What did the crowd not know?

[guanophore]

Good morning, guanophore!

So, I think you may have thought my second question was rhetorical, but it wasn’t. Can we shake hands and agree to be charitable?

My agreement to be charitable is with CAF, and all who come here. Do I speak the truth that you will provide me an needed fraternal correction?

Telling Della what I think (though somewhat accurate) was not a good start, but I continue to see your good intent.

No one here can know what you think. For all we know, you could be role playing someone entirely unlike yourself. All we have to go on is what is contained in your posts. Is there something in your posts that would not get me off to a good start? I think plenty!

My intent is to make a defense for the hope that is within me. That hope is rooted in the One Faith that came down to us from the Apostles. That Faith teaches me that ever human soul is given sufficient grace to be saved. That Faith teaches me that people can willingly and knowingly reject God.

We can never know all that “the crowd did not know”, but those of us who do accept the Scriptures as the inspired and inerrant Word ofGod can know with confidence that they had sufficient knowledge to choose.

Something to reflect on: are you building walls, or are you building bridges?

God bless you, guanophore, on this holy Saturday

Everyone is welcome here at CAF, OneSheep. There is no requirement that members embrace the Catholic faith.

 

[OneSheep]

My agreement to be charitable is with CAF, and all who come here. Do I speak the truth that you will provide me an needed fraternal correction?

I am sorry, guanophore but I have asked a very sincere question, and I am still unsure of your answer. Will you shake my hand in agreement, or will you not? I am a real person, guanophore. I am not role-playing.

 

[guanophore]

I am sorry, guanophore but I have asked a very sincere question, and I am still unsure of your answer. Will you shake my hand in agreement, or will you not? I am a real person, guanophore. I am not role-playing.

Just for the record, I do believe you are real. But even if you were role playing, you are still covered under the rule of charity! I will strive to defend my faith as the Apostle commands:

"…sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; " (I Pet. 3:15)

Perhaps you and I can agree that this portion of Scripture, at least, is divinely inspired?

I will also respect that you have the right to “ignore” my posts (adjust your settings so you don’t see them) and not respond to any of my posts.

 

[OneSheep]

He is risen! Let us rejoice and be glad!

 

[OneSheep]

Hello, Della, I hope you had a wonderful Easter!

Well, we do get their viewpoint if we read their words and their actions, as well as Jesus’ own statements as to their motives. If taken as a whole it makes the most sense. Jesus’ enemies hated him long before they denounced him. Again and again, they tried to trap him into saying something they could use to condemn him. And when they did finally condemn him, they had people lie about what he said to get the Sanhedrin to denounce him. So, those who did the accusing knew perfectly well he hadn’t done the things they accused him of. The crowd, like all crowds, yelled for what they were told to yell for. I’m sure they stacked the crowd before Pilate with those who would yell what Jesus’ enemies want them to.

I think it is quite possible that the crowd was “stacked”, but using the reference on the USCCB site, Luke 23:34 is footnoted to Matt 5:44, which says:

But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you

The Bishops seem to be indicating that Jesus was practicing exactly what He was preaching, and the line serves to refer to all enemies. It is a “door” (see reference below).

I am thinking that the crowd included a great variety of Jesus’ enemies, including those who had long held a grudge, hated Him, had suddenly been riled up in the moment, the Romans who simply thought Him dirt as they did most Jews, etc. I have heard others opine that Jesus was only referring to specific enemies, such as only those who repented, or simply the executioners who drove the nails.

However, upon doing my own investigation of mindsets, I am seeing that “forgive them, for they know not what they do” can be applied in the more all-encompassing sense.

The era Jesus wanted to institute wasn’t the one they were hoping for. Also, the leaders of the people were jealous of Jesus because the people were listening to him instead of to them. We humans are fallen creatures who are easily corrupted. Power makes people do things they wouldn’t ordinarily do, and they wanted the Romans out, ASAP. Jesus simply wasn’t who they wanted with his call for universal brotherhood.

Yes, and for example, what did these people not know, such that if they did know, they would not have done what they did? This is the kind of question that in my experience focuses some light on the subject of understanding enemies.

Is this your experience? The question uses Jesus’ words as a guide to addressing enemies. After all, forgiving our enemies is sort of a “first step” in the act of loving them, is it not? What do you think?

Indeed, Jesus wept over Jerusalem because he knew the consequences of Israel’s rejection and their desire to be free of Rome and to be a great nation again. They were thinking in strictly human terms, and in a way, rejecting God being their king instead of a mere man. In Christ they would have had both, but they didn’t want the kind of kingdom he came to establish.

Yes.

One of the Gospel accounts calls him an insurgent. He was lucky merely in the earthly sense. Although I believe there is a tradition (small “t” tradition) that he became a believer, but I don’t know how reliable that is.

