Unconditional Forgiveness

buhdjwp eprasvmn depuafog lykwtjx reuzqowlm lzhs zjrak

JNR,

First, E Favorite can be my friend even if he does not hold the same beliefs as me or cite the same creeds. To feel otherwise would be unchristian.

McLaren doesn't decouple salvation; he writes extensively about what salvation means in the Bible. He argues that, while the afterlife is a theme in the New Testament, it is a relatively minor theme. Rather, salvation is in the present. Also, salvation is not private; it is corporate (societal) as well as personal. The lens of Constantinian orthodoxy has made many clergy ignore major themes in the Bible as being "irrelevant".

McLaren is really trying to say that the message is indeed relevant to our world today; indeed, more so than ever. Humanity has built a suicide machine that worships theistic capitalism rather than God. In our march toward "progress" we are destroying God's creation through extinction of species, ecological calamity, the threat of thermonuclear war, etc. Certainly Christians (or, as I prefer to call myself, followers of Jesus) should be concerned about destroying the wondrous beauty that God has given us.

And the "social gospel" that you attempt to marginalize is much more thatn Matthew 25. It is found throughout the four Gospels (especially the synoptics) as well as the epistles of Paul and James and is particularly prominent in the prophets. Have you read Amos lately? Isaiah?

So uccer, you've sold your birthright for a mess of emotionally comforting pottage (Golly! Like, thanks for being emotionally supportive!). Why doesn't his approval frighten you and cause you to examine yourself in the faith?

And of course there's nothing wrong with McLaren's social Gospel (Mt 25, etc.), except that he wants to decouple it from salvation, so why does he bother posing as an evangelical? Make all the idiotic, unsubstantiated accusations you wish about my 'venom' or bigotry, etc. I just wearily observe you seem to have abandoned the faith.

E Favorite :

Thanks for the friendly/supportive post. Don't get those too often haha.

A book you may be interested in is "Everything Must Change" by Brian MacLaren. As the title implies, he goes beyond the call that just the church must change (although he certainly makes that point). He argues that the world needs to follow Jesus' teachings to avoid disaster: ecological, war, etc. Good reading.

To Mohammad Malleck of Canada

First of all for your information. I am not a Hindu, but a Christian, a practicing one at that. Therefore , I shall not respond to your intemperate and condescending responses to my comments.

However, I did look up by Googling Lenasia Muslims whom you credited as having helped Gandhi to formulate his philosophy of nonviolence. The following is a direct quote from the Lenasia Muslims cite that I got.

http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/library-resources/online%20books/history-muslims/1900-20s.htm

"Mahomed Cassim Angalia [d 1952] in 1914 in Durban. Angalia was opposed to Gandhi's passive resistance stance as a weapon of struggle against oppressive and unjust government policy. He felt it was provocative and counter-productive; instead he preferred direct negotiations and first-hand consultations."

I found the rest of your stuff in your response to me, hardly worth reading, leave alone wasting my time responding to it. If you have not read Abdul Kalam Azad's autobiography, India wins freedom, I urge you to read it to understand the animosity that existed between Azad and Jinnah. Yes, I would rely on the personal accounts of Gandhi, Azad, Jinnah etc rather than the pontifical pronouncements of "talking heads."

Again, in the name of peace and truth, I implore you to refrain from prevarication. It helps no one. Salaam, and peace.

Alex

PAGANPLACE:

It is a good point that you make. My statement does seem to make a line betweem man and other animals. As if man the animal could be a god or devil and other animals are preprogrammed robots. I think that as the brain becomes more complex in animals that they do exhibit 'god-like' behaviors like compassion. Our remote anscestors worshipped some animals as gods. Neaderthals had religion. I wonder if our close animal relatives had such a concept as 'loving an enemy'. Certainly if they carried out such a concept, they would never have written it down for posterity.

As far as being freaked-out, I'm still trying to work that one out. Thank you for noticing.

YANGPU6 said:
“Scientists and theologians alike conclude that the universe is so well constructed, and the chances of such a universe happening at all (after all, it came from a cosmic vacuum), are so, so incredibly slim, that it is only academically fair to state the obvious. The obvious being that the cosmos must have been designed. The scientists say no more or less than this; the theologians say more.
The problem appears to be that the conclusion is disliked.”
Agreeing with his comment I would like to further add:
It is human nature that, we are always thankful and respectful to the ones who do us any favor even the smallest one.
We are thankful and respectful to our parents, friends, providers, employers, people who are genuinely helpful to us in any period of our life time. And we tend not to forget those who do any favor or provide any help to us. Infect we feel certain level of warmth and affection towards them, and even obey them if justly required. In certain favors we feel as if even we unconditionally owe them.
This is our NATURAL REACTION!

Some how even after REALISING that there is some Creating Force behind the whole creation. Who provided us INFINITE comforts and favors, we failed to recognize that we owe ONLY to Him our sincere and humble thanks to our Sustainer and Provider.

By finding faults in our self made concepts and religions, long ago, we have given up hope in truly believing in any thing and carried away by our lust ant greed.
By not taking responsibility it doesn’t go away.

Responsibility say we should whole heartedly search for the truth, seek knowledge even we have to go to the far end of the world, e.g. China. And just don’t make judgments depending upon our already proven wrong preconceived ideas. And if we hear or find something, we should evaluate it by its standards and given means. And not against our self conceived ones, depending upon our individual good or bad experience or knowledge.

Yangpu6 -

You should really go back and read Hawking, Stenger, Davis, et al. if you think Intelligent Design is accepted by the physics community. The
'weak' form of anthropism (without the deity) is
vaguely more likely to be entertained as a distant possibility, but is not a frontrunner in current cosmological thinking by reputable cosmologists. What the above seem to think is that the cosmos emerged in a micro-instant from
'nothing' or the quantum vaccuum (as you said).

