To forgive, or not to forgive?

[spockrates]

Actually, I read prior to May 21 that the judgement will begin May 21 and conclude in October. The media mis-characterized his position on that one.

We better get moving on understanding this forgiveness thing, we’ve got until October.

At this rate we might be cutting it close!



But as Socrates told his friend, who cares whether our words are few, or many, so long as we find the truth.

 

[spockrates]

Each gift of the Holy Spirit is different. I like this one though.

Yes.

I would characterize the “BUT” as being when it comes to judgement, not when it comes to forgiveness. We can judge a sinner’s actions, but not the sinner him/herself. We can look at an objectively sinful action and say it is wrong, however, we can not judge the person him/herself who made that sinful action. Therefore we love them by forgiving them TO THE EXTENT we can based on our knowledge - which is severely limited because we do not know the state of any soul no matter how good or evil he/she may appear on the outside.

Yes, I’m familiar with the idiom, but don’t quite grasp its meaning. I mean, how does that work, exactly? If we judge what a person does, how is that not the same as judging who a person is? Are we to think that a person is not as she does? If she is not what she does, then what is she? We might say she is what she thinks, but what she thinks results in what she does. We might say she is what she says, but what she says is also what she thinks. We might say she is what she longs to be, but what she longs to be is what she is not rather than what she is! For these reasons I don’t see how it is possible to judge a person’s thoughts, words, or deeds without judging the person herself. For what a person thinks, says and does demonstrates who she truly is.

Most certainly.

Let’s give that two thumbs up!

Okay, now you threw a wrench into this whole thing.

Does Jesus forgive differently at different times? I suppose that is true since there are two judgements - the particular judgement and final judgement. They are certainly different forms of judgement - yet the ultimate result will be the same - meaning it’s not like God changes His mind between the two judgements.

What Protestant teachers have told me is that there is one judgment of the forgiven, and one of the unforgiven. The judgment of the forgiven is like the judgment of athletes in an Olympic Games contest–a judgment to see who performs the best and gets the greatest reward in Heaven. The second judgment, they say, if for the unforgiven and is to determine who performed the worst, and gets the worst punishment in Hell.

Their view is somewhat skewed, as it is black and white with no shade of Purgatory’s grays. But it makes the point that those in Hell are not forgiven. However, they are wrong, aren’t they? I mean, consider Divine Mercy, and then look up the synonyms for the word mercy and you find forgiveness is one of them. So insofar as God shows mercy to those in Hell (perhaps by reducing their suffering) they are forgiven. Pity for the damned is one form of forgiveness.

Now consider another kind of forgiveness–the kind that Joan and others advocated earlier: This kind is Pacification (or more accurately, self-pacification) which is ceasing to feel anger toward the one forgiven. One might say that God forgives even the damned in this way–feeling great sorrow, rather than rage, for those who receive Hell as their reward.

But these two kinds of forgivenesses together are still incomplete and imperfect and limited kinds of forgiving, are they not? The complete and perfect and limitless kind of forgiving desired by you and I is what the saints in Heaven experience–a full pardon for their sins that have offended the Holy and Righteous Judge of all.

So it seems to me that forgiveness is not one, but three–a kind of Holy Trinity of forgiving made up of Pity, Pacification and Pardon. Those who have all three are fully and forever forgiven–those who have only two are only partially forgiven, for they are not fully pardoned. How does it seem to you?

I tend to believe Jesus will forgive differently in a sense, but not in reality. Perhaps I view it more of a progression - like steps in the forgiveness process per se.

Yes, I suppose that until we get to Heaven, the progression of our being forgiven will continue, but for those in Hell the progress sadly (and even horrifically) comes to a dead end.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Yes, I’m familiar with the idiom, but don’t quite grasp its meaning. I mean, how does that work, exactly? If we judge what a person does, how is that not the same as judging who a person is? Are we to think that a person is not as she does? If she is not what she does, then what is she? We might say she is what she thinks, but what she thinks results in what she does. We might say she is what she says, but what she says is also what she thinks. We might say she is what she longs to be, but what she longs to be is what she is not rather than what she is! For these reasons I don’t see how it is possible to judge a person’s thoughts, words, or deeds without judging the person herself. For what a person thinks, says and does demonstrates who she truly is.