Never heard that one, but I have no reason to doubt it.

You’re welcome. I’ve tried my best based on what I know. There’s one title I can give you, although I haven’t read it: The Day Christ Died. Those who have read it have given it good reviews.

I’m still working on Pope Benedict’s Jesus of Nazareth, who seems, at first to support this idea that Jesus was only referring to the executioners in Luke 23:34. However, he finishes his commentary with this:

“All the more, then, it [the verse] remains a source of comfort for all times and for all people that both in the case of those who genuinely did not know (his executioners) and in the case of those who did know (the people who condemned him), the Lord makes their ignorance the motive for his plea for forgiveness: he sees it as a door that can open us to conversion.”

What is interesting here is that Pope Benedict both states that those who condemned Him knew what they were doing, but also refers to “their ignorance”, which seems to coincide with my own observations, that whenever I condemn anyone, ignorance is a factor. Specifically, when I resent something that someone says or does, or when I want something very badly and someone stands in the way, my own blindness is triggered. I do not ordinarily will it, i.e. “I wish to be blind to that person’s value”, but it seems to be a phenomenon of the mind, an inadvertent side effect. Is this your experience, or when you have condemned someone (I am using it in the sense of judging another as being negative in some way) have you done so as an emotion-and-want-free choice?

Thanks for your responses! This is all opinion/reflection, no statements of fact on my part. I am not making assertions, only sharing experiences. The verse has done a great deal toward guiding my own spiritual growth.

 

[Exiled_Child]

We don’t know what we do when we inflict agony on our brothers. One, because the empathic part of us is shrivelled and almost dead, even in the most kind-hearted of us, and two, because we’re unable to see how we are hurting ourselves when we are hurting our fellow humans. It’s the inner meaning of John 15:5: I am the vine; you are the branches. It’s like the sensation we sometimes get in prayer, where if we go far enough in our silence, if we follow the branch and vine to their source, we sort of intuitively understand that the human family is some kind of single entity.

 

[OneSheep]

We don’t know what we do when we inflict agony on our brothers. One, because the empathic part of us is shrivelled and almost dead, even in the most kind-hearted of us, and two, because we’re unable to see how we are hurting ourselves when we are hurting our fellow humans. It’s the inner meaning of John 15:5: I am the vine; you are the branches. It’s like the sensation we sometimes get in prayer, where if we go far enough in our silence, if we follow the branch and vine to their source, we sort of intuitively understand that the human family is some kind of single entity.

Hi E.C.,

I have the same observations of myself, I think that when I am angry or resentful my own empathy is essentially blocked. This is the “unable to see” part I can relate to the most. It is my own looking at this blindness that helps a great deal, to come to the realization that whenever I have a negative, condemning feeling/opinion of anyone, I do not know what I am doing, I am “living in an illusion” as Fr. Anthony de Mello said. When I realize that I have the illusion, I know that forgiveness will erase it. Is this your experience too?

I definitely believe in the deeper connectedness between all of us, and the Church is a great model, as are the vine and branches, though I never thought of this additional application.

Thanks!

 

[OneSheep]

Just for the record, I do believe you are real. But even if you were role playing, you are still covered under the rule of charity! I will strive to defend my faith as the Apostle commands:

"…sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; " (I Pet. 3:15)

Perhaps you and I can agree that this portion of Scripture, at least, is divinely inspired?

I will also respect that you have the right to “ignore” my posts (adjust your settings so you don’t see them) and not respond to any of my posts.

Hi guanophore,

It is with reverence and respect that I will continue to respond to you even though you have refused to shake my hand. I am thinking that perhaps you find such “hand-shaking” a little too metaphorical? If so, please let me know, PM me, and I will drive down to wherever you are and shake your hand, if that makes more sense.

You see, I see and agree whole-heartedly with your emphasis on gentleness and reverence, but such gentleness and reverence cannot be separated from the context of culture. For example, in the U.S. it is a form of courtesy to shake a person’s hand that is offered to you. “Reverence” is a deeper, more heart-felt courtesy, is it not?

Then again, it occurs to me that perhaps you are not singling me out for such refusal. Perhaps you would refuse to shake the hand of anyone who offers theirs? It is a curious matter. I can see your reverence for the CAF and our Catholic faith, but your communication in my direction, well, is a bit baffling.

So yes, I have the “right” to ignore your posts, but for now I waive that “right”. You are cantankerous, but lovable, and a child of God, and you know me as a bridge-builder (remember, there is nothing wrong with differences of opinion or experience!). I’m going to keep trying, even if you were to decide to tear it down. We are one body!

God Bless your week!