Stenger points out that the structure of the cosmos as we know it today is exactly like you'd expect (as a physicist) if it emerged spontaneously without purpose or design. Much of the universe is not habitable, and about 95% of the known universe consists of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' - neither of which are currently understood and do not fit current models of a particle-based universe....there is obviously a great deal more to learn down the road.

If the universe was designed intelligently, whoever did it didn't do a very good job of it even by human standards! If you have to believe in an intelligent designer, you'd be better off reading up on Gnosticism - that view does not cast the creator of the universe (the Demiurge) in a very positive light (the old testament Yahweh) - the Demiurge made lots of mistakes during his creation but still thinks he's the ultimate Godhead (which he is not). This is in fact the very cosmology that Christianity suppressed way back in the early centuries of it's emergence. In many ways, Gnosticism is more eastern than western in it's religious viewpoint.....very interesting stuff.

all the best -

Remark: I have taken care to review that anthropic argument for the existence of God.

Scientists and theologians alike conclude that the universe is so well constructed, and the chances of such a universe happening at all (after all, it came from a cosmic vacuum), are so, so incredibly slim, that it is only academically fair to state the obvious. The obvious being that the cosmos must have been designed. The scientists say no more or less than this; the theologians say more.

The problem appears to be that the conclusion is disliked.

Forgiveness: Certainly we all can forgive, and we do not need to be Christians.

Indeed, in my opinion it is the Christians that should seek forgiveness as they openly promote the notion of original sin. Reflect upon this affair slowly as you look lovingly into a child's happy face. It is a disgraceful notion. Hence, if anyone needs forgiveness it is the Christians that utter and promote such a Doctrine.

Should we forgive someone that has used the hard-earned thithings of a communiuty to pay for expensive trips abroad, instead of using it to help the local needy on their very own door-step? The answer appears to be quite obvious.

Forgiveness requires a case-by case examination. In some cases, as we all know, forgiveness is a sin to proffer. Moreover, forgiveness for all? Then it follows that there is no meaning to notion at all.

Forgivness is grave affair, or used to be. I am now told that you can be forgiven in a New-York minuite.

In my opinion authentic forgiveness is always unconditional and so the title of this essay is itself indicative of just how out-of-touch the writer is with the notion.

Forgiveness: Certainly we all can forgive, and we do not need to be Christians.

Indeed, in my opinion it is the Christians that should seek forgiveness as they openly promote the notion of original sin. Reflect upon this affair slowly as you look lovingly into a child's happy face. It is a disgraceful notion. Hence, if anyone needs forgiveness it is the Christians that utter and promote such a Doctrine.

Should we forgive someone that has used the hard-earned thithings of a communiuty to pay for expensive trips abroad, instead of using it to help the local needy on their very own door-step? The answer appears to be quite obvious.

Forgiveness requires a case-by case examination. In some cases, as we all know, forgiveness is a sin to proffer. Moreover, forgiveness for all? Then it follows that there is no meaning to notion at all.

Forgivness is grave affair, or used to be. I am now told that you can be forgiven in a New-York minuite.

In my opinion authentic forgiveness is always unconditional and so the title of this essay is itself indicative of just how out-of-touch the writer is with the notion.

Hi, Thomas. Going back a bit:

" Thomas Baum:

TO PAGANPLACE:

Don't worry, God is a lot nicer than some people even want Him to be, at least to other people."

Well, I think that you may see, at least in your tussles with Canyon, that some want the whole universe to be *meaner* than them, so as to call *abuse* "Love."

Some will also try to say abuse is really "nice."

Good cop, bad cop.

I hope you mean what you say.... cause at least in your world, that appears to be about the best you can think of others.

I'll take it at face value, for now, though.
If you will support people's *freedom and dignity,* for all... Too often 'God Is Love' turns into 'Whatever we call Christianity is 'Love,' whether or not it bears even the slightest resemblance to anything but bald-faced hate'

But you could see how *that* plays out, right?

"Lots of people are really going to be surprized, some pleasantly, some unpleasantly. Ultimately, tho, all will be well."

Well, to my experience, a lot of people who were really spooled up about what people believe are gonna continue to be awfully-relieved, but...

Good thought. If that's not a case for cutting people some 'slack,' I don't know what is. :)

"God is Love, not a loving God, but a Being of Love, Pure Love. Since we are made in God's Image if Love is shining thru us...get the point."

Funny how I'm the one who catches flak for divine images, (and, apparently, how some kinds of people are less 'in that image' than others, but, OK. Now, ...practice.

"Take care, see you in the Kingdom."

How bout I see you in this Republic, first? ;)

UCCER - Looks like we're in complete agreement -- except about those supernatural beings.

I know all Christians aren't like JNR -- I used to be a liberal Christian myself until recently.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'd like to see Christian humanism become a reality -- and I think it will, but perhaps not in my lifetime.

If more people like you and I stood up to clergy and refused to pay lip service to dogma, maybe things would change sooner.

Read Spong's "Why the Christian Church must Change or Die" and discuss it with your pastor.

I didn't have the nerve to. I left instead.

Rafael and E Favorite::

(Sorry, messed up the subject heading on the last post; getting late haha).

I both agree and disagree with you. I agree that I can have civil discourse with you but it is difficult for me to have civil discourse with the fundamentalists. In a hypothetical social gathering, I would be more likely to socialize with you than with JNR or Canyon, for what it's worth....

