I read something in the paper. My first reaction was anger, the sort of angry gut reaction that happens when we see something as a pure evil, unnecessary act. Then some frustration as to understanding why a person would do such a thing. I think of it every now and then, but as I can’t do anything about it I let it go.
Just like when DT and his brother blew up innocent people, I’ll admit my blood didn’t boil as it did yesterday, but my feelings were ones of sadness, frustration and prayful for the people involved, and when I decided, a pray too for the bombers.

Hi Simpleas,

If you held nothing against those responsible for the “horror”, then there was no call to forgive.

There is always something we can do about the horrors that people do to each other in the world. We can forgive them when called to do so, and encourage people to forgive them, because people are compelled to react to horror with more horror.

For example, chances are that the “horror” you read in the paper was carried out by someone who was seeking justice, trying to right a wrong, like those who beheaded the Coptic Christians in Libya.

Or was it a different case?

Did you give up trying to understand why he (they) carried out the “pure evil, unnecessary act”?

Thanks for your response!

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

simpleas;13021159:

I think we are only called to forgive those that directly harm us in some way. There are many evil actions that accure around the world, one need only to watch the 24hr news or read the local paper. Most things are instantly shocking, and may as you Onesheep refer to as trigger an emotion, such as I experienced yesterday when I read something in the paper. My first reaction was anger, the sort of angry gut reaction that happens when we see something as a pure evil, unnecessary act. Then some frustration as to understanding why a person would do such a thing. I think of it every now and then, but as I can’t do anything about it I let it go.
Just like when DT and his brother blew up innocent people, I’ll admit my blood didn’t boil as it did yesterday, but my feelings were ones of sadness, frustration and prayful for the people involved, and when I decided, a pray too for the bombers.

Hi Simpleas,

If you held nothing against those responsible for the “horror”, then there was no call to forgive.

There is always something we can do about the horrors that people do to each other in the world. We can forgive them when called to do so, and encourage people to forgive them, because people are compelled to react to horror with more horror.

For example, chances are that the “horror” you read in the paper was carried out by someone who was seeking justice, trying to right a wrong, like those who beheaded the Coptic Christians in Libya.

Or was it a different case?

Did you give up trying to understand why he (they) carried out the “pure evil, unnecessary act”?

Thanks for your response!

Yes, this is one of my points too. If I hold nothing against someone, there is nothing to “forgive”. So “failing to judge” does not call into test our need to forgive. So I see learning how not to judge as Jesus calls us to, is so difficult to do in the face of our worldly programming by society, that “forgiveness” is the tool we use before we learn not to judge (which is funny because judging itself is learned but from the world not love) or when we fail to “not judge.” It was literally an “unheard of” option from the time of Moses until sometime around the adulteress and stoning incident.

Maybe you and I differ as to whether it is humanly possible to “fail to judge” but at least I see a point of agreement here.

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas,

If you held nothing against those responsible for the “horror”, then there was no call to forgive.

There is always something we can do about the horrors that people do to each other in the world. We can forgive them when called to do so, and encourage people to forgive them, because people are compelled to react to horror with more horror.

For example, chances are that the “horror” you read in the paper was carried out by someone who was seeking justice, trying to right a wrong, like those who beheaded the Coptic Christians in Libya.

Or was it a different case?

Did you give up trying to understand why he (they) carried out the “pure evil, unnecessary act”?

Thanks for your response!

Thanks.

Yeah it was a different case, one of someone not seeing the worth of another creature and so deemed it fine to cruelly and painfully end it’s life. All I can think is the person must have been full of anger to carry out such an act, that or he just doesn’t care. I know people don’t see things in the same light, we all fail at something, and whats that saying.“shake the dust off your feet and walk on to the next town” I think that is right, you maybe able to help some people see the worth of all creation, but there will always be some that will never listen, and although it’s sad, I see now that for me anyway, I just have to let it be…

Have a nice day

 

[OneSheep]

Thanks.

