What did the crowd not know?

[guanophore]

Blame communicates a non-acceptance, which motivates a person to behave. It is a very, very natural part of human behavior.

Yes, I agree that blame communicates non-acceptance,and perhaps it does coerce people into compliance, but it is a poor motivation for change. Taking responsibility is a much more fruitful method of motivating change.

Without question blame is endemic to our fallen nature. We see this immediately in the Garden, when Adam blamed Eve, then Eve blamed the serpent. No one was taking responsibility for themselves. It is a classic story about the dysfunctional process of blame.

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.

I can certainly see how someone might interpret this way.

Especially a person who may have been the victim of blame, exclusion, and non-acceptance. Such experiences make human beings vulnerable, and inclined to perceive insults.

Shaking the hand of another may also be just a polite courtesy, and hide the reality that those sentiments do, in fact, exist anyway.

The person who refuses to shake hands is communicating that he is holding something against the other.

Perhaps, or perhaps one just does not subscribe to the notion that handshaking creates communion, or removes differences. Diplomats will often practice courtesies or shake hands while still entertaining emnity in the heart.

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.

It seems that you are erroneously equating handshaking with forgiveness or freedom from resentment. This may be true for you, and you may demonstrate you forgiveness of others by handshaking, but it is not approporiate to expect everyone else to conform to you practices. I have seen people in church who won’t shake hands because they have a cold, or don’t want to get a cold. It does not mean they are holding resentments.

You seem to be suggesting that, if a person does not conform to your standards of what is considered conciliatory/forgiving behavior then they are holding resentment and unforgiveness in their heart. This seems like quite a strong expectation to place on other human beings.

Beyond that, forgiveness gives freedom to the one that forgives, as much or more to the recipient. For you to day it is not “real” unless a person shakes hands is to invalidate the value of the forgiveness. Some people need to forgive those who have already died, or are incapacitated. If there is no way to shake hands, does that make their forgiveness “unreal” and constrict them from love? I think not.

 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 that any observer can make the same assumptions we have all made about the crowd, or even about Judas. In the end, we can only speculate about what is in the minds and hearts of others.

Judas walked up to Jesus and greeted Him with a kiss. Does that mean he harbored nothing against Him?

  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.

Yes. I think it is a challenge to call people to accountability without using blame.

I think the salient difference is separating the person from the behavior. Accountability addresses the behavior as the problem, blame sends the message the person is bad/wrong.

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.

I guess that is a matter of perception. It seems to me that God found a way to save humanity through Noah and his family.

   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.

This seems to be a very myopic view of the OT.

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

I read the OT, so that may be why I perceive the image of God presented there different.

    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.

I don’t think we can assume the Apostles lack forgiveness, just because they were calling it like it is. Jesus also stood before them, forgiveness in bodily form, and said nothing to condemn them, yet they blamed him and put Him to death. It wsa not a function of who Jesus was, it was a function of who the Sanhedrin were.

 

[guanophore]

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*?

Forgiveness frees a person to return to compassion. It prevents those who have harmed one from living “rent free” in the mind. It allows one to detach from the person who hurt them, so that their emotions and mental process are no longer consumed with thougths and feelings around the wrongdoer.

 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?

Again you are equating a human custom with the act of forgiveness. Forgiveness is not subject to human emotion or human customs. It is an at of the will. You are requiring two things 1) that a person who refuses to shake your hand must, by default, beholding iunforgiveness toward you and 2) that unless that act of handshaking occurs, there was not a “change of heart” and therefore, the person did not choose to forgive you.

Lingering emotions do not mean that a person has not exercised forgiveness, which is an act of the will. Emotions may need time to heal (or maybe they never will) but this does not have to impeded the decision to forgive.

You are also making an assumption (I think erroneously) that a person who does not shake your hand must be harboring some unforgiveness in their heart.

 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.

I don’t see where Peter had any resentment or unforgiveness to relinquish. He was speaking on behalf of the Holy Spirit.

If you think the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira were Peter doing “what he thought best at the time”, then I guess you think that Peter some how had power in himself to make those two people drop dead on the spot, and the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with it?
This may be one of those passages that you don’t consider inspired or inerrant, since it does not meet your standards of a loving God.

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.

One might also want to consider other gifts of the Holy Spirit mentioned elsewhere:

In the Book of Isaiah 11:2-3, the Gifts of the Holy Spirit are described. In the passage the gifts are considered ones that the Messiah would have possessed. Through Jesus, we also receive the Gifts of the Holy Spirit in the Sacrament of Confirmation.