 

[guanophore]

But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you

The Bishops seem to be indicating that Jesus was practicing exactly what He was preaching, and the line serves to refer to all enemies. It is a “door” (see reference below).

However, upon doing my own investigation of mindsets, I am seeing that “forgive them, for they know not what they do” can be applied in the more all-encompassing sense.

I agree with you, OneSheep. I think this principle applies across the board, to all “enemies” and all who persecute. Forgiveness is as much for us as it is those for whom we hold a resentment. There is nothing life giving about blame. I was listening to the book of Acts yesterday and noticed this:

"When they had brought them, they stood them before the Council. The high priest questioned them, 28saying, “We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” 29But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.…” Acts 5:28

The preaching of the Apostles (kerygma) clearly placed at least some of the responsibility at the feet of the Sanhedrin. They wanted to silence them because they knew they were culpable. Though they met at night, in secret (which was against their own law), their conspiracy was not staying hidden.

  Yes, and for example, what did these people not know, such that if they did know, they would not have done what they did?  This is the kind of question that in my experience focuses some light on the subject of understanding enemies.

I think that we are called upon to forgive our enemies even when they are willfully and knowingly cruel. Although I do agree with you, those who are ignorant and blind are easier to forgive.

The question uses Jesus' words as a guide to addressing enemies.  After all, forgiving our enemies is sort of a "first step" in the act of loving them, is it not?  What do you think?

I think you are right. Jesus is clear that we need to leave our sacrifice on the altar, and go be reconciled to our brother first, then come back and offer the sacrifice. We are also called to forgive EVERYONE whenever we pray the Lord’s prayer.

 I'm still working on Pope Benedict's *Jesus of Nazareth*, who seems, at first to support this idea that Jesus was only referring to the executioners in Luke 23:34.

Great book! Yes, we are called to forgive those also who willingly and knowingly commit evil acts.

Scripture and the Church teaching is clear that those who condemned Jesus are culpable for their actions, but that just gives us more of a challenge to forgive them, as it does those today who willingly and knowingly reject God. It is true that forgiveness opens the door for conversion.

 

[Della]

Hello, Della, I hope you had a wonderful Easter!

I think it is quite possible that the crowd was “stacked”, but using the reference on the USCCB site, Luke 23:34 is footnoted to Matt 5:44, which says:

But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you

The Bishops seem to be indicating that Jesus was practicing exactly what He was preaching, and the line serves to refer to all enemies. It is a “door” (see reference below).

I am thinking that the crowd included a great variety of Jesus’ enemies, including those who had long held a grudge, hated Him, had suddenly been riled up in the moment, the Romans who simply thought Him dirt as they did most Jews, etc. I have heard others opine that Jesus was only referring to specific enemies, such as only those who repented, or simply the executioners who drove the nails.

However, upon doing my own investigation of mindsets, I am seeing that “forgive them, for they know not what they do” can be applied in the more all-encompassing sense.

Yes, and for example, what did these people not know, such that if they did know, they would not have done what they did? This is the kind of question that in my experience focuses some light on the subject of understanding enemies.

Is this your experience? The question uses Jesus’ words as a guide to addressing enemies. After all, forgiving our enemies is sort of a “first step” in the act of loving them, is it not? What do you think?

Yes.

Never heard that one, but I have no reason to doubt it.

I’m still working on Pope Benedict’s Jesus of Nazareth, who seems, at first to support this idea that Jesus was only referring to the executioners in Luke 23:34. However, he finishes his commentary with this:

“All the more, then, it [the verse] remains a source of comfort for all times and for all people that both in the case of those who genuinely did not know (his executioners) and in the case of those who did know (the people who condemned him), the Lord makes their ignorance the motive for his plea for forgiveness: he sees it as a door that can open us to conversion.”

What is interesting here is that Pope Benedict both states that those who condemned Him knew what they were doing, but also refers to “their ignorance”, which seems to coincide with my own observations, that whenever I condemn anyone, ignorance is a factor. Specifically, when I resent something that someone says or does, or when I want something very badly and someone stands in the way, my own blindness is triggered. I do not ordinarily will it, i.e. “I wish to be blind to that person’s value”, but it seems to be a phenomenon of the mind, an inadvertent side effect. Is this your experience, or when you have condemned someone (I am using it in the sense of judging another as being negative in some way) have you done so as an emotion-and-want-free choice?

Thanks for your responses! This is all opinion/reflection, no statements of fact on my part. I am not making assertions, only sharing experiences. The verse has done a great deal toward guiding my own spiritual growth.