Yeah it was a different case, one of someone not seeing the worth of another creature and so deemed it fine to cruelly and painfully end it’s life. All I can think is the person must have been full of anger to carry out such an act, that or he just doesn’t care. I know people don’t see things in the same light, we all fail at something, and whats that saying.“shake the dust off your feet and walk on to the next town” I think that is right, you maybe able to help some people see the worth of all creation, but there will always be some that will never listen, and although it’s sad, I see now that for me anyway, I just have to let it be…

Have a nice day

Hi Simpleas

Yes, he could have been full of anger. There is no need to “shake the dust” though. We can always do something; we can pray, we can forgive, we can donate to awareness causes, we can volunteer.

Have you ever swatted a mosquito, or wanted to? To the condemning mind, the object of resentment may have no more value than a mosquito.

To the Tsarnaev brothers, this is most likely the case. They saw the Americans walking on the street as a nuisance, supporting a government that persecutes those he cares about, disrespects their ideology. Americans were just so many mosquitoes.

Are you able to admit, as I do, that you have seen the value of another human as no better than a pesky mosquito? For example, the person who behaved so cruelly you are referring to, even for a moment did you find the person dispensable? You may have to enter into your moment of being most appalled.

It is very easy for me also to go into quick denial, “I never felt the person had the value of a mosquito.” It is a difficult thing to admit.

thanks for responding.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, this is one of my points too. If I hold nothing against someone, there is nothing to “forgive”. So “failing to judge” does not call into test our need to forgive. So I see learning how not to judge as Jesus calls us to, is so difficult to do in the face of our worldly programming by society, that “forgiveness” is the tool we use before we learn not to judge (which is funny because judging itself is learned but from the world not love) or when we fail to “not judge.” It was literally an “unheard of” option from the time of Moses until sometime around the adulteress and stoning incident.

Maybe you and I differ as to whether it is humanly possible to “fail to judge” but at least I see a point of agreement here.

I am not eliminating the possibility of slowly eliminating triggered judgements. Have you been successful?

People of all cultures judge, it is a function of the conscience itself, right? Did you see my quote from De Waal? Chimpanzees judge. To me, it does no good to blame society, upbringing, the Church, our parents, whoever, for my own capacity to judge another person. We can blame God! But what does the “blame God” look like? We can give to God responsibility for the human capacity to judge, the key is to find God’s good intent, his omnibenevolent intent. It is there!

Now, my friend, does that sound like “making excuses”? Hah! You have judged me.

The point of the matter is that the Tsarnaev brothers and many others, have judged Americans, for understandable reasons. We in turn judge those who judge us, for understandable reasons. Sure, nurture had an influence in the content of those judgements, but not the capacity. The capacity is in our DNA, and God is in our very DNA, as Fr. Rohr says.

whadya think?

Thanks, MS.

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas

Yes, he could have been full of anger. There is no need to “shake the dust” though. We can always do something; we can pray, we can forgive, we can donate to awareness causes, we can volunteer.

Have you ever swatted a mosquito, or wanted to? To the condemning mind, the object of resentment may have no more value than a mosquito.

To the Tsarnaev brothers, this is most likely the case. They saw the Americans walking on the street as a nuisance, supporting a government that persecutes those he cares about, disrespects their ideology. Americans were just so many mosquitoes.

Are you able to admit, as I do, that you have seen the value of another human as no better than a pesky mosquito? For example, the person who behaved so cruelly you are referring to, even for a moment did you find the person dispensable? You may have to enter into your moment of being most appalled.

It is very easy for me also to go into quick denial, “I never felt the person had the value of a mosquito.” It is a difficult thing to admit.

thanks for responding.

Hi.

No I didn’t see the person as less than human, my initial reaction was to the pain and suffering of the creature. The act that had been carried out made me angry.

It was obvious that he saw the creature as less than a “mosquito”.

Yes you are right about contributing in the ways you state in order to help make a change in the world, be it only a small one. But as we know, many people will not change their views or actions because they see another person as less than human, if the brothers had truely seen other people as human as they are, then they would not have caused such pain and suffering to their brothers and sisters.
Of course minds can be changed if they are open and willing.

Anyway, for me personally I don’t see the death penalty as justice. In some way it makes us seem as on the same level of thinking as the brothers. If we are calling ourselves Christians, we hope to be compassionate and forgiving, taking someone’s life isn’t compassion or forgiving. Do we say, it’s all forgiven go back out into the world, and most possibly he would carry out another crime, no, but we can show our christian calling and show compassion and forgiveness, and maybe through time he will see what he has done and change within himself.