Try thinking of it in terms of one form of sinful behavior: causing the death of another and how our justice system handles it. There’s 1st & 2nd degree murder and also voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. First degree murder is deliberate and premeditated. Second degree murder is deliberate but not premeditated. Voluntary manslaughter is killing someone when you meant to only harm them. Involuntary manslaughter is killing someone when you didn’t mean to harm someone.

If I witness someone kill another, how can I judge that person without knowing absolutely everything regarding the act? The answer is that I can’t. Sure jurys make judgements based on the evidence (and rightfully so). Yet the evidence we use is inherently flawed because we rationalize based on our own experience - not the person who committed the act’s experience. No one can possibly know for sure except God alone.

I see the “degrees of sin” similar to “degrees of causing death”. Where instead of 1st & 2nd degree murder and voluntary & involuntary manslaughter, we have mortal sin, grave sin, veniel sin, and actions that aren’t sinful at all, but instead a cause of our concupience.

spockrates:

…One might say that God forgives even the damned in this way–feeling great sorrow, rather than rage, for those who receive Hell as their reward…

…kinds of forgivenesses together are still incomplete and imperfect…

…So it seems to me that forgiveness is not one, but three–a kind of Holy Trinity of forgiving made up of Pity, Pacification and Pardon. Those who have all three are fully and forever forgiven–those who have only two are only partially forgiven, for they are not fully pardoned. How does it seem to you?

I’m intrigued by how St. Faustina describes her vision of hell:

divinemercysunday.com/vision.htm

 

[spockrates]

Try thinking of it in terms of one form of sinful behavior: causing the death of another and how our justice system handles it. There’s 1st & 2nd degree murder and also voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. First degree murder is deliberate and premeditated. Second degree murder is deliberate but not premeditated. Voluntary manslaughter is killing someone when you meant to only harm them. Involuntary manslaughter is killing someone when you didn’t mean to harm someone.

If I witness someone kill another, how can I judge that person without knowing absolutely everything regarding the act? The answer is that I can’t. Sure jurys make judgements based on the evidence (and rightfully so). Yet the evidence we use is inherently flawed because we rationalize based on our own experience - not the person who committed the act’s experience. No one can possibly know for sure except God alone.

I see the “degrees of sin” similar to “degrees of causing death”. Where instead of 1st & 2nd degree murder and voluntary & involuntary manslaughter, we have mortal sin, grave sin, veniel sin, and actions that aren’t sinful at all, but instead a cause of our concupience.
…

Yes, good analogy!



Let’s consider a Catholic on a jury: Would you or I sincerely say that she is judging the crimes, but not the criminal? No, I don’t think so, for she is judging the criminal BY her crimes! The Catholic juror must make a judgment call as to whether the evidence, the actions of the accused, and the words of the accused show her to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes of 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, third degree murder, or manslaughter. If found guilty, it will be the accused (rather than her crimes) who serves the time in prison.



Therefore, it is the accused she judges, not merely her actions. It might not be as perfect a judgment as she could make if it were possible for her to read the mind of the accused, but it is a judgment of the accused she must make just the same.

So too, when judging a sinner, isn’t it the sinner we judge, not merely her sins? For doesn’t she (not her sins) receive the consequences for her actions from us? Likewise, we might not be able to make as perfect a judgment of the sinner as we could if it were possible for us to reader her mind, but it’s a judgment we must make just the same. Isn’t it?



I mean this seems to be what Saint Paul the Apostle was advising the Corinthians to do:

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife. And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? … I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked man from among you.

(1 Corinthians 5:1-2,9-12)

Here we see him recommending that the Corinthians judge those Christians who commit sexually immoral acts. He is saying that they should judge the sinner (not merely the sin) for it is the sinner with whom they are to refuse to associate any longer. The sinner, not the sin, experiences the consequences for his actions. That’s not forgiving (in the sense of pardoning) that is holding the person accountable for his actions. That’s what I’m thinking. What do you think?

 

[spockrates]

… Here we see him recommending that the Corinthians judge those Christians who commit sexually immoral acts. He is saying that they should judge the sinner (not merely the sin) for it is the sinner with whom they are to refuse to associate any longer. The sinner, not the sin, experiences the consequences for his actions. That’s not forgiving (in the sense of pardoning) that is holding the person accountable for his actions. That’s what I’m thinking. What do you think?