Where perhaps we disagree is, I hope you haven't become convinced that fundamentalism is all there is to Christianity. It saddens me that so many people now think of Christians as looking out only for their own salvation, unconcerned for others. Please remember that many Christians have worked tirelessly against the evils of slavery, apartheid, and segregation, to name just a few.

I both agree and disagree with you. I agree that I can have civil discourse with you but it is difficult for me to have civil discourse with the fundamentalists. In a hypothetical social gathering, I would be more likely to socialize with you than with JNR or Canyon, for what it's worth....

Where perhaps we disagree is, I hope you haven't become convinced that fundamentalism is all there is to Christianity. It saddens me that so many people now think of Christians as looking out only for their own salvation, unconcerned for others. Please remember that many Christians have worked tirelessly against the evils of slavery, apartheid, and segregation, to name just a few.

UCCER - I think JNR is right - you are more like atheists than you are like him. All the two of you seem to have in common is belief in supernatural beings and events. But with atheists, you share critical thinking skills and understanding of the importance of reason. Most atheists are also humanists - concerned about people for their own sake, not their perceived status with the almighty. That's something else we seem to have in common.

UCCer:

Didn't you read JNR? If you don't take the old book as the wholly inspired, inerrant word of his god (apparently not yours), you're just like Spong and you too are out of the club. Another bully who doesn't like your answer.

I'm beginning to believe that JNR was right, we do have more in common than he does with you: a bit more humility and a whole lot more humanity.

JNR:

Actually, all I did was ask Canyon Shears why he always blasts liberals on the On Faith panel. That's hardly mounting a defense for Bishop Spong. I just think he deserves the right to speak in a free society.

I am not going to go through a point-by-point analysis of Spong's views with you. Personally, I like to hear things from a variety of perspectives, including progressive, liberal, evangelical, conservative, orthodox, and progressive. How can one take a reasoned stand without hearing the alternatives.

There are places that I agree with Spong's theology and places where I disagree. So what? There are probably places where you and I agree and others where we disagree. So what? So what? People are allowed to have differing perspectives on things, especially theology.

UCCER, I have no venom - I would like for you to realize what you're involved in. If you know God exists, then stop kicking against the goads - the first liberal theologian spoke in Gen 3:1-5. Why do you swallow this garbage? Have YOU EVER READ SPONG'S 12 THESES? IF SO HOW CAN YOU DEFEND HIM?

Cant understand why anyone would be proud to be a christian. Its as silly as being a mormon or a muslim.Or a sikh or a hindu.

To locate Dawkin's "The God Delusion" in my local bookshop,I had to browse in the 'religious' section,and I was embarrassed that anyone would see me and think I was fool enough to be religious.
I couldn't get out of there quick enough.

It bothers me that books on atheism are so often kept among the religious books,when really they should be on opposite sides of the store,among books on philosophy and science.
Religious books should be among the books on astrology,numerology,scientology,alien abductions,and UFO sightings.
I mentioned this to the storekeeper,but he wasn't impressed.

JNR,

Your post at 1:39 PM today (11/18/2007) was so presumptuous and full of venom I don't really know where to begin.

I will say this: if being "Christian" means satisfying you and your definition of orthdoxy then no thanks. I'll be happy to call myself a follower of Jesus in that case. That said, who left you in charge? It's Jesus' church, not yours.

RAFAEL: "Just curious, do you advocate death for gays, for children who curse their parents, fortunetellers, adulterers, non-virgin brides, followers of other religions? What about those who eat oysters, shave their beards, and mix fibers in their clothing? Stoning these people to death rarely seems to get much defense these days even though God said they were okay in the Bible, your arbiter of who is and who aint."

Fair question - but the answer is the distinction between moral, civil and ceremonial law:
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=27

You might point out there are no actual headings in the OT differentiating between them, but then you must account for the difficult facts: the gentiles in the OT are NEVER condemned for disobeying ceremonial or civil laws. Only moral laws. These same laws are repealed explicitly in the NT, but the moral laws are affirmed.

So to answer your question, the dietary laws, and laws regarding beards/mixed fibres do not apply any more.

Adultery and homosexuality are violations of the moral law, but we can't mindlessly apply the penalties of the civil law of ancient Israel against them. I take John 8 as the model for dealing with sexual sin. It ought to be outlawed, but if the person repents of their sin and turns from it, they should be shown mercy. But please don't ask people to ignore what Jesus said: "Go and sin no more".

Just one proviso - the cosmos may in fact have always existed, contrary to what one poster believes. The universe just might be replicating itself for all eternity and this is exactly what Buddhists maintain. Infinity is a hard nut to crack, much less bite into....nevertheless, study up on Inflation theory as it is currently tied to the Big Bang and you may find infinity staring you right in the face. Unfortunately we don't presently have the math to deal with it. The Planck constant as applied to the micro-moment of the Big Bang is where our cosmic travels start - and stop.

Sometimes science and religion does seem to converge - however, Intelligent Design is not one such area of convergence.

Read Stenger's book if you think so (he is not remotely a Buddhist by the way - in fact his last statement in the book shows clearly that he doesn't understand it at all!!)

You'll forgive me for the divergence??

I caught a glimpse of 'anthropic principle' mentioned in a post and thought immediately of a book that I might recommend to all those of (religious) faith that would like a wee bit of a scientific challenge, if you're up to it -

Read 'God: The Failed Hypothesis' by physicist Victor Stenger and then read 'Rethinking Religion: Connecting Cognition and Culture' by
Lawson and McCauley.

In this modern age, why do (so many) humans not only adamently believe in God the creator as an absolute truth, but further - why is it that religious belief in general is so homogeneous throughout recorded history?? There is nothing new about any religion today that hasn't been done before elsewhere by other/earlier believers.

