Victor
Silver Haired Member
Those who know me will be aware that I have three theological thesis on this site. Thanks to Brian, one has become an EBook, and widely dispersed. At an advanced (?) age I have started my fourth which has taken on a life of its own. There are four major points taken up: Forgivness of sin, Repentance, Karma, and Predestination and Preexistence. How are they connected to Christianity? I am here to post the Prologue because it takes up one major topic that is a vast emptiness in the Christian ethic. I would like your thoughts...
Has it ever occurred to you that in our Christian doctrine it is always the victim who bears the weight of the sin and not the perpetrator?
It is the victim’s role to forgive every abuse heaped upon them. It is the victim’s role to suffer the hurt, the pain and injury, the anxiety, the fear, yes even the anger, caused by another. It is the victim who must ‘bear the weight’ of the damage while the one who has caused physical, emotional and spiritual upheaval in another’s life is relieved of their sin at once. This even when there is no contrition.
The culprits receive the blessing of the priesthood and turn their backs on those they have injured without a moment’s hesitation.
Repentance is a moment’s prayer, a quick word asking forgiveness, and they turn without remorse or concern from those they have injured. They are held blameless for the path of human debris they leave behind, and some have a trail that follows them a lifetime in length. And indeed, in all of this where is contrition? Where are the deep and genuine feelings of guilt and remorse? Where is the firm resolve not to sin again in the future?
Who tends for the weary? Who tends for the victims of our selfish endeavors? How do we seek comfort from a God who is supposed to take away the blame of the perpetrator while those outraged, hurt, in pain, are threatened, told that if they refuse to forgive their tormentor’s sins their sins will not be forgiven? We make the victim guilty of the crimes of the offender!
And if true of our religious union it carries over into our social order with a flurry. Man and God are separated from each other by an absence of the Spirit of the Law. Only the letter of the Law remains for mankind to stumble over.
It becomes apparent to some that the doctrine of the Christian Church is prejudiced in this matter. Why? We will attempt to discover why the Church has refused to repair this apparent error, leaving untold numbers of adherents to Christ’s order in physical, emotional, and spiritual pain. Many have had no choice but to leave the confines of God’s house to seek another means of confessing their faith in their Lord and Savior.
Serious consideration must be given to the subject if ever the scales of Christian justice are to be leveled. It would appear that there is an enormous void in the Christian ethic. It has gone untouched for almost two thousand years without consideration, an empty desert that is an open wound in our practiced doctrine.
It is for this purpose that this writer begins an examination of Forgiveness and Repentance in both the Old Testament and the New. Our beginning, even as Christians, has its roots in Judaism and the ancient history of Israel. Therefore, as in any valid search one must start at the beginning. It must be understood at the outset that these matters also concern themselves with contrition and confession. Though simplistic in design, almost boring to most studied believers, it is a necessary evil to this work.
One puzzle in our search will be in defining the difference in seeking forgiveness of our own sins or forgiving the sins of another, someone who has sinned against us. Finding peace when someone has sinned against us is well within the parameters of our search. We are expected to find some way to forgive another who has sinned against us; it is expected, it is harsh, but it is demanded from us even though we may be the victim!
And in the end there must be an answer found concerning the debts caused by sin. We must determine whether our own sins and those against others obligate us to pay a price, a debt, other than our repentance, confession.
That which is preached to the congregations of Christian denominations denies the religious rights and principles of those against whom sin is practiced. In addition, it obviates the strong possibility that we have incurred a debt by our actions, a debt that must be paid at some point in our existence.
Surely when the Priest announces after confession that, “Your sins are forgiven,” this is not the end of the matter. Contrition is not a moment’s thought or the reading of a Confessional Statement in the Mass or a Church Service. It is not the, Our Fathers or the Hail Marys that we recite. It cannot end with a line of the injured left unattended. And it cannot end with total absolution of the sinner no matter how many words or vows are spoken by, or for us.
The fact that Christ died for our sins is given. We believe that we receive absolution through His death on the cross, even when our confession and repentance are incomplete. We are forgiven for confessing our sins when we are contrite, even when those we have hurt by our sins are left unattended and suffering. But even at that are there scriptures that lean toward the inevitable conclusion that all is not as we would have it in our socially minded congregations?
Have we, in fact, understood the totality of Christ’s teachings? Have we properly discerned His complete intent, or have we stopped short of His intended meaning?
Does Christ speak of debts created by sin? Does Christ speak of those who have been injured by the sins of others? Does Christ speak of reward and punishments even after our sin is forgiven? Do the Holy Scriptures of The Old Testament speak of these things? Does the New?