Please let me reword that: It’s not forgiving in the sense of not holding a person liable for her sins (which is pardoning). Though it still might be forgiving in the sense of showing mercy (or pity) and not holding a grudge (or pacification). That’s what I’m thinking. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

spockrates quoting St. Paul to the Corinthians:

…What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked man from among you.

spockrates:

What do you think?

Let’s take this recent tragedy:

620wtmj.com/news/local/122529024.html
from article:

WEST BEND - An elderly couple is dead after an apparent murder-suicide at the Samaritan Health Center in West Bend, the City of West Bend Police Department said Tuesday.
Charles Alioto, 81, was visiting his wife Julia, 82, and shot her to death before turning the gun on himself. An investigation is ongoing.
Police say Charles was a loving husband. Chief Kenneth Meuler said he may have been trying to spare his wife pain. “He was a very devoted husband and caretaker for his wife,” Meuler said.
Neighbors tell TODAYS TMJ4 the couple had been married for decades. They say Julia suffered from Alzheimer’s Disease and Charles cared for her until he was unable. She went to live at Samaritan a few months ago. Her husband visited every day.
“Every day, three or four times per day. He would go there as soon as he would wake up in the morning,” said Nicole Oetzel. “It’s heartbreaking. He was a sweetheart.”
She says she thinks the two wanted to end their suffering. “I think the love they had for each other. It was straining. Stressful, learning to live on their own.”
Hundreds of residents live at Samaritan Campus. No one was in the room when the shooting happened. No other residents were harmed.

I presume based on what St. Paul said, the situation described above depends on whether the couple are professed Christians or not. Presuming they are not, it is none of my business how they are to be judged for God will take care of it. Presuming they are Christian, we need to take into account who St. Paul was addressing in his letter. The letter is to the church in Corinth. Is he referring to the priesthood of all believers of the community or is he referring to the actual priests in charge over there?

Let’s presume that the man did not kill himself but instead killed his wife and did not kill himself. Should he be expelled (excommunicated) for killing his wife?

Let’s consult the Catechism on this:
CCC 2268:

The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

Infanticide, fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority.

His actions, according to the Church - cries for vengenance from Heaven (on the surface). It appears that he would be someone that could be expelled from the Christian community for his actions. It seems to me that St. Paul’s letter addresses the leadership of the church of Corinth and that this is a matter of pastoral care. After all, the pastor has been given the authority from the apostles regarding such judgements, not the general priesthood (you and I).

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Mr Spockrates: How forgiving ought we to be regarding this scenario?

foxnews.com/scitech/2011/05/27/italian-scientist-charged-manslaughter-failing-predict-earthquake/
from article:

Italian government officials have accused the country’s top seismologist of manslaughter, after failing to predict a natural disaster that struck Italy in 2009, a massive devastating earthquake that killed 308 people.
A shocked spokesman for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) likened the accusations to a witch hunt.
“It has a medieval flavor to it – like witches are being put on trial,” the stunned spokesman told FoxNews.com.
Enzo Boschi, the president of Italy’s National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology (INGV), will face trial along with six other scientists and technicians, after failing to predict the future and the impending disaster.
Earthqutakes are, of course, nearly impossible to predict, seismologists say…

Of course seimologists will say they ought not be liable for such things right?

 

[Monica4316]

That is the question! Should I forgive everyone for everything regardless of anything? or are there times when the right thing is to withhold forgiveness, at least until the person meets some condition to be forgiven?

I think Jesus made it clear in the Gospels that we do need to always forgive that is for the good of our souls as well. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean being best friends with everyone. But forgive in your heart and be charitable to them. That might even help them to turn to God a good way to start forgiving someone is to pray for them… in the end, it’s an act of the will. God bless

 

[spockrates]

Let’s take this recent tragedy:

620wtmj.com/news/local/122529024.html

I presume based on what St. Paul said, the situation described above depends on whether the couple are professed Christians or not. Presuming they are not, it is none of my business how they are to be judged for God will take care of it. Presuming they are Christian, we need to take into account who St. Paul was addressing in his letter. The letter is to the church in Corinth. Is he referring to the priesthood of all believers of the community or is he referring to the actual priests in charge over there?

