A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 580
- Points
- 108
I agree DA, we are not, automatons don't have disorienting emotions.
Self-Forgiveness
- Thread starter Namaste Jesus
- Start date
Well no, that wasn't what I had in mind when I created the thread, but it's a fair point. So, what of deliberate and violent acts? Are these subject to self forgiveness? God is the final judge of course, but I say, under the right circumstances, even the most heinous of acts may be forgiven.
I'm reminded of story I read about Mahatma Gandhi. It seems a Hindu man had deliberately killed a Muslim man because he dispised the Muslim man's faith. Later he learned that the man he had killed was raising a young son alone and that his son was now an orphan. The Hindu man was very distraught and convinced he could neither forgive himself for such a despicable act nor would he be forgiven by God. Gandhi thought for a moment then told the Hindu man that there was a way to achieve forgiveness both in his heart and by God. Gandhi then instructed the man to take the son of the man he had killed and raise him as his own, but went on to say that, in order to set things completely right he must learn the Muslim faith and raise the boy as a Muslim. That story has always struck me as the ultimate penance and atonement.
Last edited:
Yes. But put your neighbour – the victim – first.
Look at truth and reconciliation commissions. Look at the practice of getting offenders to face the victims of their offences. Both sides comment on the healing that can happen ... and healing of that order can only happen in community.
Exactly.and just before that action that we now deem sinful or hateful or hurtful...we quantified, justified and qualified our action....and then later.. The tide turned in our mind...
Of course they have.... I said that. I am not arguing ethical, moral, or right... I am saying at the time that action was in their mind the best solution at that moment...
Whatever the situation... However horrific... At that moment...in whatever mental state they were..they weighed the optjonsand made a decision....to steal, rape, kill, imprison....whatever... I think our extreme rendition and enhanced interrogation techniques were torture, immoral, vengeful, hateful....and wrong..our president all the way down to those perpetrating the torture had ways of justifying their actions at the time.... Many of them now have issues with the attricites of war and forgiving themselves...
OK. I missed it.
You can't separate the moral and ethical from decision making process.
C'mon! Rendition is a term for off-shoring torture because they knew it was wrong and they couldn't do it here because it was wrong! Now the secret's out, of course they're going to forgive themselves ... but what they're actually doing is seeking societal forgiveness. They're not feeling bad because of what they did, they're feeling bad because they got found out. And they're trying to justify their actions.
Hang on ... I get what you're saying: They knew it was wrong, but they did it anyway, because they thought it would get results, right? So it was wrong, but justified? Is that it? But they're wrong. And thinking they're right, does not make it right. And it is the community that says they're wrong.
Then the offence is against the community.
But you're saying they 'see the light' and realise it was wrong.
OK. But that does not mean all they've got to do is forgive themselves, and everything's hunky-dory. There's still the offence against the community to clear.
So their self-forgiveness will only be complete when it is declared by the community. If the community refuses to accept it, then the person in question is in a bit of a fix, because his self-forgiveness will be seen as self-justification.
And the community is not obliged to forgive because the individual forgives himself. That's nonsense. If that were true then there would be no law.
I once read something very powerful about truth.
You can discover a truth, but it will not be a truth until the community accepts it to be true. You might know it to be true, but so what? Not until the community says so, is it actually true.
That's how science works. It's not enough for the discoverer to know it, he has to be able to prove it for it to be accepted as a fact. Until then, it's just something in the mind of the individual.
Then the offence is against the community.
But you're saying they 'see the light' and realise it was wrong.
OK. But that does not mean all they've got to do is forgive themselves, and everything's hunky-dory. There's still the offence against the community to clear.
So their self-forgiveness will only be complete when it is declared by the community. If the community refuses to accept it, then the person in question is in a bit of a fix, because his self-forgiveness will be seen as self-justification.
And the community is not obliged to forgive because the individual forgives himself. That's nonsense. If that were true then there would be no law.
I once read something very powerful about truth.
You can discover a truth, but it will not be a truth until the community accepts it to be true. You might know it to be true, but so what? Not until the community says so, is it actually true.
That's how science works. It's not enough for the discoverer to know it, he has to be able to prove it for it to be accepted as a fact. Until then, it's just something in the mind of the individual.
Aussie Thoughts
Just my 2 cents
So if the community believes we should all jump off a cliff and one guy says no, we should ignore him until he provides sufficient proof and just leap right off? Too funny mate.
Last edited:
Sorry, AT, but nonsensical scenarios are not really a telling counter-argument.
You may scoff, old chum, but there's more than one guy out there saying we're heading for quite a considerable cliff, and we're happily ignoring them ... so maybe not so funny after all ...