Forgiving enemies doesn’t entail excusing their behavior/their sins. It frees the one who forgives from resentment and the desire to get even. Jesus did not resent those who killed him nor did he want to get even. He also realized the fallen state of mankind that blinds them to the full consequences of their actions, but that doesn’t excuse them or exonerate them. It merely means God understands, not that he approves nor dismisses their actions. They needed to repent or God could not apply his forgiveness to them. No repentance, no forgiveness, no chance of salvation. That’s the heart of the matter.

 

[OneSheep]

I agree with you, OneSheep. I think this principle applies across the board, to all “enemies” and all who persecute. Forgiveness is as much for us as it is those for whom we hold a resentment. There is nothing life giving about blame.

Good Morning, Guanophore!

So, we both value forgiveness of enemies, and when our anger or resentment is triggered, we both know that it is best to forgive, correct?

I think that we could benefit from a bit of definition of terms. What does the word “blame” mean to you?

I was listening to the book of Acts yesterday and noticed this:

"When they had brought them, they stood them before the Council. The high priest questioned them, 28saying, “We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” 29But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.…” Acts 5:28

The preaching of the Apostles (kerygma) clearly placed at least some of the responsibility at the feet of the Sanhedrin. They wanted to silence them because they knew they were culpable. Though they met at night, in secret (which was against their own law), their conspiracy was not staying hidden.

So, were Peter and the apostles blaming the Sanhedrin? What was the nature of their “placing” of some of the responsibility? What was its purpose?

I think that we are called upon to forgive our enemies even when they are willfully and knowingly cruel. Although I do agree with you, those who are ignorant and blind are easier to forgive.

Great book! Yes, we are called to forgive those also who willingly and knowingly commit evil acts.

Yes, absolutely, we are called to forgive our enemies even when we do not understand why they are being cruel. It just so happens that there is always, in my experience, a means by which we can see that the enemy does not know what they were doing. This is the “door” that Pope Benedict referred to, correct? I am not sure that understanding makes it “easier” to forgive. It does make forgiveness a more in-depth process. When we are children, forgiveness is more of a discipline to drop anger or hate, it is more superficial, but children are generally more superficial, so it works. The child says he is sorry for being angry, and life goes on. With development of the conscience, it seems that we also develop a greater capacity to resent and hold onto grudges, though that needs some explanation.

How do you know when you have forgiven someone, guanophore? This brings us into the definition of forgiveness. I think that if you answer this question and the others I have asked, it will be helpful in explaining your POV.

I think you are right. Jesus is clear that we need to leave our sacrifice on the altar, and go be reconciled to our brother first, then come back and offer the sacrifice. We are also called to forgive EVERYONE whenever we pray the Lord’s prayer.

There are many Catholics who would disagree with us on this, guanophore. I am glad we stand together.

Scripture and the Church teaching is clear that those who condemned Jesus are culpable for their actions, but that just gives us more of a challenge to forgive them, as it does those today who willingly and knowingly reject God.

The challenge, in my experience, it to enter into the mindset of those who condemned Jesus. As we both know, we cannot possibly know the exact thinking of those who condemn Jesus, but we can know all of the possible mindsets. You see, whether I say “they knew what they were doing” or “they did not know what they were doing”, I am going by personal experience and self-knowing projected onto the other. Yes, we make assumptions. Assumptions are part of the way that we empathize with people, right?

“Oh that must have really hurt”

“Actually, it was not so painful, but I was pretty upset.”

“You knew what you were doing!”

“Actually, I thought I knew what I was doing, but in retrospect I was angry, and my anger effected my thinking. Now I know how wrong I was.”

It is true that forgiveness opens the door for conversion.

Yes, and “forgive them, for they know not what they do” opens the door to a deeper forgiveness. When we can understand people, we come to include them in who we are, who we embrace, who we can see as community (I am using “community” in a general sense).

God Bless your day.

 

[guanophore]

I think that we could benefit from a bit of definition of terms. What does the word “blame” mean to you?

Perhaps. For me, blame does not have a life giving function. It is fault finding and accusatory. It is pointing the finger while the other three fingers are pointing back, yet those fingers are not seen. (Looking for fault in the other to the exclusion of our own).

So, were Peter and the apostles blaming the Sanhedrin? What was the nature of their “placing” of some of the responsibility? What was its purpose?

I am sure the Sanhedrin felt like they were. In the sense that they were placing responsibiity, yes.

"responsibility for a fault or wrong synonyms: responsibility, guilt, accountability, liability, culpability, fault; "

“We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” Acts 5:28

The Apostles did not deny that was their intention and continued to give that message:

“The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had murdered by hanging Him on a tree.” Acts 5:30

To me it sounds like the Apostles placed the “responsibility, guilt, accountability, liability, culpabiity” upon them, and did not withhold this from public expression.

I think there is benefit to accountability that does not have to involve blame, however.