Let’s presume that the man did not kill himself but instead killed his wife and did not kill himself. Should he be expelled (excommunicated) for killing his wife?

Let’s consult the Catechism on this:

His actions, according to the Church - cries for vengenance from Heaven (on the surface). It appears that he would be someone that could be expelled from the Christian community for his actions. It seems to me that St. Paul’s letter addresses the leadership of the church of Corinth and that this is a matter of pastoral care. After all, the pastor has been given the authority from the apostles regarding such judgements, not the general priesthood (you and I).

Yes, this example might help. When I was younger, I actually met someone who was excommunicated. He was an Ex-Catholic attending a Fundamentalist Baptist Church in Rome, of all places, and I was serving in the US Army signal corps in Italy at the time and visited the Baptist Church with two friends of mine. I guess the people in that Baptist Church forgave him for whatever he did, for they were certainly friendly with him and appeared to consider him as a friend and one of their own.

Now let’s take your example and modify it a bit: Let’s say the woman who was killed was a good friend of yours, or perhaps even a close relative. Should you forgive the man the Church excommunicated for killing her? Also, should you follow the Church’s example it the way it forgave, or did not forgive, him? Before you answer, remember that we are considering three kinds, or types, or ways of forgiving:

1. 
   *]Pitty - or being merciful or lenient
   *]Pacification - or ceasing to hold a grudge
   *]Pardon - or not holding the person accountable or liable for his sins
   
   In which of these three ways (if any) do you think our Church authorities forgave the excommunicated? In which of these three ways do you think you and I should forgive the excommunicated for killing someone we both loved?
   
   

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…Now let’s take your example and modify it a bit: Let’s say the woman who was killed was a good friend of yours, or perhaps even a close relative. Should you forgive the man the Church excommunicated for killing her? Also, should you follow the Church’s example it the way it forgave, or did not forgive, him? Before you answer, remember that we are considering three kinds, or types, or ways of forgiving:

1. 
   *]Pitty - or being merciful or lenient
   *]Pacification - or ceasing to hold a grudge
   *]Pardon - or not holding the person accountable or liable for his sins
   
   In which of these three ways (if any) do you think our Church authorities forgave the excommunicated? In which of these three ways do you think you and I should forgive the excommunicated for killing someone we both loved?

1. 
   1a. Were the church authorities being merciful or lenient to the man?: My understanding of the excommunication process is to spur the one excomunicated to repent of actions they have up to this point not done so nor intend to do so. Therefore, it seems to me that it is a form of taking pity on the man to actually deny communion with the church.
   2a. Were the church authorities ceasing to hold a grudge regarding the man?: I’m thinking that this does not apply - or perhaps more accurately, it does not necessarily apply. It belongs to the realm of ‘feelings’ which, although play a part in the forgiveness process, isn’t really (or ought not to be) brought into the decision as to whether someone is or isn’t excommunicated.
   3a. Were the church authorities ceasing to hold the person accountable regarding the man? When I ponder this point, I think of Martin Luther who was excommunicated and to this day is listed as someone who is excommunicated from the Church. Yet, the Church does not declare definitively that Martin Luther is in hell. With this understanding, I’ll say the church authorities do not hold the person accountable, but are making a ruling on his actions which were sinful in nature based on the evidence available and in their determination deserved the penalty of excommunication.
   
   1b. Should I be merciful or lenient to the man?: Yes. How? See next response.
   2b. Should I cease to hold a grudge regarding the man?: Holding a grudge doesn’t seem to be an appropriate response regardless of the situation. A better question perhaps is: **Should I cease to remain angry? **The answer to that is: it depends. I think there is a time and place for anger. Anger at the man - even directed towards the man may be warrented to trigger a response of repentance. The action of anger could be an act of mercy because the man may turn towards God and save his soul. It also could be an act of vengeance which could be a sin for me as it could convince the man his action was correct and push him further from God instead of drawing him nearer.
   3b. Should I cease to hold the person accountable regarding the man? Yes. He is personally accountable to God alone. The man is not accountable to me personally.