And in the most subtle fashion possible, if God’s word and intent presents us with a debt to be paid for the things we have done, when is it visited upon us? And if a debt indeed, why do we refrain from understanding it as the destiny of man to be responsible for the things he has done? Dare we even be so bold as to use the concept of, Karma?
Victor G
Has it ever occurred to you that in our Christian doctrine it is always the victim who bears the weight of the sin and not the perpetrator?
It is the victim’s role to forgive every abuse heaped upon them. It is the victim’s role to suffer the hurt, the pain and injury, the anxiety, the fear, yes even the anger, caused by another. It is the victim who must ‘bear the weight’ of the damage while the one who has caused physical, emotional and spiritual upheaval in another’s life is relieved of their sin at once. This even when there is no contrition.
The culprits receive the blessing of the priesthood and turn their backs on those they have injured without a moment’s hesitation.
Repentance is a moment’s prayer, a quick word asking forgiveness, and they turn without remorse or concern from those they have injured. They are held blameless for the path of human debris they leave behind, and some have a trail that follows them a lifetime in length. And indeed, in all of this where is contrition? Where are the deep and genuine feelings of guilt and remorse? Where is the firm resolve not to sin again in the future?
Who tends for the weary? Who tends for the victims of our selfish endeavors? How do we seek comfort from a God who is supposed to take away the blame of the perpetrator while those outraged, hurt, in pain, are threatened, told that if they refuse to forgive their tormentor’s sins their sins will not be forgiven? We make the victim guilty of the crimes of the offender!
And if true of our religious union it carries over into our social order with a flurry. Man and God are separated from each other by an absence of the Spirit of the Law. Only the letter of the Law remains for mankind to stumble over.
It becomes apparent to some that the doctrine of the Christian Church is prejudiced in this matter. Why? We will attempt to discover why the Church has refused to repair this apparent error, leaving untold numbers of adherents to Christ’s order in physical, emotional, and spiritual pain. Many have had no choice but to leave the confines of God’s house to seek another means of confessing their faith in their Lord and Savior.
Serious consideration must be given to the subject if ever the scales of Christian justice are to be leveled. It would appear that there is an enormous void in the Christian ethic. It has gone untouched for almost two thousand years without consideration, an empty desert that is an open wound in our practiced doctrine.
It is for this purpose that this writer begins an examination of Forgiveness and Repentance in both the Old Testament and the New. Our beginning, even as Christians, has its roots in Judaism and the ancient history of Israel. Therefore, as in any valid search one must start at the beginning. It must be understood at the outset that these matters also concern themselves with contrition and confession. Though simplistic in design, almost boring to most studied believers, it is a necessary evil to this work.
One puzzle in our search will be in defining the difference in seeking forgiveness of our own sins or forgiving the sins of another, someone who has sinned against us. Finding peace when someone has sinned against us is well within the parameters of our search. We are expected to find some way to forgive another who has sinned against us; it is expected, it is harsh, but it is demanded from us even though we may be the victim!
And in the end there must be an answer found concerning the debts caused by sin. We must determine whether our own sins and those against others obligate us to pay a price, a debt, other than our repentance, confession.
That which is preached to the congregations of Christian denominations denies the religious rights and principles of those against whom sin is practiced. In addition, it obviates the strong possibility that we have incurred a debt by our actions, a debt that must be paid at some point in our existence.
Surely when the Priest announces after confession that, “Your sins are forgiven,” this is not the end of the matter. Contrition is not a moment’s thought or the reading of a Confessional Statement in the Mass or a Church Service. It is not the, Our Fathers or the Hail Marys that we recite. It cannot end with a line of the injured left unattended. And it cannot end with total absolution of the sinner no matter how many words or vows are spoken by, or for us.
The fact that Christ died for our sins is given. We believe that we receive absolution through His death on the cross, even when our confession and repentance are incomplete. We are forgiven for confessing our sins when we are contrite, even when those we have hurt by our sins are left unattended and suffering. But even at that are there scriptures that lean toward the inevitable conclusion that all is not as we would have it in our socially minded congregations?
Have we, in fact, understood the totality of Christ’s teachings? Have we properly discerned His complete intent, or have we stopped short of His intended meaning?
Does Christ speak of debts created by sin? Does Christ speak of those who have been injured by the sins of others? Does Christ speak of reward and punishments even after our sin is forgiven? Do the Holy Scriptures of The Old Testament speak of these things? Does the New?
And in the most subtle fashion possible, if God’s word and intent presents us with a debt to be paid for the things we have done, when is it visited upon us? And if a debt indeed, why do we refrain from understanding it as the destiny of man to be responsible for the things he has done? Dare we even be so bold as to use the concept of, Karma?
Victor G
