T W A U ... The Chase...from...
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Do third parties have the right to forgive?
41 Answers
Christians often quote the mantra (obviously without thinking about it) that Jesus died on the cross to ‘save’ us and that our sins will be forgiven. (Not mine, I hastily add: sins are a religious concept which I don’t recognise.) The Lord’s prayer even asks for such forgiveness.
But what right has any third party to forgive the crimes that people have committed without consulting the victims of those crimes?
If someone raped your daughter or abused your child or murdered your mother or…. how would you feel on hearing that Jesus or some god or other had forgiven that person?
Would you shrug your shoulders and say” Oh well, that’s OK then” or would you be more likely to say “What bluddy impertinence!” and curse that person for his barefaced cheek?
How do Christians cope with this?
But what right has any third party to forgive the crimes that people have committed without consulting the victims of those crimes?
If someone raped your daughter or abused your child or murdered your mother or…. how would you feel on hearing that Jesus or some god or other had forgiven that person?
Would you shrug your shoulders and say” Oh well, that’s OK then” or would you be more likely to say “What bluddy impertinence!” and curse that person for his barefaced cheek?
How do Christians cope with this?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'm not a Christian, but I think giving on the whole this teaching is intended to give injured people the strength and reason to let go, and to move on. I think also that the idea is that god is always approachable even by bad people. I'm not sure it means that god over-rides your personal feelings. But it isn't an altogether bad idea to have a mechanism to help the injured get over a traumatic event.
Third parties may forgive if they wish. Each opts to forgive what they want. The forgiveness is for the benefit of those forgiving, not the forgiven. That said I can understand pain caused to a victim who is unwilling to forgive on hearing others have chosen to do so. That is very human and understandable, to want others to hate and feel hurt as much as you do yourself.
Hang on chakka. Not sure you've understood the concept of 'he died for our sins'.
The Christian thinkers, such as the Jesuits,and the clergy, think about it and understand what it means. Let's hope that the congregation understand it but, if they don't, that doesn't mean its not sound.
The Lord's prayer asks God to forgive us our trespasses just as we forgive them that trespass against us. You may feel that the second part is something of a hopeful statement. We patently don't do so with practical results; the man who is stabbed by another may forgive his assailant, but the assailant still goes to jail. But it may make a Christian feel better if he forgives and forgets and he may hope that God will do the same. No good dying and finding there are convictions which aren't spent, as it were, that God hasn't forgiven.
The fact that atheists, including me, think that all religions based on some deity's existence are wrong, since there is no deity, doesn't affect the internal logic of the religion
The Christian thinkers, such as the Jesuits,and the clergy, think about it and understand what it means. Let's hope that the congregation understand it but, if they don't, that doesn't mean its not sound.
The Lord's prayer asks God to forgive us our trespasses just as we forgive them that trespass against us. You may feel that the second part is something of a hopeful statement. We patently don't do so with practical results; the man who is stabbed by another may forgive his assailant, but the assailant still goes to jail. But it may make a Christian feel better if he forgives and forgets and he may hope that God will do the same. No good dying and finding there are convictions which aren't spent, as it were, that God hasn't forgiven.
The fact that atheists, including me, think that all religions based on some deity's existence are wrong, since there is no deity, doesn't affect the internal logic of the religion
There is no evidence that Jesus claimed he died to "save us" or "forgive our sins". As to his role he allegedly claimed to be no more than a messenger about HIS (forgiving?) god. Despite the Christians' bible (whichever version they chose to use) was esentially written 200 years after the events. Indeed despite the so-called Gospels etc., Jesus never got a say-in.
This question highlights the contradictions between the old and new testaments. In the former it says an "eye for an eye"
Even the Christian bible provides evidence that he did not die " i.e. empty tomb story. This also follows from his rapid "death". Note I have not used the word "cross". The Roman method of humiliating and prolonged suffocation was simply to use a straight pole whereby (cross or post) the stomach muscles become exhausted and hence cannot respond to lungs needs.
As an atheist, to get direct to your question: no third party can forgive crime ("sins"). The nearest one can get is if the victim or their relative(s) chose to do so. The religious confessional is just another con-trick.
This question highlights the contradictions between the old and new testaments. In the former it says an "eye for an eye"
Even the Christian bible provides evidence that he did not die " i.e. empty tomb story. This also follows from his rapid "death". Note I have not used the word "cross". The Roman method of humiliating and prolonged suffocation was simply to use a straight pole whereby (cross or post) the stomach muscles become exhausted and hence cannot respond to lungs needs.
As an atheist, to get direct to your question: no third party can forgive crime ("sins"). The nearest one can get is if the victim or their relative(s) chose to do so. The religious confessional is just another con-trick.
why would I be worried that Person A had forgiven Person B? It's up to me whether I forgive B for any wrong done to me; what others do doesn't affect me.
A more pertinent question might be how I'd feel if the person who murdered my mother had been cleared by a court, since the court is actually supposed to represent me. Person A does not represent me unless I wish him to.
A more pertinent question might be how I'd feel if the person who murdered my mother had been cleared by a court, since the court is actually supposed to represent me. Person A does not represent me unless I wish him to.