With development of the conscience, it seems that we also develop a greater capacity to resent and hold onto grudges, though that needs some explanation.

We have a very different concept of the nature and function of the conscience. I am not sure we should go there.

How do you know when you have forgiven someone, guanophore? This brings us into the definition of forgiveness. I think that if you answer this question and the others I have asked, it will be helpful in explaining your POV.

Forgiveness is a simple matter of the will. I know when I have forgiven someone because I made a decision. Every time I pray the Lord’s prayer, I make this act of the will. Every time I feel offended or see wrongdoing, I can consciously make that decision.

The challenge, in my experience, it to enter into the mindset of those who condemned Jesus. As we both know, we cannot possibly know the exact thinking of those who condemn Jesus, but we can know all of the possible mindsets. You see, whether I say “they knew what they were doing” or “they did not know what they were doing”, I am going by personal experience and self-knowing projected onto the other.

I know this does not work as well for you, since you do not consider the whole of Scripture inspired and inerrant, but there is quite a bit of information present that can help us understand their point of view. Even Caiaphas accurately prophesied that it was better for one man to die for the people.

In this same passage in Acts, Peter further inflames his audience:

"We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him. When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill them."Acts 5:33

Why did they become murderously angry? They were just accused both of murder, and disobedience to God.

 

[fred_conty]

As we heard this famous verse on Palm Sunday, I am interested in what others observe/believe/think when reflecting on this:

Luke 23:34New International Version (NIV)

34 Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

What did they not know? Of course, they did not know many things, and neither do we.

What did they not know, such that if they had known, they would not have called for the crucifixion of Jesus?

Thank you for your responses!

Would a person do a sin if they saw before their very eyes at that moment those who are in hell suffering for their sins? “They know not” means they do not see what the consequences of terrifying suffering in hell they will receive for their sin.

That is why it is so important to pray for those off the narrow path, because they do not see the consequences, the reality, the truth, the terrifying results of what they are doing. And by this “Father forgive them” the Father may then open up their eyes by his grace so they might change before it is too late. And this is what every Christian must say for those who do them harm…mercy Sunday.

 

[OneSheep]

Perhaps. For me, blame does not have a life giving function. It is fault finding and accusatory. It is pointing the finger while the other three fingers are pointing back, yet those fingers are not seen. (Looking for fault in the other to the exclusion of our own).

Good Morning

You may not value this much, but studies have shown that anger in the workplace actually functions. Yes, people do not like the person who angers easily, but they have a tendency to let such people get their way because encountering anger is uncomfortable. The same goes for accusation/blame. We have a tendency to behave well to avoid the wrath/blame of parents, teachers, and others when we are young. This “finger pointing” also serves in development of the conscience; we incorporate the rules behind the blame, i.e. “don’t hurt people” “don’t take things” “don’t leave a mess” “don’t run into the street”. The 10 commandments were not delivered as the “10 gentle reminders”; the image of a wrathful God was the common theology, and arguably still has its place. It is natural.

And yes, it is very likely that when I point blame at others (with a tone of resentment) I am violating my own rules of charity, depending on my conscience development.

I am sure the Sanhedrin felt like they were. In the sense that they were placing responsibiity, yes.

"responsibility for a fault or wrong synonyms: responsibility, guilt, accountability, liability, culpability, fault; "

“We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” Acts 5:28

The Apostles did not deny that was their intention and continued to give that message:

“The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had murdered by hanging Him on a tree.” Acts 5:30

To me it sounds like the Apostles placed the “responsibility, guilt, accountability, liability, culpabiity” upon them, and did not withhold this from public expression.

So, what is left to the reader is the tone. Were the Apostles pointing their fingers with resentment, which the audience is compelled to mimic and share? Or, were the Apostles encouraging people to forgive? Even today we can hear political candidates pointing out responsibility. Are they encouraging forgiveness while saying that the system is broken, or are they sowing resentment?

I think there is benefit to accountability that does not have to involve blame, however.

Yes, I agree. When I point my finger at someone and accuse them of something, I need to own my resentment. My resentment is not “caused” by the other person. The benefit of accountability is ownership. The gang-bangers in our area are commonly convinced that their murdering is the fault of the others who trespassed their turf. “He deserved to be murdered.”

Forgiveness is a simple matter of the will. I know when I have forgiven someone because I made a decision. Every time I pray the Lord’s prayer, I make this act of the will. Every time I feel offended or see wrongdoing, I can consciously make that decision.

Can we investigate this a little more? Yes, forgiveness is a decision. Jesus calls us to forgive those we “hold anything against”, which means that we resent the person in some way (due to their actions, ordinarily, though prejudice can occur against a whole race, religion, ethnicity, or ideology as we know, based on the behavior of a few).