Wisdom helps us recognize the importance of others and the importance of keeping God central in our lives.

Understanding is the ability to comprehend the meaning of God’s message.

Knowledge is the ability to think about and explore God’s revelation, and also to recognize there are mysteries of faith beyond us.

Counsel is the ability to see the best way to follow God’s plan when we have choices that relate to him.

Fortitude is the courage to do what one knows is right.

Piety helps us pray to God in true devotion.

Fear of the Lord is the feeling of amazement before God, who is all-present, and whose friendship we do not want to lose. The word used in Acts to describe the reaction of the people is the same word used in Isaiah to translate “awe” or amazement. Being amazed at the work of God is never a “bad fruit”.

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.

This is an excellent humanistic interpretation, OS.

IT does not leave much space for the Holy Spirit, but it describes the human perspective quite well.

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!

Yes, we have the capacity to be blaming and resentful, murderous, lying, thieving and all manner of unproductive and evil behaviors.The capacity to sin is indeed universal, and we have it because God created us with free will. I would also say there is nothing life giving in these other fallen actions either.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, I agree that blame communicates non-acceptance,and perhaps it does coerce people into compliance, but it is a poor motivation for change. Taking responsibility is a much more fruitful method of motivating change.

Without question blame is endemic to our fallen nature. We see this immediately in the Garden, when Adam blamed Eve, then Eve blamed the serpent. No one was taking responsibility for themselves. It is a classic story about the dysfunctional process of blame.

Diplomats will often practice courtesies or shake hands while still entertaining emnity in the heart.

I have seen people in church who won’t shake hands because they have a cold, or don’t want to get a cold. It does not mean they are holding resentments.

If there is no way to shake hands, does that make their forgiveness “unreal” and constrict them from love? I think not.

I think the salient difference is separating the person from the behavior. Accountability addresses the behavior as the problem, blame sends the message the person is bad/wrong.

Good Evening, guanophore.

Lots of good points. So, what message are you trying to send by refusing to shake my hand in agreement to be charitable in this thread? You have been charitable, for the most part, but you refuse to shake my hand. I never said that shaking hands is a requirement or a signal of forgiveness, but it certainly can be such a signal. However, refusal to shake hands is a different story, guanophore. Do you refuse to shake hands with your fellow Benedictines? I would hope not. Would you refuse to shake hands with a homeless person? Well, you have communicated some hesitation, but I think you were joking.

So, are you separating me from my “behavior”? Are you able to put aside the differences we have and shake my hand, or are you going to refuse to shake hands with me, while you are “free” to do such with others? Shaking hands, I repeat, is a sign of respect for the person. By treating people disrespectfully, are you truly avoiding communicating the very non-acceptance that you say is part of our “fallen nature”?

Has a person forgiven if they still have a “lingering enmity” in their heart? Well, just how much, then? If the person is still feeling downright hatred, I think we can agree that forgiveness has not occurred, whether he has “decided to forgive” or not. On the other hand, it would be a little unrealistic to say that a person has not forgiven at all if they have a little bit of “lingering enmity”. I think that it is accurate to say that the more of such “lingering enmity” we have in our hearts, the less we have forgiven. Would you agree?

Do you see the symbolism of Jesus and St. Francis embracing and being with lepers? They are including those who society casts out. Who are your cast-outs, guanophore? Who are you prone to resent and/or show disrespect? Those are your lepers, guanophore; go and greet them, embrace them, show them compassion and acceptance. I know, you are not apt to take advice from me. Ask someone you respect about this.

Forgiveness frees a person to return to compassion.

What does that compassion look like, friend? Does it include respect for life? Human life is individual life, not some vague concept. Do you respect me while refusing to shake my hand in agreement to be charitable? Refusing to shake hands is a very bizarre way to communicate respect.

Does this sound coercive? Does it sound like I am asking you to do something that you deep down do not want to do? If so, look at that “deep down”. Is it resentment? Is it blame? Thats okay, you are human. But if there is resentment there, what are you going to do with it?

Whenever we treat anyone else disrespectfully, whether it is turning away from a person who greets us or hanging someone on a cross, we do not know what we are doing.

:twocents:

Peace be with you.

 

[guanophore]

  I never said that shaking hands is a requirement or a signal of forgiveness, but it certainly can be such a signal.