In fact, I'd say give most people what looks like a nice tax break and a promise of a brighter tomorrow, and they'll happily follow.
Aussie Thoughts
Just my 2 cents
Poetic justice right there.
stranger
the divine ignorance (and friends)
I've concluded that I have to wait for it. My belief is that forgiveness from God and self forgiveness go hand in hand. Forgiveness is always there, awaiting us, but knowledge of the position (I am forgiven) does not always match the true experience of it (I now know it not only in word but in power). Often there is a time lag between the two. Perhaps God only knows the reasons for these things.
A clear conscience is a priceless gift in my opinion, and can be bestowed only by God, not by men. All the active things concerning righting wrongs and moving on are good things which should be done, but in the end I believe, at least in my case, that this is treating symptoms rather than the actual disease. The inward wound remains intact although some temporary relief might be felt.
A Romans 7 struggle tends to point to a principle at work within us which opposes the good we would attempt to do; a Nemesis rising up to thwart our best efforts. Although the text moves along very quickly, I don't know that there is any certain time frame between the experience of "O wretched man that I am" and "There is therefore now no condemnation". Could be years. God only knows. That inward principle must be dealt with in a significant way, a way which changes the person forever. Call it what you will, ego, old man, old nature, "lump", or as I often say, just a big ball of "fallen". The source which is in me and is part of me.
So I'm going to wait for the time that I can self-forgive at the deep level that I need. I will try not to neglect all the active things, asking forgiveness when I should, forgiving when I can, doing my best to keep the vehicle of life on the road... but waiting, looking for that open door, or that dim path which, once taken, will alter this life forever, and for the better.
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 580
- Points
- 108
Thomas, I can't speak for wil but it seems to me you are forcing wils perceptive into your own. You are speaking of the community after the fact and he is speaking only of the individual and what people think and feel before and after. The two are connected but your are both focusing on the different parts of the bigger picture. Wil, Thomas, correct me if I'm wrong.
EDIT: Also, I'm wondering if Tomas and DA could put their 'C'mon!' and "Really!?' to the side in these discussions. It's not a matter of people agreeing with each other, it's not why we are here. Human nature and morality is complicated enough for us to be surprised by each others opinions...which they are, opinions.
EDIT: Also, I'm wondering if Tomas and DA could put their 'C'mon!' and "Really!?' to the side in these discussions. It's not a matter of people agreeing with each other, it's not why we are here. Human nature and morality is complicated enough for us to be surprised by each others opinions...which they are, opinions.
if course..but in that moment...they thought it was the best solution to the situation.... They deemed it less wrong then other choices...
Just what does the phrase 'against my better judgement' mean?
Methinks it means you knew better but went ahead anyway. The decision was based on emotional/instinctive areas of the mind, not on spiritual or conscience levels. So at that moment instinctive desire just took over. So there were these two opposing forces mentally, and of course the more aggressive one won out.
Methinks it means you knew better but went ahead anyway. The decision was based on emotional/instinctive areas of the mind, not on spiritual or conscience levels. So at that moment instinctive desire just took over. So there were these two opposing forces mentally, and of course the more aggressive one won out.
And when you made a choice to do some thing.... Against your better judgement... You decided that was actually your best course of action..
Seems like an appropriate response to me. I guess we'll have to wait for the community to say so before we'll know if it's true or not... "old chum"...LOL! What's up with that?
Yep, I'm with you now.
Your rendition example is an interesting one: Obviously (I hope) people in power thought torture got results even when they knew that it was wrong in the context of their community. So can we say that those who sanctioned rendition decided their judgement was better than the community to which they belonged?
Right or wrong, the community outweighs the individual. So even if the individual concerned could produce evidence to show he had extracted information under torture that saved lives, he's still guilty in the eyes of the law, and the case would have to go to court to get a ruling in his favour.
(There are occasions when individual action triggers something in the community, like Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat, but up to that point, the 'community rule' governed the lives of individuals. There are always exceptions.)
Then comes the day when the renditioner realises the community was right. He was wrong. He suffers guilt. Now, he can forgive himself, but this will never be complete nor satisfactory. Not until the community forgives will he be happy, because man is a communal animal.
I repeat: the Truth and Reconcilliation programmes, the meetings between victim and perpetrator, the evidence is overwhelming.
It's like telling yourself you're a good guy. You might well be. You might not be. But when someone else tells you you're a good guy, it's always more effective – even if the other is mistaken, or lying!
LOL, are you guys a double act?
Did you just tune into the show?LOL, are you guys a double act?