So, when I feel some negativity (resentment) towards a person, I decide to forgive. How do I know when such forgiveness has actually happened? Sure, I may say “I choose to forgive”, but if I have a lingering resentment, an aversion towards the person, have I truly forgiven from the heart, or am I just fooling myself?

I know this does not work as well for you, since you do not consider the whole of Scripture inspired and inerrant, but there is quite a bit of information present that can help us understand their point of view. Even Caiaphas accurately prophesied that it was better for one man to die for the people.

In this same passage in Acts, Peter further inflames his audience:

"We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him. When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill them."Acts 5:33

Why did they become murderously angry? They were just accused both of murder, and disobedience to God.

I think that the learning curve was a steep one for Peter. For example, imagine if a modern Pope behaved as Peter did in Acts 5:1-11? One word: bankruptcy!

I think it would be an error to follow an example that involves sowing the opposite of forgiveness. It is very natural to resent, yes, and we can forgive Peter and others for feeling resentful. Resentment/blame has its purpose in the human capacity, as I explained above. However, Jesus calls us to something supernatural. His forgiveness, from the cross, was supernatural.

God Bless, and thank you.

 

[OneSheep]

Would a person do a sin if they saw before their very eyes at that moment those who are in hell suffering for their sins? “They know not” means they do not see what the consequences of terrifying suffering in hell they will receive for their sin.

Hi Fred,

Very good point. Personally, I would replace the word “receive” with “choose” because we promote the idea that hell is a choice. Then we go back to your original question, which is a good one. “Would a person choose hell if they really comprehended what it meant to be suffering, isolated from God in some way?”. What do you think, Fred, would it happen?

That is why it is so important to pray for those off the narrow path, because they do not see the consequences, the reality, the truth, the terrifying results of what they are doing. And by this “Father forgive them” the Father may then open up their eyes by his grace so they might change before it is too late. And this is what every Christian must say for those who do them harm…mercy Sunday.

Yes, we can pray that they make the right choices, and we model those choices by living the way we are called to do. So, in forgiving others we sow forgiveness. In this view, Jesus started such sowing from the cross. Jesus, reflecting the Father, forgave unconditionally. Father forgives us regardless of our choices. In addition, “for they know not what they do” gives us the means, part of a “narrow path”, to understand and forgive one another. Is this your experience?

Thanks! Yes, we do not know the consequences!

 

[guanophore]

You may not value this much, but studies have shown that anger in the workplace actually functions. Yes, people do not like the person who angers easily, but they have a tendency to let such people get their way because encountering anger is uncomfortable.

Anger has many useful functions. Blame is not one of them.

The same goes for accusation/blame. We have a tendency to behave well to avoid the wrath/blame of parents, teachers, and others when we are young. This “finger pointing” also serves in development of the conscience; we incorporate the rules behind the blame, i.e. “don’t hurt people” “don’t take things” “don’t leave a mess” “don’t run into the street”. The 10 commandments were not delivered as the “10 gentle reminders”; the image of a wrathful God was the common theology, and arguably still has its place. It is natural.

I think you are conflating “blame” with the setting of appropriate moral standards and their consequences. Children are actually better morally developed through learning the disappointment/hurt of parents rather than “wrath”.

One can incorporate rules without blame and accusation. Commandments are not inherently “blaming” or accusatory. They are expectations/standards.

The wrath of God also does not equate to blame/accusation. It is a response to offenses against love.

   Were the Apostles pointing their fingers with resentment, which the audience is compelled to mimic and share?

Somehow this does not sound much like “Good News”. I do not think the preaching of the Gospel compels anyone to “mimic and share” the sentiments of the preacher.

The benefit of accountability is ownership.

This is the benefit the Apostles were offering those who participated in Jesus’ death.

Can we investigate this a little more? Yes, forgiveness is a decision. Jesus calls us to forgive those we “hold anything against”, which means that we resent the person in some way (due to their actions, ordinarily, though prejudice can occur against a whole race, religion, ethnicity, or ideology as we know, based on the behavior of a few).

I think this may be too simplistic/all encompassing. Some don’t forgive because they are hurt/afraid, and they imagine forgiveness will open them to being victimized again.

So, when I feel some negativity (resentment) towards a person, I decide to forgive. How do I know when such forgiveness has actually happened?

I suppose, if you do not believe that forgiveness is a decision, ,then you will not be able to know.

Sure, I may say “I choose to forgive”, but if I have a lingering resentment, an aversion towards the person, have I truly forgiven from the heart, or am I just fooling myself?

Forgiveness is a choice/act of the will. The emotions and behaviors may take some time to follow along behind. Lingering emotions are reminders that the decision must be repeated/reiterated until compassion has reigned.

