I see your point. It depends on your definition of forgiveness. Jesus asks us to forgive our enemies. I am certain that the Holy Father forgave his butler. This does not mean that we should allow people like the butler to continue to do crime.
This could be the justification for never reconciling with anyone.
I suppose so, but that is an extreme situation that is the opposite of what we have. How can you reconcile with those who don’t want reconciliation? Before you ask me how I know that, answer my question about how many agreements they held up.
Of course, but not that it will do any good because they are dead. But that’s not the end of it. When you go to confession, you ask for forgiveness and make a resolution not to do it again [firm purpose of amendment]. If the rest of them [the non-dead ones] wanted reconciliation and/or forgiveness, why are they still actively conducting terrorists operations?
Correct.
Mega dittos. It never occurs to some that they should explain why they don’t vent their outrage on those who commit illegal acts instead of those engaged in honorable soldiering.I’m sorry, I’ve looked back and can’t figure out which “they” we are talking about. Please let me know.
Your “of course” is a really big deal, Sedonaman. The ability to forgive, even the dead, is a gift from God. If you have forgiven those men, you have done an incredible thing. And yes, absolutely it does good. When we reconcile with our enemies from within, that is, we forgive them, we return to holiness, to wholeness, to oneness with mankind and with God. This is reconciliation, and it is a really important part of our faith.
Very good question. I think it is obvious that they are not seeking reconciliation or forgiveness, though they may have voices within themselves calling for such. Instead, they are intent on punishing an entity or individuals that they perceive are evil. They need to forgive us, true?
Jesus may have expressed forgiveness, but if they didn’t repent, they all went to Hell.
Well, we don’t really know this. What we do know is that God’s love and forgiveness are unconditional, and with God all things are possible. It makes sense that sinners must have their blindness cured before they are allowed into heaven, otherwise heaven would not be all that great a place.
Hmmm. It depends on your definition of Absolution, I suppose. Jesus forgave the crowd. Jesus asks us to love our enemies, and forgiveness is an act of love.
One forgives by wishing them no ill. I hope and pray all the terrorists give up their evil ways, repent, convert to Christianity and are saved. If I found out Osama Bin-Laden repented and was baptised before he died, I’d be happy.
Would you wish upon them to be free of foreign powers flying drones overhead, freedom from foreign powers occupying their land and/or controlling their government and media or overthrowing their elected leaders? Would you wish upon them the freedom to exercise their own religion, and continue to focus on forgiveness, as we are? Would you be willing to let go of all drive to punish them (versus a drive to protect ourselves). Is that included in forgiveness?
Well, that presents a problem, because we haven’t foresworn violence either, so they could operate under the same principle. This gets into a long, tedious investigation into who-started-what, which doesn’t really solve the situation.
Well, if they all stopped terrorist activity, there would be no need for drones or US Troops.
The terrorists who want to kill Americans, which BTW is genocide.
True, but that brings us back to forgiveness again, doesn’t it? Forgiveness from both parties would stop the need.
I think maybe you didn’t hit the CCC link. Here it is:
I agree. But the problem is, if we are asking them to forswear violence, they would not have this avenue of self-defense. “Terrorists” against us are defending their autonomy, their lives, from “the great satan”, who has control of their governments (in their eyes, and there is some truth to this) and their destinies.
Well, it is “possible” for me to communicate with someone who wants to do these things. It takes will, faith, forgiveness, and a weapons-free room. Maybe it is not possible for you.
No. This is a non-sequitur.
How do you determine when that has been met?
Where is the proof of this? I hesitated to ask because you have not provided a single source to back up your opinions. You could not have possibly read and comprehended the two I provided.
You know what? The Oslo accords gave Arafat 90% of what he asked for from Israel … and he turned it down. As a result, the Israeli prime minister said, “The Arabs never pass up an opportunity to pass up an opportunity.”
You ask us to practice forgiveness? We already have. By international agreements, we could have summarily executed terrorists caught out of uniform on the battlefield, but we didn’t; we have given them more than the Geneva Convention requires we provide legitimate enemy combatants; when this is all over, the U.S. will not prosecute those violating the Law of Armed Conflict. If that isn’t forgiveness, what is?
I don’t have to answer, Sedonaman has done a wonderful job.