Have we got the right to deny a person time to repent?

It’s along process, forgiveness, it doesn’t happen overnight, nor does admitting a wrong.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

I am not eliminating the possibility of slowly eliminating triggered judgements. Have you been successful?

Actually, yes. I’ve had some really great stuff the HS has thrown my way and so much to say about it I don’t know where to start.

My emphasis is on “mortifying” a trigger, whatever that takes. If I catch myself being offensive to someone, whether they point it out or not, I love to investigate that and try to find out where it came from. Like if I see a gay male couple kissing on a TV news report from some city 1000 miles away, I may think “eww gross why do they show that stuff yuck”

So then I will ask myself what makes me yuck? Jesus wasn’t kidding about how thoughts don’t need consequent behavior to be toxic. If an MRI were taken of my brain, and of the brains of the guys while they were kissing for the camera, we’d expect to see similarities in the “footprint” of the areas of the brain that become active. So in essence, watching them gives my brain the same cognitive experience, by empathy. Intelligence and thought schemata and all modify it, but the underlying fact is that the brain the sees and the brain the does, gets electrically “massaged” in a similar way – the brain itself can neither see nor touch to the very maintenance pathways that are available for dreaming, are also available to construct a fantasy world.

So one hypothesis is that I judge they have caused me to do something unpleasurable, by proxy. The “TMI” situation. Or is it that I think “that sort of behavior” should be hidden? So then I imagine changing the situational variables. Like what if it were a man and woman? If I’m still grossed out, then it isn’t because they “dragged me through it” as long as they were kissing in a fashion that I’d enjoy doing myself. If I’m not, then it could be anger because I got cheated into doing something that I don’t find attractive, or even find immoral. So you should not do something that I find immoral, in front of the camera. Because it makes me think about doing it, and I don’t like that. So I would be willing to punish you so that you quit triggering these thoughts in my brain.

That doesn’t say a lot about the method, but just a snapshot of one trail of investigation. I’d like to write and organize and just may do that as my courage has been increasing; there are so many ways to look at this it can open a lot of questions. Ultimately it is impossible to reliably isolate a single motive when there clearly are several potential ones. Like maybe it just angers me because I just got accused of being a “hater” by someone who mistook something I said, and anger loves to spread when it is given a chance by a receptive mindset.

People of all cultures judge, it is a function of the conscience itself, right? Did you see my quote from De Waal? Chimpanzees judge. To me, it does no good to blame society, upbringing, the Church, our parents, whoever, for my own capacity to judge another person.

I don’t like the word “blame” because it has become such a trigger word. Personally I want to investigate potentially causal relationships, and it is honestly quite silly to consider a human being and judge its behavior, without considering the context. Most people want it to be either/or. Either a person “is to blame” or they are not. This leads to the mentality that there must be a judgment, and it will be one way or the other whether I “get it right” or not.

We can blame God! But what does the “blame God” look like? We can give to God responsibility for the human capacity to judge, the key is to find God’s good intent, his omnibenevolent intent. It is there!

Actually I’ve gotten a lot of mileage out of that. I see that we are all one Body and one Spirit, right? Then if you say something rude and I get mad, we have interactively sinned so really we can isolate “who started it” but we were both needed in order for the script to run itself out that way… if you hadn’t said something rude, or been there, maybe I wouldn’t have gotten mad. Or maybe if I wasn’t to hot tempered, then others wouldn’t have to dance on eggshells.

The way I blame God is this: I use Rom 8:28 as a starting point, that all works for the good of those who believe. For this to work right I have to get radical about “all” and I challenge myself that no matter how much I have “suffered” that there should be a story of what it had gained me in my life – or could potentially. If I am truly “in the kingdom” mentality, then I trust there is a framework from which this is positive, whether I’ve seen it or not.