You seem to have made an assumption that, if a person is not willing to comply with our conditions, they are holding “resentment” and “unforgiveness” in the heart.

So, are you separating me from my “behavior”?

I was responding to your illustrations about parenting children. It is preferable for parents to discipline their children without blame - teaching them to be responsible for their behavior without giving them negative images of their personhood. Blame is directed to the person, where accountability is directed to the behavior.

Shaking hands, I repeat, is a sign of respect *for the person*.   By treating people disrespectfully, are you truly avoiding communicating the very non-acceptance that you say is part of our "fallen nature"?

For you it is, perhaps something needed to feel respected by others.

But you have made a false conclusion based upon a false premise. Your conclusion that you feel respected as a person if another fails to “shake” your hand does not equate to others treating you disrespectfully if they do not wish to shake hands. With such a framework, you are coercing compliance from others by implying that, if others do not do as you wish, they are “disrespectful”. You have also concluded that, if others do not “shake hands” with you they are non-accepting and non-inclusive (rejecting), and therefore, acting according to the world, the flesh, or the devil (fallen nature).

This is a form of peer pressure which attempts to exert influence upon others to bring them to compliance to avoid being seen as “disrespectful”. It works best on people pleasing types.

Has a person forgiven if they still have a "lingering enmity" in their heart?  Well, just how much, then?  If the person is still feeling downright hatred, I think we can agree that forgiveness has not occurred, whether he has "decided to forgive" or not.

This may be one of the differences between Christians and Humanists. For Christians, following God is an act of the will. Feelings and behaviors will follow behind one’s decisions. The Christian does not evaluate themselves based upon emotion, or how they are perceived by others. They evaluate based upon God’s commandments. One can follow God’s commandments whether one feels like it, or not.

Feelings are only a reminder that there are aspects of our personhood that are slow to respond and be transformed. Satan loves to tempt us with the lower nature, including feelings of hatred, which is why we cannot bas our decisions or conduct upon emotions.

On the other hand, it would be a little unrealistic to say that a person has not forgiven at all if they have a little bit of “lingering enmity”. I think that it is accurate to say that the more of such “lingering enmity” we have in our hearts, the less we have forgiven. Would you agree?

I agree that this represents an accurate Humanistic perspective.

Do you see the symbolism of Jesus and St. Francis embracing and being with lepers?  They are including those who society casts out.  Who are your cast-outs, guanophore?  Who are you prone to resent and/or show disrespect?  Those are your lepers, guanophore; go and greet them, embrace them, show them compassion and acceptance.  I know, you are not apt to take advice from me.  Ask someone you respect about this.

You seem to feel a need to provide spiritual direction over the internet to people about whom you have made far reaching assumptions. I will respect your need to do so. I will even financially support this environment in which you are doing so.

 What does that compassion look like, friend?

I cleave to a Scriptural definition.

Does it include respect for life? Human life is individual life, not some vague concept.

I think you are saying that you wish your individuality to be respected and affirmed. This is a basic human need.

Do you respect me while refusing to shake my hand in agreement to be charitable? Refusing to shake hands is a very bizarre way to communicate respect.

I think it may seem “bizarre” to those who are embedded in a culture where this is normative.

Does this sound coercive?  Does it sound like I am asking you to do something that you deep down do not want to do?  If so, look at that "deep down".  Is it resentment?  Is it blame?  Thats okay, you are human.  But if there is resentment there, what are you going to do with it?

This appears to indicate that your coercive methods only seem that way to me because I am harboring resentment or blame. It is pressure being applied to conform to your demands so that I will not appear socially unacceptable.

Whenever we treat anyone else disrespectfully, whether it is turning away from a person who greets us or hanging someone on a cross, **we do not know what we are doing**.

:twocents:

Peace be with you.

It may also be the case that, when we conclude that others are “disrespectful” when they do not conform to what we consider to be social norms, we are acting in ignorance and blindness.

This was a serious problem when Europeans came to the U.S. and encountered Natives, who had different customs. The unrealistic expectations on both sides resulted in many unnecessary deaths.

The case can also be made that the Sanhedrin considered Jesus “disrespectful” because He did not conform to their ideas of how a Messiah should act.

 

[OneSheep]

You seem to have made an assumption that, if a person is not willing to comply with our conditions, they are holding “resentment” and “unforgiveness” in the heart.