I see your point. My train of thought went back to forgiveness as an answer to the standoff between wishing someone would not have to put up with foreign drones flying over their territory, but wishing also for a means of our dealing with with foreign “terrorists”. What, you didn’t follow me? Couldn’t mind-read?
If the opposing side forgave us, we would know this in negotiation. If we forgave them, they would know this in negotiation.
Well, I could start with Dying to Win by Robert A. Pape. His was an exhaustive study on why people suicide bomb. I apologize for not hitting those links before. I did now. The first link did not work. The second link went to an opinion article that did not investigate why Al Qaeda actors did what they did. There were no interviews or substantive evidence. Read the Pape book, it is a thorough investigation of the motives of suicide bombers starting with the acts in Sri Lanka to Palestine and wherever they occur.
This leads to the question: Why did Arafat turn down the treaty? You are only getting one side of the story from the prime minister. Forgiveness involves listening to the other side of the story.
Well, nowhere have I said we should ignore the occurrence of evil. When we pray “deliver us from evil” it is not a prayer for lightning bolts, it does take some action on our part. When I say “forgiveness is the solution” I am saying that the forgiveness comes from both sides. It would be rather miraculous that forgiveness happen on both sides simultaneously; ordinarily one side forgives first. Now in the most prominent examples, we have Christians and Jews vs Muslims. All these traditions have forgiveness as a central tenet, but which people are going to forgive first?
Here is an article about the Holy Father’s opposition to US aggression in Iraq:
Here is part of what forgiveness is:
Forgiveness is all well and good.My Post:
True, but that brings us back to forgiveness again, doesn’t it?
I see your point. My train of thought went back to forgiveness as an answer to the standoff between wishing someone would not have to put up with foreign drones flying over their territory, but wishing also for a means of our dealing with with foreign “terrorists”. What, you didn’t follow me? Couldn’t mind-read?
If the opposing side forgave us, we would know this in negotiation. If we forgave them, they would know this in negotiation.
Well, I could start with Dying to Win by Robert A. Pape. His was an exhaustive study on why people suicide bomb. I apologize for not hitting those links before. I did now. The first link did not work. The second link went to an opinion article that did not investigate why Al Qaeda actors did what they did. There were no interviews or substantive evidence. Read the Pape book, it is a thorough investigation of the motives of suicide bombers starting with the acts in Sri Lanka to Palestine and wherever they occur.
This leads to the question: Why did Arafat turn down the treaty? You are only getting one side of the story from the prime minister. Forgiveness involves listening to the other side of the story.
Well, nowhere have I said we should ignore the occurrence of evil. When we pray “deliver us from evil” it is not a prayer for lightning bolts, it does take some action on our part. When I say “forgiveness is the solution” I am saying that the forgiveness comes from both sides. It would be rather miraculous that forgiveness happen on both sides simultaneously; ordinarily one side forgives first. Now in the most prominent examples, we have Christians and Jews vs Muslims. All these traditions have forgiveness as a central tenet, but which people are going to forgive first?
Please, can we drop the notion that forgiveness means letting people walk all over us or giving up, or giving stuff away, etc.?
Forgiveness means letting go of the desire to punish, it means understanding the other, it means seeing the other as just as human as ourselves. It means loving and caring for the well-being of the other. Hitler obviously did not forgive many people, and it is obvious that there was only a very limited number of people for which he valued their humanity. We all do this. We don’t value the humanity of the people we think deserve to be punished. In addition, we are all capable of dehumanizing people who appear to stand in the way of material or territorial gain, people who have done us no wrong. In these cases, our minds invent reasons to punish the other. I think Hitler had this going on also. However, in this case also, forgiveness on his part would have helped avoid war.
We are to forgive our enemies, this was commanded by Jesus. If someone trespasses against us, we are to forgive them. Then, we can do all we can to avoid violence to resolve conflicts. Once we have exhausted all other means, violence may be necessary. But even as we do the violence, we do so with the pain of destroying people that we have forgiven. I know that sounds hard, and even ridiculous. But I think that it illustrates how forgiveness is usually nonexistent among people at war with each other.
OneSheep’s thesis pre-supposes both sides are of good will. Negotiations fail if one side refuses to be reasonable.
I wish that were true, that everyone was willing to resolve disputes peacefully. I’ve seen the effects of terrorism first hand. It is worse to see than can be imagined by any sane person. It must be stopped, peacefully or otherwise.