But it’s deeper than just a dismissive, “well it built my character” or “what doesn’t kill me makes me stronger” – while there is an element of truth to those, for me it has to be much more specific to be really useful. My story has to be credible to a cynical judge, me. I have to really believe that I have gained from past wrongs. And I have started learning to see the beauty of the situation. It’s ironic maybe, but how ironic is it that one of the most “beautiful” scenes in the world, is actually a dingy, smelly, dirty, stable?

(continued)se I’m afraid of what he’ll do given the chance.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

(continued)

Now, my friend, does that sound like “making excuses”? Hah! You have judged me.

Are you kidding? I can’t help but judge; I just have to train my triggers to align with what I think is important – and others’ sins in almost all cases is Not My Job to become bothered or indignant over.

Another thing I’ll do, is expose myself to something that offends me. Like if there is a South Park episode, or a stand up comedian, bashing something I hold “sacred” then I want to watch it. I want to see why my ideas are “funny” to them, and maybe I’ll laugh too. And that laughing may bring some healing.

One time (and shhh and/or PM me if you’ve heard this one ) I watched several hours of Dennis Radar, the infamous “BTK Strangler” who terrorized Wichita for several decades and even stalked out my sister-in-law as a potential “project”. His courtroom testimony is amazing; you’d think you were listening to an expert carpenter describe how he built a table – dispassionate, eager to answer the questions, and absolutely deadpan delivery describing the most incredibly offensive crimes as he fulfilled his sexual fantasies Binding, Torturing, and Killing – the “BTK” was his own name. He wrote many letters to the city cops and media after his crimes (like in Batman or something) until finally he got reckless and sent them a floppy disk that could be traced.

After watching him in court for a few hours, and able to completely relax, eat, work on homework etc, I was pretty well mortified to it. So listening to that did not reduce, but even worsened my ideas about how terrible the crimes were – while at the same time I quit being repulsed. I could eat dinner and still enjoy it, while hearing that nature of material. Because I’m used to it. In psychology this may be “habituation” or “adaptation” depending on the details.

whadya think?

No problem with me bringing God in on this…

Yes, they have their reasons and I have mine. If I focus on how they may or not be a threat or benefit to me, that’s a more productive personal viewpoint than whether they have done something that I think is “right” or “wrong”. I don’t want a guy locked up because I’m mad at him, but because I’m afraid of what he’ll do given the chance.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Simpleas!

Hi.

No I didn’t see the person as less than human, my initial reaction was to the pain and suffering of the creature. The act that had been carried out made me angry.

It was obvious that he saw the creature as less than a “mosquito”.

And it never occurred in your mind, “the perpetrator deserves something bad”, even for a moment? Has this always been the case for you? It is a gut-level reaction for me, not something I “mindfully consider”.

Yes you are right about contributing in the ways you state in order to help make a change in the world, be it only a small one. But as we know, many people will not change their views or actions because they see another person as less than human, if the brothers had truely seen other people as human as they are, then they would not have caused such pain and suffering to their brothers and sisters.
Of course minds can be changed if they are open and willing.

If forgiveness is commanded, it can be the impetus, the beginning of such willingness. This is reason to make the call for forgiveness so demanding in the Gospel, I think. It is meant to push the individual to very seriously consider forgiving those we hold anything against.

Anyway, for me personally I don’t see the death penalty as justice. In some way it makes us seem as on the same level of thinking as the brothers. If we are calling ourselves Christians, we hope to be compassionate and forgiving, taking someone’s life isn’t compassion or forgiving. Do we say, it’s all forgiven go back out into the world, and most possibly he would carry out another crime, no, but we can show our christian calling and show compassion and forgiveness, and maybe through time he will see what he has done and change within himself.

Have we got the right to deny a person time to repent?

It’s along process, forgiveness, it doesn’t happen overnight, nor does admitting a wrong.

Yes, the death penalty is not justice, it is basically revenge. However, most of our “justice” system is compelled by revenge and protection, not correction. Yes, it does put us on the “same level of thinking”, but if we come aware of this “same level” and experience it, in some ways has its merits. Can you can relate to the brothers? I have to go to that “level” and admit that I am capable. Can you admit that you are capable, or instead can you not relate to them at all? Does your mind never disvalue another person when they have done great evil? Not even for a split second? Maybe when you were younger?

Thanks for repeating the call for compassion and forgiveness!