Good Morning, Guanophore

Well, let me give you some insights about me that might shed some light on my assumptions. I am assuming that you are American, and that we come from similar cultures. Is this a wrong assumption? Does shaking hands mean something different to you? I said “shake hands in agreement”. If you are of a different culture, do people of your culture shake hands in agreement?

How about spitting in someone’s face? If you came from a culture where spitting in someone’s face was showing respect, would you spit in my face? If you were to spit in my face, as an American I would take such spitting to mean disrespect, because that is my cultural background. In America, when a person refuses to shake the hand of another (excepting any health or disability issues) it is seen as a sign of disrespect.

However, if you read my last post to you carefully, I never accused you of disrespect. Instead, I continue to call your behavior bizarre, and “If you mean disrespect”, etc. Which was what preceded my little lecture to you. Are you assuming that I think you have no respect for me?

So, let me go back to the first question of my last post, and this will help in enlightening me, if you were to answer:

1, What message are you trying to send by refusing to shake my hand in agreement to be charitable in this thread?

The other important question from my last post is this, and I will reword it:

2, In America, a refusal to shake hands is a sign of disrespect. When you treat people in a way that is seen as disrespectful, how do you avoid communicating the very non-acceptance that you say is part of our “fallen nature”?

Enlighten me, guanophore. I am truly trying to understand.

 

[guanophore]

 In America, when a person refuses to shake the hand of another (excepting any health or disability issues) it is seen as a sign of disrespect.

So it follows that you consider my lack of compliance with your demand to be a sign of disresepect, does it not?

 I never accused you of disrespect.

No, this is your perception of my lack of compliance - I have not “shaken hands” therefore I have communicated disrespect, lack of acceptance, unforgiveness, resentment, etc, etc.

IInstead, I continue to call your behavior bizarre

This is some of that not to subtle pressure to compliance. If the “other” does not comply with expectations, they are “bizarre”?

Which was what preceded my little lecture to you.

This is an accurate observation. You have repeatedly corrected me and instructed me as to how I should behave as to be less “bizarre” and more compliant to your expectations - what I need to do in order to be more respectful, more heartfelt in my forgiveness, etc.

Are you assuming that I think you have no respect for me?

I think your communications about your assumptions have been quite clear. My commitment to comply with the rules of CAF has been clear. This is insufficient for you, and you want compliance to demands above and beyond what CAF requires to satisfy your own needs.

In any case, all of this matter is off topic, and has nothing to do with what the crowd did or did not know.

Perhaps, whatever customs were typical for Palestinians were not used in the case of Christ. They did spit on him, as you mentioned above about spitting, which for them was disrespect. They struck him, and made demands upon him, but far and above the demands you have made upon me here,to comply with their way of thinking or be considered “disrespectful”. The Sanhedrin were the Powers That Be and determined what was heretical, and punished those who did not comply.

I think the pressures of the Sanhedrin to make the faithful comply was generally effective. If they did influence the crowd to denounce Jesus, they may have done so in fear of reprisal if they did not comply.

 

[OneSheep]

No, this is your perception of my lack of compliance - I have not “shaken hands” therefore I have communicated disrespect, lack of acceptance, unforgiveness, resentment, etc, etc.

Good Morning, guanophore!

When Christ said, “forgive them, for they know not what they do”, He knew their minds, and He knew that they were blind and ignorant. What I stated was not a perception of disrespect on your part, but my observation. In American society, refusal to shake hands is a communication of disrespect. You have refused to shake my hand, so yes, this communicates disrespect, just as spitting on someone’s face communicates disrespect in our society. Are these observations inaccurate? As far as my perceptions, I do have an immediate reaction to being refused to shaking of hands, I admit this. However, I also know that very often what people appear to communicate does not reflect what is actually occurring in their minds. Your refusal remains a question mark.

You do not know my perceptions, but yes, I am also capable of blindness and ignorance, including right now, at this very moment, as I write this.

Enlighten me, guanophore. You have the opportunity to tell me what I do not know.

1, What message are you trying to send by refusing to shake my hand in agreement to be charitable in this thread?

2, When we treat people in a way that is seen as disrespectful, how do we avoid communicating the very non-acceptance that you say is part of our “fallen nature”?