I think that the learning curve was a steep one for Peter. For example, imagine if a modern Pope behaved as Peter did in Acts 5:1-11? One word: bankruptcy!

I think you lost me here.

I agree, but it seems that you are taking the position that Peter and the other Apostles were “resentful and blaming” rather than holding the perpetrators accountable for their actions.

I don’t think resentment/blame have any life giving purpose.

[/QUOTE]

 

[fred_conty]

Hi Fred,

Very good point. Personally, I would replace the word “receive” with “choose” because we promote the idea that hell is a choice. Then we go back to your original question, which is a good one. “Would a person choose hell if they really comprehended what it meant to be suffering, isolated from God in some way?”. What do you think, Fred, would it happen?

Yes, we can pray that they make the right choices, and we model those choices by living the way we are called to do. So, in forgiving others we sow forgiveness. In this view, Jesus started such sowing from the cross. Jesus, reflecting the Father, forgave unconditionally. Father forgives us regardless of our choices. In addition, “for they know not what they do” gives us the means, part of a “narrow path”, to understand and forgive one another. Is this your experience?

Thanks! Yes, we do not know the consequences!

Thank you for your thoughts.

St. Thomas has said that a man only chooses good as he sees it at the time.

In any sin, a person still is choosing good or what looks good to him. His standards of good for the moment do not agree with God’s, but he may not even be thinking of God. All he knows is that this is what he wants. As the bible said in this situation … when evil becomes good and good becomes evil.

So from this I believe it would be rare for an individual to choose hell deliberately, that is, with all its suffering as it is described. Noone wants pain. But what he wants is something that pleases him which is seen as a good thing. So I would have to say that in my experience and from what I have seen, people really don’t chose hell deliberately. Even tho there may be some exceptions, which means they don’t know what they are wishing for.

Having said that, we know that all that we do has some sort of consequence. But that may not be considered at the time of the chosing, but rather put off until later if ever. But technically, when we look at human act rationally with faith and from a distance, we do see that the consequence is part of the chosing, and then it can be said that a person choses hell since they did the act. To me this consideration is after the fact as in the case of Judas.

“for they know not what they do” is a prayer of mercy because of their foolishness and lack of thought so that their punishment may be assuaged.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Guanophore!

Anger has many useful functions. Blame is not one of them.

Blame communicates a non-acceptance, which motivates a person to behave. It is a very, very natural part of human behavior. For example, (and I apologize for bringing this forth, but its application is primary) when one person refuses to shake the hand of the other because of differences, then non-acceptance, exclusion, blame, etc. are what is being communicated.

The person who refuses to shake hands is communicating that he is holding something against the other. Now, the person who refuses may well have decided to forgive the other, but the decision is not manifested in something real, something that involves a freedom to love. I think it is plain to the observer that the person who refuses to shake hands has not forgiven. Do you see what I mean about the meaning of forgiveness? It is more than a decision, but the decision is a huge start.

I think you are conflating “blame” with the setting of appropriate moral standards and their consequences. Children are actually better morally developed through learning the disappointment/hurt of parents rather than “wrath”.

I agree, but such disappointment also may be communicated in such a way that the child experiences the same effects as blame. Blame is the communication of something negative about the other, something unacceptable about the other, in the general use of the term.

Parent to child:
“When I see that your room is not clean, I feel disappointed because I want order and neatness. If it pleases you do do so, could you please go back and do it?”

or

“I am so disappointed in you. You knew that I wanted your room clean, but you failed to do so. Now, go back and do it.”

Not-so-subtle differences, right? And one communicates a non-acceptance. The second is more natural, less disciplined, but if in the end the parent communicates forgiveness and some sorrow for being condemning, then all is well.

One can incorporate rules without blame and accusation. Commandments are not inherently “blaming” or accusatory. They are expectations/standards.

The wrath of God also does not equate to blame/accusation. It is a response to offenses against love.

I think that the image of a God who sends people to hell for offenses is one that depicts a wrathful God, and this image is very natural. God in the story of Noah is wrathful/condemning. If God is angry about offenses, then what naturally follows (for humans who project such) is blame/condemnation. This is the image presented in the OT. From the cross, Jesus presents a different image.

Feel free to disagree. Your apologetics may look a little different than mine, and that’s okay.

Somehow this does not sound much like “Good News”. I do not think the preaching of the Gospel compels anyone to “mimic and share” the sentiments of the preacher.

We reap what we sow, guanophore. You brought forth the response of the Sanhedrin; they were angry. If the apostles had communicated forgiveness of the Sanhedrin, then the outcome may have been different.

If a preacher communicates fire and brimstone, it communicates a condemning God, and the individual will come away either condemning himself or someone else unless such preaching is followed by communication of love and forgiveness. We mirror the emotions in a room, right?