If you think you've got a corner on the truth read these two books and find out where you might have gotten your ideas about God and religion - and whether or not these beliefs have a chance at being true in an objectively real way. Truth or myth?? Stray outside the comfortable boundries of belief and expand your horizons. Most will not, but then what are you afraid of?

Sure, Spong is a Christian if he conceives of himself as a Christian. It doesn't bother me and I have no idea why it apparently infuriates you.

Just curious, do you advocate death for gays, for children who curse their parents, fortunetellers, adulterers, non-virgin brides, followers of other religions? What about those who eat oysters, shave their beards, and mix fibers in their clothing? Stoning these people to death rarely seems to get much defense these days even though God said they were okay in the Bible, your arbiter of who is and who aint.

The Bible is the arbiter of Christianness. Anyone who denies it is the wholly inspired, inerrant word of God is not a Christian.
Note UCCER in his very first comment on this thread support Bp Spong. But just google 'Spong' and '12 theses' and tell me, do you think Spong is a Christian? Do it.

JNR,
Your logic is terribly poor.
a) "Of such a nature" does not constitute evidence. There is no logical connection your statement about a "personal" cause and the non-eternity of the universe. If your god is eternal, why did he suddenly decide 15 billion years ago to create the universe? That makes even less sense than if the universe had been eternal.
b) There are many forms of morality that do not require anything supernatural. You might start with reading more about humanism.
c) By your argument you take Jonestown as evidence that Jim Jones was an incarnation of Jesus, as he claimed.
d) "A, B,and C pointing to" the creator does not constitute evidence.
Terribly poor!

JNR: this is where things get interesting and a little silly, when Christians start calling other Christians non-Christian. It's not clear to me who should be the arbiter of Christian-ness. Is it the case that only non-Christians "invent" notions of a deity, or that only the non-Christian notions are vague? You ridicule UCCer's view of God as communicating only through "vague 'spiritual experiences'" as if this were somehow more compatible with an atheist world view than a Christian world view.

I really should stay out of the Christian chest thumping, but to me it sounds a little ridiculous for you to accuse one another of not being the real McCoy. Presumably according to your world view, your god is the only one fit to do the judging, and only at the end--so perhaps your lack of humility makes you not really a Christian either?

Rafael: "In fact, there is no need to disprove anything supernatural because there is no evidence for it."

Wrong!
a) This universe is of such a nature that something external/transcendent must have caused it. The cause is likely personal because were it not, the effect (the universe) would always have existed, which is not the case.
b) You take morality seriously? The only way for you to do so is to believe in something that transcends the mindless material universe you think gave rise to you. The Law Giver is God.
c) The historicity of the empty tomb. The 500 in 1 Co 15 who witnessed the risen Jesus and were willing to die for it. Are you willing to die for anything? If Paul and Peter had not known that Jesus had risen, would they have been willing to die for Him?
d) Consciousness, rationality, genetic information all of which point to the Creator.

Rafael: agreed. there are those on these threads who appear to act as if their logic conclusively proves that god does not exist. don't mean to suggest that science bothers.

Joet said:
"as for some of the rest of you, ;-), it is just as bogus to attempt to use logic, reason or science to disprove god as it is to prove it. give it up. it's OK to point out such things as the curious origins of the bible, but believers are perfectly entitled to overcome same if they are so moved. otherwise we will never stop pointing out the flaws in each other's logic, because our logic is necessarily flawed if we are attempting the impossible. "

Who do you think is trying to disprove the existence of gods with science? Certainly not scientists. Logical thinkers might point out inconsistencies or conflicts in the logic of people who describe their god. Pointing out inconsistencies in human concepts is completely different from disproving the existence of something supernatural using methods that relate to the natural world. In fact, there is no need to disprove anything supernatural because there is no evidence for it.

.

Excuse me, but wasn't the "voluntary" giving up of power of the dominating "authorities" a sign of cognition of their fault or "sin" (always, a foreshadowing of repentance)? And--as you all too clearly, dramatically showed--met with the abused people's acceptance, and lead to the "stunning achievement" you now celebrate? Were there, therefore, no "preconditioned" to forgiveness that, instead of revenge and the like, the people made?

Would the change have occured from a unilateral, unconditional act of the oppressed people? Whether forced by circumstances or by free volition, the first step was taken by the oppressor (at least in this case). They were met more than half-way, it is true, by the oppressed. And you have an achievement worth crowing about.

What would have happened if instead the oppressed people marched to the citadels of the oppressors and told them, "All right. Enough. We forgive you unconditionally. Give up your position of power and let us free"? They would have been slaughtered.

And then, if the oppressed fought back, would you call it "revenge, vengence, etc.?" Would they then have dismayed Tutu and company as being contrarians to their "insight"?

Perhaps the dictum (on "unconditional forgiveness") should be rephrased. I suggest this: "To the repentant sinner, offer forgiveness--and let no conditions mar its grace."

Now, that would be viable, pragmatic, for "vengeful" humans, truly a "stunning ahievement." As South Africa has, so you wrote, done it.

.

Scarlett: indeed you note how easy it is for us to discuss forgiveness when we aren't talking about something close and personal. I have the time for all my posting because I was victimized myself (thank heaven for severance packages for execs) to serve as a scapegoat. The revenge fantasies are only beginning to abate many months later. The anger is not easy to fight. I have managed to readily convince myself that the offender isn't worth giving the power to keep me a victim, so that part was manageable. So I am part way there, and can see the finish line of complete forgiveness (not the tell the offender part - probably never - and no need, will probably never see again). so Scarlett, thanks for bringing the conversation back to reality.

as for some of the rest of you, ;-), it is just as bogus to attempt to use logic, reason or science to disprove god as it is to prove it. give it up. it's OK to point out such things as the curious origins of the bible, but believers are perfectly entitled to overcome same if they are so moved. otherwise we will never stop pointing out the flaws in each other's logic, because our logic is necessarily flawed if we are attempting the impossible.