// why would I be worried that Person A had forgiven Person B? It's up to me whether I forgive B for any wrong done to me; what others do doesn't affect me. //
You just would. If person B put a turd through your letter box, you wouldn't like it, but if I then came along and said - 'it's ok - I forgive him for doing that', you'd like it even less. You'd be quite right in thinking 'F*k off ludwig - what's it got to do with you?'. As if it's not bad enough, I come along and make things worse by condoning persons B's actions.
You just would. If person B put a turd through your letter box, you wouldn't like it, but if I then came along and said - 'it's ok - I forgive him for doing that', you'd like it even less. You'd be quite right in thinking 'F*k off ludwig - what's it got to do with you?'. As if it's not bad enough, I come along and make things worse by condoning persons B's actions.
I think the answer no by the way. Obviously a third party can't forgive. Only the party that was wronged can forgive.
I don't really understand how that fits in with the Jesus thing though because none of that makes any sense anyway. I don't get who the first second or third parties are in that whole thing. Obviously there's god, man, and Jesus - but I haven't a clue which one is which. Aren't two of them the same one anyway? as I said, it's nonsense.
I don't really understand how that fits in with the Jesus thing though because none of that makes any sense anyway. I don't get who the first second or third parties are in that whole thing. Obviously there's god, man, and Jesus - but I haven't a clue which one is which. Aren't two of them the same one anyway? as I said, it's nonsense.
your actions don't make my problems worse, Ludwig. I don't know where anyone obtains a "right" to forgive, as the OP suggests, so you can probably assume it as well as anyone else. But I've always assumed full responsibility for my own forgivings, or lack of.
As I said, we've all handed over our right of legal judgment to the state, so I'd be annoyed if the state forgave a malefactor on my behalf. But that's different.
As I said, we've all handed over our right of legal judgment to the state, so I'd be annoyed if the state forgave a malefactor on my behalf. But that's different.
//How do Christians cope with this?//
Coping with is an alternative to dealing with that Christians are all too familiar with.
Forgiveness of anyone by anyone for anything is irresponsible . . . full stop.
We all make mistakes by virtue of the fact that we are not born omniscient and wise. We must learn what is good or bad, right or wrong, and why we should choose one over the other. But ignorance makes one no less responsible for the consequences of their beliefs, choices and actions, good or bad, right or wrong. The refusal to acknowledge and assume responsibility is to ignore the reality of that which is the measure of ones right to exist.
Forgiveness without seeking recompense is a circumvention of justice no less depraved than that which is being forgiven.
Coping with is an alternative to dealing with that Christians are all too familiar with.
Forgiveness of anyone by anyone for anything is irresponsible . . . full stop.
We all make mistakes by virtue of the fact that we are not born omniscient and wise. We must learn what is good or bad, right or wrong, and why we should choose one over the other. But ignorance makes one no less responsible for the consequences of their beliefs, choices and actions, good or bad, right or wrong. The refusal to acknowledge and assume responsibility is to ignore the reality of that which is the measure of ones right to exist.
Forgiveness without seeking recompense is a circumvention of justice no less depraved than that which is being forgiven.
// your actions don't make my problems worse, Ludwig //
I think they do, and that's my point. You've suffered already, and then someone who's got nothing to do with the situation and no right of forgiveness pipes up to effectively condone the wrong-doers actions. That can only add to your problems.
It's kind of a side issue anyway - the question is does the third party have the right to forgive, and the answer is no - whether their intrusion bothers you or not.
I think they do, and that's my point. You've suffered already, and then someone who's got nothing to do with the situation and no right of forgiveness pipes up to effectively condone the wrong-doers actions. That can only add to your problems.
It's kind of a side issue anyway - the question is does the third party have the right to forgive, and the answer is no - whether their intrusion bothers you or not.
Zacs-Master - you don't need the excellent naomi this time. I have been saying for years, on this site and elsewhere, that there is no evidence that Jesus existed. (My impression is that naomi does believe in his existence but not as a son-of-God miracle-worker.)
My question was for Christians who plainly do believe in the Jesus story despite the total lack of evidence.
My question was for Christians who plainly do believe in the Jesus story despite the total lack of evidence.
the Bible is evidence of Christ's existence. (Bear in mind that "evidence" isn't the same as "proof"; there is no proof.) It rather outweighs the countervailing evidence that he didn't; so Christians who believe he did are acting logically enough.
Ludwig, you deny the right of others to forgive people, yet you assume the right to know what I feel, even when I tell you you're wrong.
Ludwig, you deny the right of others to forgive people, yet you assume the right to know what I feel, even when I tell you you're wrong.
WRONG Zacs-Master. Someone-called Jesus did exist and this is recorded by Roman historians (possibly also Greek). However there is no credible evidence that he was either miracle-worker or had any connection with a creator. He was just a pain-in-the neck to the Romans with his rabble-rousing and also the chief (collaboative?) jews. Though he existed historically, the myths about him which, unfortunately for us, established the christian movement. These were probably invented/embellished by "St Paul" who actually annoyed the anti-Roman tribe, notably Jesus' brother John (not John of the "gospels"). John and his fellow anti-Roman zealots were eventually massacred by the Romans at Massada.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.