So, at this point I am going under the assumption that you have forgiven me, and we can continue to discuss matters without resentment
influencing tone. In the interest of brevity, I have clipped much of your response; I apologize.
The “feelings” of his coworkers and employer are irrelevant.
I disagree completely, but I understand your point of view. To me, to grow in Love means to grow in empathy. We no longer need “moral obligations” to guide our behavior, because
the law is written in our hearts. Only those with the most compromised ability to empathize such as psycho/sociopaths do not consider the feelings and needs of coworkers and bosses. To me, the feelings and needs of others are
very relevant. Do you consider the feelings and needs of others when you choose a particular behavior?
(Note: I am not dismissing the value of “moral obligations”. Such obligations are important guides for children and those of us whose experiences have not led to growth in empathy.)
He has a moral obligation to do his job, no matter how undesirable or disagreeable he finds it(unless of course what he is asked to do is in fact immoral, but that is not the issue here). This moral obligation is not only imperative due to his employer but to those who depend upon his employment for their support.
Yes, we can assert that it is his moral obligation, but if he has not “bought into” the assertion, then such an assertion does not guide his behavior.
In any case, its dishonest. He knows what he ought to do, but chooses to do otherwise.
We
definitely use the word “dishonest” in different way. If a person says “I don’t think that it is my obligation to check the assignment board.” then he could be speaking
very truthfully, he is being honest. On the other hand, if he is doing so when having already signed something that says he will, then the dishonesty lies in the fact that he made a promise that he would abide by the rules. Now, he may have
neglected to note that when he agreed to employment, he was obligated to check the assignment board. In that case, this was not a matter of “dishonesty” in my opinion, but neglect. In any case, these are explanations, and do certainly not
excuse him from punitive action by his employer. I think my definition of “honesty” is more restrictive, and yours is more general. No problem.
Perhaps there is a more underlying question. Is an explanation the same as an excuse? A person may use an explanation to escape consequence, in order to appeal for forgiveness, true. However, if such attempt to escape consequence
also triggers resentment in me, then my calling is to also forgive the attempt to escape consequence, and I do so by looking for an explanation. Whenever I look into
why people do what they do, and understand that I could have done the same, then I have taken one of the vital steps toward mature forgiveness. In my experiences and observations,
both the immoral behavior
and the attempt to avoid consequence occur with the necessary component of ignorance and/or blindness.
Which brings us back to “us” again. Have you ever made a decision in the wrong where ignorance and/or blindness is not a factor? Search your past sins and try to objectively explain why you did what you did instead of looking at each explanation as an “excuse”, which means that your own self-condemnation has been triggered. Self-condemnation is an inhibition to objectivity. Remember what the priest said? “It is not to condemn or condone, but understand.”
The collaboration of Jewish and Roman authorities was part of the divine plan of salvation, regardless God’s foreknowledge of their sin does not mitigate their culpability. The fact that Jesus asks that they be forgiven is proof that what they are doing is in fact sinful.
This is a very, very pertinent point, and I have had to ponder this myself. A priest once told us “God always forgives.” So, if God always forgives, why would Jesus need to make the plea in the first place?
So, in order to for this special verse to make sense to me, I am thinking that Jesus did not pray “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” as a petition, but instead it is put forth as a final teaching from the Cross. Do you see what I am saying? Is there worse that we can do to an individual than to torture and kill them? Yes, absolutely! Mary, His Holy mother, endured far worse than He, and so did those who loved Him greatly. How are they, those who loved Him, to forgive the killers? Jesus not only communicates that He forgives, but He gives them, and all future generations, the
means to forgive,
the means to understanding why people sin. And when we understand why people sin, really come to the place where we can say “I could have done that, given their perception of the situation.”, we can forgive in a mature way. It is very difficult, Amandil, but such forgiveness is always possible. We can understand why every person does every evil act they ever do, and such understanding is an important step in mature forgiveness.
Their ignorance may or may not mitigate the level of their culpability. Even if I granted your claim that they did not “know” that they were committing Deicide, they knew that they were condemning an innocent man to death, which is a despicable and detestable sin in itself.
Have you ever wanted an innocent man to die? Not me. I
have wanted a guilty man to die, though. In their eyes, Jesus was guilty of blasphemy. Yes, even for blasphemy, the penalty was a bit severe, but this aspect is beside the point. The people
resented Jesus,** they did not forgive Him for His words**. Can you relate to this? I think you can. I can.