Scarlett, forgiveness doesn't necessarily mean not talking over with the offender what he did and why it was wrong, but that's a separate issue from forgiveness. You shouldn't beat him over the head with it ad infinitum - that's where it crosses the line where you're really not forgiving him. But you ought not let this person blithely go on thinking he hasn't really done anything wrong.
You can forgive him in the sense of bearing no malice towards him, but it would be insane to reinstate whatever type of relationship/trust you had without some form of acknowledgment and repentance on his part - and this would require you to talk it out with him and let him know why he'd done wrong.

I notice that many of the posts concerning forgiveness are concerned with releasing individuals who are once-removed from us, ie: torturers, political enemies, terrorists, even murderers. There is an impersonal nature to the evils they inflict on us. But what of those close to us? Those whom we work with? Who, for years, have called themselves friends and associates. And what shall we do when they betray us? A "Judas" situaton, totally unexpected, that causes deep pain and anguish to a wide circle of people. It takes years, my friends, and constant deep prayer to come close to just "acceptance." I often wonder if there isn't a "middle step" before release; even just telling betrayers that we know what they did and how it made us feel. I don't know the answer here, I just know "forgiveness" is a mighty complex thing and the word is easy to throw around until you've been knifed in the back by those you loved and lived with.

I notice that many of the posts concerning forgiveness are concerned with releasing individuals who are once-removed from us, ie: torturers, political enemies, terrorists, even murderers. There is an impersonal nature to the evils they inflict on us. But what of those close to us? Those whom we work with? Who, for years, have called themselves friends and associates. And what shall we do when they betray us? A "Judas" situaton, totally unexpected, that causes deep pain and anguish to a wide circle of people. It takes years, my friends, and constant deep prayer to come close to just "acceptance." I often wonder if there isn't a "middle step" before release; even just telling betrayers that we know what they did and how it made us feel. I don't know the answer here, I just know "forgiveness" is a mighty complex thing and the word is easy to throw around until you've been knifed in the back by those you loved and lived with.

I notice that many of the posts concerning forgiveness are concerned with releasing individuals who are once-removed from us, ie: torturers, political enemies, terrorists, even murderers. There is an impersonal nature to the evils they inflict on us. But what of those close to us? Those whom we work with? Who, for years, have called themselves friends and associates. And what shall we do when they betray us? A "Judas" situaton, totally unexpected, that causes deep pain and anguish to a wide circle of people. It takes years, my friends, and constant deep prayer to come close to just "acceptance." I often wonder if there isn't a "middle step" before release; even just telling betrayers that we know what they did and how it made us feel. I don't know the answer here, I just know "forgiveness" is a mighty complex thing and the word is easy to throw around until you've been knifed in the back by those you loved and lived with.

I notice that many of the posts concerning forgiveness are concerned with releasing individuals who are once-removed from us, ie: torturers, political enemies, terrorists, even murderers. There is an impersonal nature to the evils they inflict on us. But what of those close to us? Those whom we work with? Who, for years, have called themselves friends and associates. And what shall we do when they betray us? A "Judas" situaton, totally unexpected, that causes deep pain and anguish to a wide circle of people. It takes years, my friends, and constant deep prayer to come close to just "acceptance." I often wonder if there isn't a "middle step" before release; even just telling betrayers that we know what they did and how it made us feel. I don't know the answer here, I just know "forgiveness" is a mighty complex thing and the word is easy to throw around until you've been knifed in the back by those you loved and lived with.

Rafael - sorry about the confusion with 1, and 2 as well! I didn't mean political liberal, I meant theological liberal, like uccer, who is not a Christian, so please don't pay him the compliment of arguing against him as if he was one.
Their view DOES reduce to atheism in the end: a God who cannot communicate with us except (they hope) by vague 'spiritual experiences' which could have naturalistic esplanations (may it was that pepperoni pizza you had earlier, uccer, and not the Holy Spirit you experienced!). A God who does not intervene in history, whose non-activity is for all intents and purposes compatible with the atheist world view.
Yet to keep from despair ('feeling that the universe is nothing more than a mechanical dance of atoms' as C.S.Lewis puts it) they invent a vague concept of Deity - by no means a Christian one. It's a kind of self therapy for them.

And why do they do it? Because there is some aspect of their lives that is more important to them than God. They would rather cling to their favorite sins than forsake all and follow Christ.
But their conscience still bothers them, which explains the obsessive need to have their identity as 'Christian' affirmed.

As for the distinctions in 3) Take for example John W. Loftus, atheist propagandist of Debunking Christianity. He tries to say that since God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, he could have arranged for us to escape all physical harm (by having us be born with wings for example, so we could fly if pushed over a cliff).
But of course this is not logical necessity - it just seems plausible to Loftus. God may be omnibenevolent, and to show us our limitations and dependence. We also live in a fallen world. It is a kind of judgment against us for sin. You can't say omnibenevolence = shielding us from the consequences and just deserts of our actions (see Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis).

To the omnipresent anonymous (who posts simultaneously on multiple threads!):

1) Why can't all you anonymouses just pick your own handle for the sake of continuity in discussion? Sheesh.

2) Do you understand that there is a difference between an atheist and a liberal? That there are liberal theists and conservative atheists?