 

[spockrates]

Sorry, but I took Memorial Day weekend off to spend with my family. I hope to have a reply today sometime.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Sorry, but I took Memorial Day weekend off to spend with my family. I hope to have a reply today sometime.

I forgive you.

 

[spockrates]

I forgive you.

 

[spockrates]

1a. Were the church authorities being merciful or lenient to the man?: My understanding of the excommunication process is to spur the one excomunicated to repent of actions they have up to this point not done so nor intend to do so. Therefore, it seems to me that it is a form of taking pity on the man to actually deny communion with the church.
2a. Were the church authorities ceasing to hold a grudge regarding the man?: I’m thinking that this does not apply - or perhaps more accurately, it does not necessarily apply. It belongs to the realm of ‘feelings’ which, although play a part in the forgiveness process, isn’t really (or ought not to be) brought into the decision as to whether someone is or isn’t excommunicated.
3a. Were the church authorities ceasing to hold the person accountable regarding the man? When I ponder this point, I think of Martin Luther who was excommunicated and to this day is listed as someone who is excommunicated from the Church. Yet, the Church does not declare definitively that Martin Luther is in hell. With this understanding, I’ll say the church authorities do not hold the person accountable, but are making a ruling on his actions which were sinful in nature based on the evidence available and in their determination deserved the penalty of excommunication.

1b. Should I be merciful or lenient to the man?: Yes. How? See next response.
2b. Should I cease to hold a grudge regarding the man?: Holding a grudge doesn’t seem to be an appropriate response regardless of the situation. A better question perhaps is: **Should I cease to remain angry? **The answer to that is: it depends. I think there is a time and place for anger. Anger at the man - even directed towards the man may be warrented to trigger a response of repentance. The action of anger could be an act of mercy because the man may turn towards God and save his soul. It also could be an act of vengeance which could be a sin for me as it could convince the man his action was correct and push him further from God instead of drawing him nearer.
3b. Should I cease to hold the person accountable regarding the man? Yes. He is personally accountable to God alone. The man is not accountable to me personally.

Thanks, my friend!



I suppose I agree with your answers (1a) and (2a), but I’m having trouble understanding (3a). You see, it seems to me that a person who is excommunicated is not pardoned for his sin, but is instead held liable for his sin, for he is suffering the consequences of his sin. Those consequences are that he is removed from fellowship, or communion, with the Church. Isn’t this the opposite of pardoning him? If not, then how has he received a full pardon, since he is excommunicated?



Likewise, I think I agree with your answers (1b) and (2b) but am having difficulty grasping (3b). Will you tell me in what way, exactly, you would pardon the man? Let’s say, for the sake of illustration, his sin was murder, cannibalism and Satanism. How would you pardon him? Would you consider him a friend and take him out to lunch and joke that you won’t be able to order the same cuisine to which he is accustomed?



Or would there be some liability and consequences for his heinous behavior?

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…it seems to me that a person who is excommunicated is not pardoned for his sin, but is instead held liable for his sin, for he is suffering the consequences of his sin. Those consequences are that he is removed from fellowship, or communion, with the Church. Isn’t this the opposite of pardoning him? If not, then how has he received a full pardon, since he is excommunicated?

Perhaps I should clarify what I was presenting. He is accountable in the sense that he has violated God’s law as it has been handed down through the Church. However, a determination of his accountability as to whether he is ultimately saved or damned is left to God alone.

spockrates:

…Will you tell me in what way, exactly, you would pardon the man? Let’s say, for the sake of illustration, his sin was murder, cannibalism and Satanism. How would you pardon him? Would you consider him a friend and take him out to lunch and joke that you won’t be able to order the same cuisine to which he is accustomed?..

Well, God doesn’t call us to necessarily like everyone so I don’t think I would be having lunch and a good 'ol time with someone who murdered a relative of mine. However, I am certainly called to love that person nonetheless.

spockrates:

…Or would there be some liability and consequences for his heinous behavior?

I’m glad you brought these two possibilities up. There is a difference between liability and consequences. I view the church authorized excommunication as a consequence of a given sinful act. The liability of a given act is left to God alone.