It appears that you and I both agree that accountability is very important. Here is your opportunity to give account. Of course, you are not “accountable” to me. However, we say that “the truth sets us free”. I have freely given account whenever you have asked for it. I have absolutely nothing to hide. Do you have this same freedom? Do you have the freedom to love everyone, shake everyone’s hand (I am using that metaphorically, meaning ability to show love and mercy), or are you encumbered by “lingering enmity”? Please read these as real questions, not accusations.

What is conversion if it is not a change of heart? When we decide to forgive, we are changing our mind, that is a good thing, that is a start. However, true forgiveness involves a change of heart, guanophore. “I decided to forgive you, but I still hate you.” is not what the Gospel calls us to, nor does the idea of conversion of the heart (and yes, that includes emotion) originate in “humanism”.

Now, I am not saying that conversion of the heart does not involve some working of the mind. No, conversion of the heart is attained through prayer, and through understanding, which does involve the mind. When Jesus said, “Forgive them, for they know not what they do”, He gave us the means to forgiveness from the heart. Can you see, first of all, that I am choosing “what is good as I see at the time” as St. Thomas observed? I can see this in your actions and words, that is my perception, my observation. Can you see the same for me?

God Bless your Sunday!

 

[guanophore]

 What I stated was not a perception of disrespect on your part, but my observation. ....

… You have refused to shake my hand, so yes, this communicates disrespect, just as spitting on someone’s face communicates disrespect in our society.

… that is my perception, my observation.

I imagine the crowd felt pressurred by the Sanhedrin in the same way. But it had a lot more teeth for them, because the Sanhedrin had the power to arrest, beat, and put them out of the temple/synagogue, ostracize them, etc. None of them wanted to risk the Sanhedrin thinking they were disrespectful and non-compliant.

When people demand respect and obedience, like the Sanhedrin did, pressure is created upon others to comply. In the case of the Sanhedrin, they were in a position of power, and could do real hurt to those who did not comply.

If the Sanhedrin wanted to persuade the crowd to help condemn Jesus, refusing to co-operate would be seen as “spitting” in their face!

 

[OneSheep]

I imagine the crowd felt pressurred by the Sanhedrin in the same way. But it had a lot more teeth for them, because the Sanhedrin had the power to arrest, beat, and put them out of the temple/synagogue, ostracize them, etc. None of them wanted to risk the Sanhedrin thinking they were disrespectful and non-compliant.

When people demand respect and obedience, like the Sanhedrin did, pressure is created upon others to comply. In the case of the Sanhedrin, they were in a position of power, and could do real hurt to those who did not comply.

If the Sanhedrin wanted to persuade the crowd to help condemn Jesus, refusing to co-operate would be seen as “spitting” in their face!

A Summary:

Onesheep: Guanophore, will you please shake my hand in agreement to be charitable?

Guanophore: I will be charitable because of my commitment to the CAF, but I will not shake your hand.

OneSheep: Refusal to shake a person’s hand offered to you is a sign of disrespect in our culture, do you intend to disrespect?

Guanophore: You are pressuring me to shake your hand.

OneSheep: I am not pressuring you to shake my hand, I am asking you why you are refusing to shake my hand. Why are you refusing to shake my hand?

Guanophore: You are pressuring me to shake your hand.

OneSheep: I am asking you to be accountable for your actions, which we both value. I am giving you the opportunity to enlighten me about why you are refusing to shake my hand.

Guanophore: You are pressuring me to shake your hand. “I imagine the crowd felt pressurred by the Sanhedrin in the same way”. Your pressure to have me shake your hand is analogous to the Sanhedrin pressuring the crowd to condemn Jesus.

:banghead:

I knew that some day I might need that one.

But this is the way I learn, guanophore. You see, I really am not all that bright, even though you may think otherwise. You would like me not to ask you to shake my hand, and you would like me not to ask why. You may be intending disrespect, or you may not be, but I hear your request.

I am also hearing that you are interested in discussing this topic, but frankly, guanophore, we have some history, and in our history you have done things that violated my trust. You have apologized, and I appreciate that, but in order for me to continue interacting with you, you have to earn my trust. You must know that forgiveness does not mean jumping back into a situation that exposes oneself to the same problems as before. Your refusal to shake my hand, guanophore, does not tell me that you have a new humility after your apology. Instead, your refusal continues to prove that you cannot be trusted. When you can earn my trust, I will answer your posts on the topic. Until then, I will not.