3) If you have something to contribute, for example by making the distinctions that you say would resolve the apparent contradictions, why not do so? Shouting "Don't fall for the liberal's lies!" makes you sound like a drooling fanatic on a street corner.

ANONYMOUS,

I am sorry I ahve been censored (see my last posting on Samuel Lloyd's comment) and I have vowed to stop posting after the last few designed to avoid leaving loose ends.

I give up.

Mohamed: "To me God is, in a certain sense, an interactive process"

But is God for you a Person who can communicate with his creatures? If not, then why are you not just an atheist, but who calls God what he feels is unknowable (a mere unconscious state or process)? Are you a liberal Muslim (counter part to Spong)?

Mohamed: "... omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence among other attributes. It can be proved, using bi-valued logic, that such a deity is a contradiction"

I've heard atheists try to prove a contradiction (usually between omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence - ie. problem of evil). But they always fail to make distinctions that would resolve the apparent contradiction. Don't fall for the liberal's lies!

UCCER,

You write : " The anthropic principle doesn't prove that God exists, but it sure suggests it."

No, it neither suggests it nor disproves it. Rafael has answered you that "it sure does not suggest the existence of your god". He answered me : "You almost lost me at 'when we dare to challenge the deity.' If we don't agree on that basic assumption, what is the point of building a discussion that depends on it?"

The point is: god, or God, is a concept that each one formulates for himself based on emotions and ideas imparted to us by those who cared for us in our earliest formative days and years, and refined constantly by experience and our cogitations on the human condition. Certain attributes of the deity seem to be shared by all people from all societies, cultivating all manner of creeds and hailing from all walks of life -- omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence among other attributes. It can be proved, using bi-valued logic, that such a deity is a contradiction, and this, while leaving the debates about evolution/creation/intelligent design, about whether morality derives from divine rules or is a constantly evolving value-system adapting to the necessities of survival of the specie confronted to constantly changing challenges in his environment, etc. However, we now know that bivalued logic is not the only one that can explain life, matter, physical forces, consciousness, etc. What's more, we now know how to draw the differene between the known-knowns, known-unknowns, knowable, and unknowable, not justin the sense of limitations arising from the process of collecting data to verify hypotheses but also the more fundamental ones refferred to by the initiated as Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. We are even more blessed than that in having been able to cultivate enough confidence in our thinking abilities that we are making enormous progress investigating the different methods by which we get to know -- in other words in answering the question "do we know how to know?". Antonio D'Amasio's argument is that Galileo's/Descartes' reasoning approach (Cogito ergo sum, even augmented to reasoning in a many-valued logical mode) is not sufficient -- we also get to know through the emotions -- by the hardwiring, in our brains, through the repeated firing of nerones along particualr circuits and synapses, of certain methods of perception of reality. One good example to illustrate: there is no convincing proof why the world we experience has to be three-dimensional (with time being a fourth) except that the inverse-square law for the force of attraction between physical bodies (particles and planets) would, in a four dimensional world become an inverse-cube law and would make the expansion of the universe after the big bang impossibly slow for life to have evolved. So, life and consciousnes exists because the world we experience is three-dimensional. But there is convincing physics theory that the world might be ten-dimensional (with time being an eleventh dimension -- that's what string theory is about!) except that we cannot experience it precisely because life as we know it could have evolved only in a three-dimensional world. (This argument is not totally fool-proof, but is a strong hypothesis being subjected to tests).

However, it is also important to note that our brain did not evolve with science or thought in mind. The evolution of our brain has been a stupendously suucessful butad hoc adaptive process.

Which brings me to MY conception of God. Victoria, bear with me. I am a Muslim. I have questioned myself since the age of eight about the ideas of the deity that I received from my parents and those who cared for me, and I have found no contradiction with the Islamic idea of God; but my conception of Him or Her might not exactly be totally congruent with yours.

To me God is, in a certain sense, an interactive process of our gradual communion with The Almighty (Omnipotent), The Omniscient, The Omnipresent, The Benevolent, The All Merciful, The Most Generous Provider. Viewed from this perspective, and this concept of the deity is a process rather than a state of nature, the contradictions that skeptics and atheists righly point to do not, nonetheless, apply. They would apply if the conception of the deity were static or even if it were a steady state. But God reveals himself to us (not just to men, not just to our specie, but to all creation or if you want all evolving consciousness) as we ourselves evolve. Fo r the Muslim, this is the Sufi concept of God. In Christianity, Peter Abelard, Thomas Aquinas, and too many other profoundly religious thinkers with superbly kucid intellects have reminisced about these ideas and sgared them with "believers'. In that sense, Rafael, I have immense respect for Christians, Muslims, Hindus, indeed animists and humanists and agnostics who really probe the profound ideas behind Omnipotence, Omniscient, All Merciful, All Forgiving.

Yes, Victoria, be reassured that forgiveness and love and humility are the most cherished values for me. But forgiveness as the equivalent of "I could not care less because it is not I or those who are dear to me or those who can retaliate who are affected" is totally repulsive to me.