 

[spockrates]

Perhaps I should clarify what I was presenting. He is accountable in the sense that he has violated God’s law as it has been handed down through the Church. However, a determination of his accountability as to whether he is ultimately saved or damned is left to God alone.

Agreed!

Well, God doesn’t call us to necessarily like everyone so I don’t think I would be having lunch and a good 'ol time with someone who murdered a relative of mine. However, I am certainly called to love that person nonetheless.

Love him as a brother, or as a something less than a brother?

15 “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

(Matthew 18)

I think it interesting to note that many devout Jewish people of Jesus’ day would not eat, or even step foot into the house, of a pagan, and Roman tax collectors (which is what Matthew was before he became a follower of Jesus) were thought of as traitors and often hated. It would seem that we should not treat someone excommunicated, or someone who commits a particularly harmful sin (such as a mortal one) and refuses to repent, as a friend or brother. Would you agree?

I’m glad you brought these two possibilities up. There is a difference between liability and consequences. I view the church authorized excommunication as a consequence of a given sinful act. The liability of a given act is left to God alone.

Yes, I agree that there is a difference between being liable to God and being liable to someone else, or between being liable for sins committed against God and being liable for sins committed against someone else. However, when I ask whether we should forgive a person to the degree that we pardon her, I’m not thinking of pardoning her for sins against God, but only for sins against you or me, personally.

For example, consider a parent and a son or daughter. If the son or daughter is put in time out or grounded for a week or loses TV watching privileges, the parent would not tell the child that he or she is not being held liable for her offenses against his or her parent. Since the parent is making sure that the child is suffers the consequences for the bad behavior, the parent is disciplining the child rather than pardoning him or her. The parent might be forgiving by not losing his temper, or he might be forgiving by being merciful enough to ground the child for a few days instead of a week, but the parent would not be forgiving insofar as granting the misbehaving child a full pardon. So it is a partial, rather than a whole, forgiveness. Don’t you agree?

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Love him as a brother, or as a something less than a brother?

Love him as a neighbor. I don’t know if that is less than or greater than as a brother. However, we are to love our neighbor as ourself - so that’s pretty significant right there.

spockrates:

I think it interesting to note that many devout Jewish people of Jesus’ day would not eat, or even step foot into the house, of a pagan, and Roman tax collectors (which is what Matthew was before he became a follower of Jesus) were thought of as traitors and often hated. It would seem that we should not treat someone excommunicated, or someone who commits a particularly harmful sin (such as a mortal one) and refuses to repent, as a friend or brother. Would you agree?

I do not agree based on the evidence you supplied. For example, Jesus treated Matthew with much respect and asked to dine with Matthew (who was still a Roman tax collector at the time).

spockrates:

Yes, I agree that there is a difference between being liable to God and being liable to someone else, or between being liable for sins committed against God and being liable for sins committed against someone else. However, when I ask whether we should forgive a person to the degree that we pardon her, I’m not thinking of pardoning her for sins against God, but only for sins against you or me, personally.

Isn’t every sin an offense against God, just to differing degrees?

spockrates:

For example, consider a parent and a son or daughter. If the son or daughter is put in time out or grounded for a week or loses TV watching privileges, the parent would not tell the child that he or she is not being held liable for her offenses against his or her parent. Since the parent is making sure that the child is suffers the consequences for the bad behavior, the parent is disciplining the child rather than pardoning him or her. The parent might be forgiving by not losing his temper, or he might be forgiving by being merciful enough to ground the child for a few days instead of a week, but the parent would not be forgiving insofar as granting the misbehaving child a full pardon…

The way I see it, giving the punishment for as long as a week as opposed to only a couple days actually may be the more merciful course of action for the parent to take. The reason for this is that it is intended to discourage the bad behavior from occuring again in the future and the one being punished learning the necessary lesson to help the child grow into a mature adult which might not occur if the punishment is too lenient.

spockrates:

…So it is a partial, rather than a whole, forgiveness. Don’t you agree?

I would characterize it as forgiveness that has not yet come to full fruition. Think of a vine being cultivated year after year even though it may not yield fruit initially. We forgive the plant for not yielding fruit season after season. One of the Lord’s parables addresses this point. The servant asks the master for one more try. The master allows the cultivation once again - yet if this time it doesn’t work we are to cut it down. Signifcantly, the Lord does not say what happens the next season.