As a parting statement tonight, one that shows that this post remains true to the topic: I know that the deepest part of yourself is trustworthy, merciful, charitable, respectful, compassionate, and holy. When you behave in ways that do not demonstrate these qualities, you do not know what you are doing, nor in the deepest sense, do you will such demonstration.

So, unless you can prove otherwise by what is going on in your mind, I stand by the observation that no one knowingly and willingly rejects God, the Christ found in all of us.

I wish you the best; I pray that you remain well, and that the Lord Jesus surrounds you with the love found in all people.

 

[guanophore]

  A Summary:

Onesheep: Guanophore, will you please shake my hand in agreement to be charitable?

Guanophore: I will not shake your hand.

OS, I have never said anything of the sort. This lives in your imagination.

OneSheep: Refusal to shake a person’s hand offered to you is a sign of disrespect in our culture, do you intend to disrespect?

Guanophore: You are pressuring me to shake your hand.

This is certainly true. You have been pressuring this since the first thread in which I encountered you, for various and sundry reasons. The first time, and the major reason for my avoidance, was an effort to include me in somehow in Humanistic conceptions of the Eucharist. Now, the bar has moved, and I am being accused of disrespect and unforgiveness if I fail to comply. The pressure alone is offputting, whatever the bar may be.

OneSheep: I am not pressuring you to shake my hand,

Perhaps you will consider applying your vast Gift of Understanding to yourself. Perhaps this Gift will enable you to see that you are, indeed, pressuring, and the more pressure that is applied, the further it drives the other person who is uncomfortable complying to the demand. This is true of apologetics as well as conformity to customs.

 

[guanophore]

OneSheep: I am asking you to be accountable for your actions, which we both value. I am giving you the opportunity to enlighten me about why you are refusing to shake my hand.

Do you see that this is off topic in the thread? You seem to want to make this about me, rather than the topic. I have avoided a number of your questions and demands for this reason.

But this is the way I learn, guanophore. You see, I really am not all that bright, even though you may think otherwise. You would like me not to ask you to shake my hand, and you would like me not to ask why. You may be intending disrespect, or you may not be, but I hear your request.

Perhaps you might consider that people actually do “willngly and knowingly” do things that upset others. You seem to champion the view that, if each of us had an appreciation for the infinited value and dignity of other human beings, we would never do anything hurtful to them. This is a fantasy on several levels.

It is possible that I have chosen not to comply with your demands purposefully, and that I know full well it is upsetting for you, because my refusal flies in the face of a strong need to be included and accepted. It is also possible that I deliberately have chosen this cousrse of action for reasons other than resentment and unforgiveness. This may be difficult to fathom, but consider that God sent His only Son into the world to be sacrificed as a lamb led to the slaughter.

I am also hearing that you are interested in discussing this topic, but frankly, guanophore, we have some history, and in our history you have done things that violated my trust.  You have apologized, and I appreciate that, but in order for me to continue interacting with you, you have to earn my trust.  You must know that forgiveness does not mean jumping back into a situation that exposes oneself to the same problems as before.

Agreed, it does not. But I have to tell you, you will expose yourself to these problems as long as you affiliate yourself as “Catholic” while posting beliefs that are closer to Humanism, claiming that they fall within the “tolerated” realm of what is truly Catholic. If you do not encounter these problems with me, you will encounter other Catholics that know their faith well, and recognize the differences.

  Your refusal to shake my hand, guanophore, does not tell me that you have a new humility after your apology.  Instead, your refusal continues to prove that you cannot be trusted.  When you can earn my trust, I will answer your posts on the topic.  Until then, I will not.

Let’s see. So I have resentment, unforgiveness, am untrustworthy, arrogant…It all sounds quite judgmental to me.

It sounds like my posts are not worthy of a response from the Great One Sheep, I have been measured in the balance, and found wanting!

 As a parting statement tonight, one that shows that this post remains true to the topic:  .  When you behave in ways that do not demonstrate these qualities, you do not *know* what you are doing, nor in the deepest sense, do you *will* such demonstration.

I understand that this is your premise, but it is clear from the Scriptures (and I understand we don’t consider them inspired and inerrant in the same way) that the Sanhedrin “knew”. Gamaliel even warned them to let things run their course with the Apostles afterward. Ignorance is not always an excuse.

 So, unless you can prove otherwise by what is going on in your mind, I stand by the observation that no one knowingly and willingly rejects God, the Christ found in all of us.