So help me God!

peace all- i remember when i read gandhis autobiography ( i forget what it was called but it was enormous) that he credited throeau's civil disobedience with his own concept of it.

mohammed- you're asking people to make judgements about what others peoples conditions are

i know you'll be easy on me because im such a simple and easily defeated foe :)
i dont have your razor mind-

i stated elsewhere that when one forgives a person they dont know for something that they personally didnt experience- it is a pointless sham-

i have forgiven and forgotten and wished some light of love to enter the hearts of my torturers

i can only speak for my own soul
its been tested to death(at least twice) and that is what ive found

it doesnt make me weak- it makes me steel inside (literally, i have a titanium rod in my forearm-hee hee from one such torture experience- AND i come from the steel city! pittsburgh-hee)

to hurt to subjugate to torture to hate to be angered- those really are weaknesses

to forgive such a one outright to their face will only madden them-
forgiveness is not a blessing one dispenses with some angelic air to prove ones spiritual superiority but is a quiet and private affair between ones soul and ones soul.

for me its absolute and non-negotiable

what i say would be just words if i havent lived it many times

i call it walking through the fire, but there is no human born who does not suffer

peace!

No, it sure doesn't suggest the existence of your god. You seem to be contradicting yourself again, one minute saying that a scientific principle can't prove the existence of something supernatural, which as you say is purely an act of faith, the next minute letting your biased hopes creep into your interpretation of the principle. For the reasons I described, the fact that we are here to observe this universe does not bear on its improbability, any more than the fact that you are here to observe your own existence bears on its improbability (and by implication the need for some otherworldly force to overcome that improbability).

Nor does the idea that the physical universe had a beginning at a physical event imply some otherworldly creator. Again, you are letting your hopes creep in. And then you're back to the perfectly tuned constants argument, which (let me repeat) is not improbable when it is conditional on our being here to observe it.

What you describe as "no-god" is difficult to define as a fantasy. Perhaps you feel that your position on all other gods is also a fantasy--remember that the only difference between us is that I believe in one less god than you do. Your claim that "no-god" is a fantasy in the absence of proof would carry the absurd requirement that I prove that every god every dreamed up by anyone does not exist. There is no such burden on people who don't believe in things for which there is no evidence. The burden is on those who claim things for which there is no evidence.

Your faith, on the other hand, does support a fantasy, a belief for which we have no verifiable evidence. The tooth fairy once seemed real enough to me, and brought me tremendous, overwhelming joy while I believed in it. But that didn't make it real in any verifiable sense beyond my fantasy experience of it.

CS:

You said:
"God will ultimately do the judging, that is true. But I am the watchman, calling out that the sword is coming, that God is going to be judging soon, either on the day of your death, or when He returns."

"He has given me the keys to the kingdom, the authority to say who is going to Heaven and Hell."

Oh my, that's really quite a claim.

I often feel that I experience the Holy Spirit in worship. And God has answered several of my prayers, sometimes in dramatic and unexpected ways. But I certainly would not say that God has given me any authority. That would really be "out there".

Could you elaborate?

Rafael:

I'm glad you brought that up as I had intended to get to it.

The anthropic principle doesn't prove that God exists, but it sure suggests it. The problem with the anthropic principle in the eyes of most scientists is, it really borders on philosophy more than science. That is, hypotheses for or against it cannot be tested. We cannot change the physical constants; rather, we are "stuck" with the ones we have. We cannot simply travel to one of the other universes in the ensemble, if indeed they exist. We can only observe the universe we are in, which seems to be ideal for life and indeed human life.

So we have reached the limit of scientific discovery in the big bang theory. We can reasonably conclude that the universe had a beginning, a starting point. This again suggests a Creator but does not prove it. THe physical constants are perfectly tuned to support the development of increasingly intelligent carbon-based life forms. Suggests but does not prove the Creator. That's all we can do. We are left to either believe or not believe.

You said "what you are really saying is, 'please allow me my fantasy.' You're welcome to it."

To which I would reply that you are also welcome to have your no-God fantasy. Neither of us has a provable hypothesis. We never will. I will say that I have found tremendous, overwhelming joy through my faith. To me, it is real.

You're still in a cult. Flee to God before it's too late.

Yes, science generally discounts explanations that have no evidence and cannot be falsified. But it's not the first time you've demonstrated your lack of understanding of these fundamental principles.

CS:
It seems you've never realized that street preachers turn off more people from religion than they turn on. If you were really interested in saving people's souls, or whatever your deranged, narrow little mind tells you you're up to, you would have figured out a better strategy long ago.

ANONYMOUS,

You don't seem to understand. A moral principle of forgiveness has to be applicable not just to particular past events, not just to particular foreseeable future events, not just to general foreseeable events for well-identified societies, but for a more general class of events and experiences, applicable to very general (even if not necessarily ALL)types of human societies).

To make my argument clear and specific -- if you forgive all that you say you forgive and you are right, would it be OK for Iran to acquire the bomb? Would it be OK for the US to 'bomb Iran back to the stone age' to prevent it from acquiring the bomb? Would it be OK for the Evangelical who ACTUALLY wants to assassinate Hugo Chavez to be allowed to indulge his epiphany? Would it be OK for the Pope to prevent ALL Catholics from using the condom? Would it be OK for the superneocon presidential candidate who dreams of achieving endtimes salvation by bombing Mecca and Medina to be allowed to indulge his satanic wish?

You may answer YES to all of these, but then it would violate all criteria of reasonable thought.

Congratulations Rafael, you are officially the writer of the dumbest statement I've ever read on On-Faith.

"It is not possible to carry out the process of science while allowing for supernatural intervention in the relationships between cause and effect that science attempts to understand."

So you're cutting the generally accepted Cause of all effects out of your possibilities before you begin? That's not called science, that's called a cult.

Uccer,

I'm glad that wasn't you who posted the first comment.

God will ultimately do the judging, that is true. But I am the watchman, calling out that the sword is coming, that God is going to be judging soon, either on the day of your death, or when He returns.

He has given me the keys to the kingdom, the authority to say who is going to Heaven and Hell.

If you are a good person, then rest assured, you will go to Heaven. That is why it is so important that you are a good person.