 

[spockrates]

Love him as a neighbor. I don’t know if that is less than or greater than as a brother. However, we are to love our neighbor as ourself - so that’s pretty significant right there.

Yes, I agree, and thanks again for exploring the truth with me. So on the one hand Jesus says to treat a Christian brother who refuses to repent like you would a non-Christian (e.g., a pagan or tax collector). On the other hand, Jesus says to treat a non-Christian (e.g., a Samaritan) as you would a neighbor. So perhaps we treat Christians who act more like non-Christians as we would non-Christians, but we treat non-Christians more like next-door neighbors than enemies? The question still remains: Do we treat Christians who do repent differently than we treat Christians who refuse to repent?

I do not agree based on the evidence you supplied. For example, Jesus treated Matthew with much respect and asked to dine with Matthew (who was still a Roman tax collector at the time).

Agreed. I should qualify what I said by saying that many of the Jewish people of Jesus’ day treated pagans, tax collectors and Samaritans differently, but it appears Jesus did not. Though He did seem to agree that the profession of being a Roman tax collector was a sinful one.

10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and “sinners” came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?”

12 On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’[a] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

(Matthew 9)

You see, the tax collectors were allowed by the Romans to collect any additional money they wanted and keep it for themselves, so many of them got rich from stealing from those who were already hurting financially. I think that the difference between the sinful tax collectors and Matthew was that he left to profession to follow Jesus. He repented of his sin, don’t you think?

Isn’t every sin an offense against God, just to differing degrees?

Yes, I suppose. But again, I’m speaking of pardoning people for that part of their sins which are committed against us personally, and leaving the pardoning for that part of their sins committed against God to God (and to His chosen representatives of the Church). I’m thinking we can pardon people for that part of their sinful behavior that is against us. What are you thinking?

The way I see it, giving the punishment for as long as a week as opposed to only a couple days actually may be the more merciful course of action for the parent to take. The reason for this is that it is intended to discourage the bad behavior from occuring again in the future and the one being punished learning the necessary lesson to help the child grow into a mature adult which might not occur if the punishment is too lenient.

Yes, perhaps you are right.

I would characterize it as forgiveness that has not yet come to full fruition. Think of a vine being cultivated year after year even though it may not yield fruit initially. We forgive the plant for not yielding fruit season after season. One of the Lord’s parables addresses this point. The servant asks the master for one more try. The master allows the cultivation once again - yet if this time it doesn’t work we are to cut it down. Signifcantly, the Lord does not say what happens the next season.

Maybe you are right. But isn’t something that has not yet come to full fruition the same as something that has come to partial fruition? To forgive by way of pity (or leniency or mercy) and by way of pacification (or ceasing to remain angry) but not by way of pardon (or ceasing to hold the person liable or responsible for her sin) is to let the fruition of one’s forgiveness be in part, rather than in whole. Don’t you think?

The next logical question, then is this: What does a person have to do (if anything) before you or I should allow our forgiveness to come to full fruition and pardon that person for that part of her sins committed against ourselves (though not against God)?

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…The question still remains: Do we treat Christians who do repent differently than we treat Christians who refuse to repent?

I think the better question is this:

Do we treat Christians who act hypocritically different that we treat Christians who do not act hypocritically?

Jesus didn’t take issue with people who were sinners. I’m thankful for that given I am a sinner o). What Jesus really had a problem with were hypocrites.

I’m sorry I can’t elaborate further right now. I have a big project I’m working on at work this week and part of next, and then I’ll be on vacation the following week. Hope to catch up with you then. See you around and thanks for a great conversation.

 

[spockrates]

I think the better question is this:

Do we treat Christians who act hypocritically different that we treat Christians who do not act hypocritically?

Jesus didn’t take issue with people who were sinners. I’m thankful for that given I am a sinner o). What Jesus really had a problem with were hypocrites.

I’m sorry I can’t elaborate further right now. I have a big project I’m working on at work this week and part of next, and then I’ll be on vacation the following week. Hope to catch up with you then. See you around and thanks for a great conversation.

No problem! Hope to talk with you then–if not on this topic than on another. Good luck on your project and hope your vacation is a good one.