This is an interesting statement, and may be one of the hallmarks of Humanism, where the human mind is considered the paramount source of Truth, rather than what God has revealed about HImself through the Church. It strikes me as absurd that anyone could offer as “proof” the imaginations of one’s thoughts, but you have done so in you post to me. You have “proven” by what is “going on in your mind” that I am resentful, unforgiving, arrogant, unrepentant, and untrustworthy, so there it is! Proof, from the human imagination!

 I wish you the best; I pray that you remain well, and that the Lord Jesus surrounds you with the love found in all people.  :)

I wish it were true that the love of the Lord Jesus was found in all people, but it is not. There are many people who have knowingly and willingly rejected Him, and their hearts are full of hatred. Friday, three members of a family owned store were shot near here. two of them died. They did not feel the “love found in all people”.

Your formulation, One Sheep, denies the Church teaching about mortal sin. It postulates that mortal sin does not really happen, since people do wrong things unknowingly (through ignorance and blindness).

Yes, people do sin for these reasons, and some of them may have been among the crowd that day, but people also sin willfully and knowingly, out of hatred for God, and His creation. You position presents a huge disconnect with the Teachings of Jesus.

 

[simpleas]

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!

Well we could say that they did not know Divine revelation at the time. Over the course of two thousand years the doctrines have been developed, and we could say are continuing, if not the doctrines then what is believed to be a follower of Jesus, love, forgiveness, mercy etc.

If I could spin the OP question regarding :

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

What do we think Jesus meant? It seems a very simple statement/prayer, Jesus asking his murders forgiveness, because they don’t know what they are doing…

 

[guanophore]

Well we could say that they did not know Divine revelation at the time. Over the course of two thousand years the doctrines have been developed, and we could say are continuing, if not the doctrines then what is believed to be a follower of Jesus, love, forgiveness, mercy etc.

If I could spin the OP question regarding :

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

What do we think Jesus meant? It seems a very simple statement/prayer, Jesus asking his murders forgiveness, because they don’t know what they are doing…

Do you mean by “murderers” the soldiers who were putting Him to death, the crowd that called for crucifixion, Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate, Herod? All of the above? Do you see all of them equally ignorant and blind?

 

[simpleas]

Do you mean by “murderers” the soldiers who were putting Him to death, the crowd that called for crucifixion, Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate, Herod? All of the above? Do you see all of them equally ignorant and blind?

When I read the text, I read it as Jesus speaking about everyone involved in putting him to death.

 

[guanophore]

When I read the text, I read it as Jesus speaking about everyone involved in putting him to death.

I find it interesting that Jesus uses this gruesome opportunity to speak about degrees of sin.

So Pilate said to Him, “You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?” 11Jesus answered, “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.” 12As a result of this Pilate made efforts to release Him, but the Jews cried out saying, “If you release this Man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be a king opposes Caesar.” John19:11

If they are all pardoned because they are equally blind and ignorant, how is it that Pilate has sin, but those who delivered Jesus have “greater sin”? Does this not imply that they had sufficient knowledge and freedom to choose to commit evil?

 

[OneSheep]

Well we could say that they did not know Divine revelation at the time. Over the course of two thousand years the doctrines have been developed, and we could say are continuing, if not the doctrines then what is believed to be a follower of Jesus, love, forgiveness, mercy etc.

If I could spin the OP question regarding :

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

What do we think Jesus meant? It seems a very simple statement/prayer, Jesus asking his murders forgiveness, because they don’t know what they are doing…

Hi Simpleas, and welcome!

At first glance, this was not a “spin”, but it sure is! And yes, I agree, Jesus observes that the people hanging him there (including all responsible) do not know what they are doing.

On the USCCB website, the reference for the verse is to the forgiveness of enemies, so Jesus models such forgiveness, and He gives us the means to such forgiveness by showing us how to understand why people do evil.

The word “understand” has the root meaning “stand in the midst of”. Jesus, of course, had the ability to stand in the midst of people like none of us, and as He hung on the cross He was able to stand in the midst of the very people who hung Him there, He was able to see what they were seeing, and He saw that their sight was lacking.

So, to me the other question is important too, what did the crowd (and others responsible) not know, such that if they did know, they would not have crucified Him?

Thanks!

 

[OneSheep]

It just occurred to me that there is an extension of this question which I have been toying with/puzzling about.

I was writing to a friend that “Jesus forgave under the worst of conditions”, yet I am continually reminded that in actuality, Jesus was not forgiving under the worst of conditions.