Is it possible that the apostles had not actually forgiven the Sanhedrin? They may have decided to do so, but had forgiveness happened? Forgiveness takes time.

I think this may be too simplistic/all encompassing. Some don’t forgive because they are hurt/afraid, and they imagine forgiveness will open them to being victimized again.

I suppose, if you do not believe that forgiveness is a decision, ,then you will not be able to know.

Yes, forgiveness begins with a decision to forgive, and sometimes people are afraid to forgive. Once a person has decided to forgive, how does he know when he has completed the task? What change actually takes place in the person who has forgiven? What is the result in his* heart*?

(continued)

 

[OneSheep]

guanophore:

Forgiveness is a choice/act of the will. The emotions and behaviors may take some time to follow along behind. Lingering emotions are reminders that the decision must be repeated/reiterated until compassion has reigned.

Lingering emotions are reminders that the forgiveness is incomplete. For example, if a person believes he has forgiven, but refuses to shake hands with the person he held something against, has the forgiveness actually occurred? Is there a change of heart?

I think you lost me here.

ARe you suggesting that Peter acted against the will of the Holy Spirit?

Did you get the impression that Peter had forgiven Ananias and Sapphira? Peter did what he thought was best at the time, but the fruits of his actions were “great fear seized the whole Church”. This is a very unusual fruit, but it may have been exactly what was needed at the time. God works in mysterious ways.

Galatians 5:22-23New International Version (NIV)

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

I agree, but it seems that you are taking the position that Peter and the other Apostles were “resentful and blaming” rather than holding the perpetrators accountable for their actions.

I don’t think resentment/blame have any life giving purpose.

Cooperation is extremely important, sometimes more important than communication of love and acceptance. When the tribe is threatened in any way, communication of blame and resentment is very understandable and natural, and it has a positive effect: cooperation. We evolved as a tribal species. Yes, for individuals who experience resentment of others, their mimetic response in return will be resentment. When the resentment mimicked is toward himself, he feels guilty and cooperates. When the resentment is turned toward the leadership or community and results in non-cooperation, the natural response from the community is banishment. People generally cooperated when faced with such banishment because a banished person was prey, he was lion-food.

Blame and resentment are God-given capacities, guanophore. Feel free to disagree, but these capacities are universal, and I see that they serve a purpose. Jesus, of course, calls us to a life that transcends our nature.

God Bless your day!

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Fred!

Thank you for your thoughts.

St. Thomas has said that a man only chooses good as he sees it at the time.

In any sin, a person still is choosing good or what looks good to him. His standards of good for the moment do not agree with God’s, but he may not even be thinking of God. All he knows is that this is what he wants. As the bible said in this situation … when evil becomes good and good becomes evil.

I need to know more about the last sentence, but yes, St. Thomas said it, and so did St. Augustine. We always intend something good.

So from this I believe it would be rare for an individual to choose hell deliberately, that is, with all its suffering as it is described. Noone wants pain. But what he wants is something that pleases him which is seen as a good thing. So I would have to say that in my experience and from what I have seen, people really don’t chose hell deliberately. Even tho there may be some exceptions, which means they don’t know what they are wishing for.

This is my observation exactly. In fact, I cannot find an example of how anyone could deliberately and knowingly choose hell. It goes against our nature. This brings us back to the words from Jesus, “for they know not what they do”.

Having said that, we know that all that we do has some sort of consequence. But that may not be considered at the time of the chosing, but rather put off until later if ever. But technically, when we look at human act rationally with faith and from a distance, we do see that the consequence is part of the chosing, and then it can be said that a person choses hell since they did the act. To me this consideration is after the fact as in the case of Judas.

In the case of Judas, isn’t it likely that he did not think that he was choosing hell? He was “choosing a good” he saw at the time. He was doing what the authorities wanted, and for his cooperation he received money. A hell he experienced was his extreme grief, and he certainly would not have turned Jesus over if he had known that consequence, right? I think Saint Thomas’ observation applies.

“for they know not what they do” is a prayer of mercy because of their foolishness and lack of thought so that their punishment may be assuaged.

You bring up a very important point here, one that justifies a great deal of investigation. For example, we know that God the Father is infinitely merciful. Why would Jesus even need to pray for such mercy? Is in fact the prayer in itself an act that we are to use as an example to follow? God always forgives, as Pope Francis says. Jesus says to “be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect”, and such perfection must be an unconditional forgiveness because that is what is demonstrated from the cross, and that is what is communicated in Mark 11:25.

Doesn’t it seem like “forgive them, for they know not what they do” is a* means*, it is a “door” to conversion, as Pope Benedict described, when forgiveness itself is an act of conversion?

Thanks for your response!