It was dear Mother Mary who was in the worst of conditions, was she not? I know, what good is it to discuss whose conditions were worse? But the questions worth discussing are these:

Of all the possible things happening in her mind, the horror, the anguish, even the resigned acceptance, had she already forgiven the crowd? Did she ever hold anything against the crowd? (One would think so, after all, she was human) Did she listen to Jesus’ inspiration, His call to forgive? Did she also see and understand that the crowd and all those responsible did not know what they were doing?

In my own very limited Mariology, she would have forgiven, she would have understood and forgiven, at least eventually, if not immediately, or perhaps even before the crucifixion or the trial.

 

[simpleas]

I find it interesting that Jesus uses this gruesome opportunity to speak about degrees of sin.

So Pilate said to Him, “You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?” 11Jesus answered, “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.” 12As a result of this Pilate made efforts to release Him, but the Jews cried out saying, “If you release this Man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be a king opposes Caesar.” John19:11

If they are all pardoned because they are equally blind and ignorant, how is it that Pilate has sin, but those who delivered Jesus have “greater sin”? Does this not imply that they had sufficient knowledge and freedom to choose to commit evil?

The words aren’t “you are all pardoned”, the words are Jesus asking his father to forgive them (all involved? just the soldiers? just the crowd?, just pilate?, etc?) because they (take your pick) are blind to what they are doing to some degree.

The one with the greater sin, I always thought was Judas.

This is an interesting write up :

ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FRFOR.TXT

 

[OneSheep]

The words aren’t “you are all pardoned”, the words are Jesus asking his father to forgive them (all involved? just the soldiers? just the crowd?, just pilate?, etc?) because they (take your pick) are blind to what they are doing to some degree.

The one with the greater sin, I always thought was Judas.

This is an interesting write up :

ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FRFOR.TXT

Hi Simpleas,

I have seen this homily before. The problem is, we get to this line among others about the mindset of the crowd:

“They knew he was a true prophet, at the very least, and a
holy and wonderfully good man.”

I have absolutely no idea where Fr. Most got the idea that this was the mindset of the people who hung Jesus. It makes no sense. We do not kill people we see as holy and wonderfully good, no, we kill those we see as worthless and those we condemn. Let us look at the possible thought process:

“Jesus is a prophet, a wonderfully good man, and I think that we should torture him and hang him on a cross.” Does that sound human to you, Simpleas? If this was the case, and humanity behaved in such a random fashion, we would do the same to our own children in the best of relationship. This picture of humanity is simply not what God created.

Do you see what I mean?

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas,

I have seen this homily before. The problem is, we get to this line among others about the mindset of the crowd:

“They knew he was a true prophet, at the very least, and a
holy and wonderfully good man.”

I have absolutely no idea where Fr. Most got the idea that this was the mindset of the people who hung Jesus. It makes no sense. We do not kill people we see as holy and wonderfully good, no, we kill those we see as worthless and those we condemn. Let us look at the possible thought process:

“Jesus is a prophet, a wonderfully good man, and I think that we should torture him and hang him on a cross.” Does that sound human to you, Simpleas? If this was the case, and humanity behaved in such a random fashion, we would do the same to our own children in the best of relationship. This picture of humanity is simply not what God created.

Do you see what I mean?

I think I understand what you are saying…If a person believes another to be of goodness and holiness they would not condemn that person to death, because they see the beauty of life and goodness in the person and so could not want suffering and death for that person.
Some of us may know or have heard of people who forgive others who have murdered family members, even asked for their pardon, or lesser sentence. One priest I know, ,recently has been putting up on facebook, news reports on cases were families have shown mercy to murderers or people who have caused death by their actions.

The crowd as a whole could have just been “following the crowd”, people can get carried away and join in with the “mob” before they would actually question what it is that is going on.

But where it is uncomfortable is that if some of the high priests saw what Jesus did, they were aware that he was a good and holy man, but one who would go the extra mile and actually sit and talk/eat with sinners, something they themselves wouldn’t do?
There was no limit with Jesus, but there was with them and us at times.

But it was the claim that Jesus was the son of God, not his holiness or any healing’s he did I think, once they knew/confirmed it the priests said “What further need have we of witness? for we ourselves have heard from his own mouth”,

So someone claiming to be the son of God would be put to death, regardless of how holy and good they had been. Maybe.