God is going to judge you against perfection, against Himself.

He demands that you have at your core the love of Him and righteousness. But Paul tells us that none seeks after God.

Combined within having Him at your core, He forbids making up a god to suit yourself. This god can be money, science, or yourself, but it can also be making up a god that looks like God, but one that won't judge you based on these criteria, or send someone to Hell.

The Bible tells us in several places that God's name is above every other name, it is the only name that is blessed forever. God will not hold him guiltless that takes His name in vain. Consider that no-one ever says, "Allah Damnit!" Or screams out "Sidartha Buddha" when they hit their thumb with a hammer. The reason being, these names are already cursed, and you cursing them doesn't matter. But we declare our hatred of God that we try to drag His name into the mud by using it in place of a four-letter filth word.

Paul warns us about loving the creation more than the Creator. God asks for one day out of our week to remember Him, are you giving Him that one day, or just a portion of it? He is asking for less than 15% of your week, and most people won't even give Him that. Consider that God executed Ananias and Sapphira for withholding this portion of their lives from Him after they said they had given all.

The Fifth Commandment demands that we obey our parents (contained in this is that they are commanded to obey the other nine Commandments), and by dishonoring God, we dishonor our creator and our parents.

God considers all life precious, and He says, "Thou Shalt Not Murder." Most of us (not me) have not removed the gift of life from someone. But consider this, that 1 John 3:15 says that if you hate someone without cause, then God considers you a murderer at heart. He is going to judge the intentions of the heart, and not just the actions.

You've heard it said of old, "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery." But Jesus says to you, "Whosoever looks upon a person to lust after them, has committed adultery with them already in their heart."

At what value does petty larceny turn into grand-theft? What have you stolen, maybe a song on the internet? A toy from a sibling? Time from your employer? Or air from God?

Did you know that the Bible says that all liars will have their place in the lake of fire? How many lies, and I'm not talking about discretion here, do you need to tell to be a liar? I only needed to murder one person to be deemed eternally a murderer.(I'm covered from man's laws by the Geneva Convention and that the non-combatants were in the wrong place at the wrong time as they tried to be a human shield for some Al-Qaeda leaders, but not from God's Law) A person only needs to rape one girl to forever be called a rapist. One lie makes you a liar, and lying lips are an abomination to the Lord. Out of the mouth, the heart professes.

In light of the criteria above, do you think God owes you anything? When you covet things, whether they be happiness, money, people, or possessions, you are telling God that what He has given you is not enough.

These are God's standards of judgment; consider yourself warned. The cup of His wrath abides on you, all that is keeping you safe is His patience and offer for reprieve. But this patience will not last forever, on that day your life on this earth will be snuffed out, and you will stand before the Judgment Seat of God. You will stand naked before God, your shame exposed, the book of your conscience opened. What will you say? I wasn't warned? You have been, and I'll bet this letter is not the first time.

Jesus Christ described Hell in more detail than Heaven. It is a place of eternal torment, where the fire is never quenched and the worm dieth not. There is wailing and gnashing of teeth! The fire is unique to Hell, because even though it burns hot enough to melt sulfur, it is not a consuming fire, it is specially formulated to inflict pain. This fire also does not give off light, because Hell is a place of infinite darkness. This is telling, because God is light, and if Hell is totally dark, then God is NOT there, you will forever be separated from all of the graces of God, including love, joy, peace, and comfort. The Bible says God is the foundation we stand on, but because He is not in Hell, the person in Hell will forever feel the sense of falling, like that gut feeling you have when you miss a stair in the dark, you will forever have this sensation. God holds you in His hand like a spider suspended over the fire. In every way you disgust Him and like a spider biting at the hand, so is your transgressions tempting God to tip you, at this moment, into the fire.

But God is patient, that the gavel of your eternity has not fallen means there is still time to get right with Him. But here is even more bad news. You cannot bribe God. Let me take you to an earthly courtroom, where there are ten clear evidences of your guilt, and the punishment is execution. Try telling the judge that you have done heaps of good in your life, you've given to charity, never killed anyone, been physically faithful to your spouse, you've prayed daily, and always try to be nice to people. These are all nice things, but they are irrelevant to your guilt and the sentence that is due. You are trying to put a fresh bandage on a gaping wound, and blood and the puss of sin soils your works.

But here is love, not that you loved God, but that He loved you, He gave His Son to be the payment for your fine. You angered God and earned the sentence of eternal torment, which only by the pleasure of God has not yet been carried out on you.

Jesus Christ, one of the eternal Persons of the Trinity, God manifest in the flesh, came to this world born of the Spirit through the virgin Mary. He lived a perfect life, submissive to His Father in every way, He was also tempted in every way possible way by the father of lies, but He didn't succumb. He was the only man ever to live that deserved Heaven, but in order to glorify His Father and save you from the wrath you had amassed, Jesus Christ willingly gave Himself up to pay your fine. He took the wrath of His Father and was beaten in the most heinous of ways, men died from lesser beatings than the one Christ took. Then He was hung on the cross at Calvary. He didn't only shoulder your sin, but the Bible says that He who knew no sin was made sin for us. God gazed down on His most precious Son and saw only filth and malice. Our entire sin, past, present, and future, went to the cross and was crucified in Jesus Christ. The Bible tells us that He was forsaken by His Father, the eternal Trinity was rent in twain and when Christ was separated from the Father, your sin was separated from the Father.

You can be forgiven, because your fine has been satisfied. Jesus Christ's first words to the world were, "Repent and Trust!" This is precisely what you need to do, you must turn from your sins, call out to God for forgiveness, and place your faith in Jesus Christ to save you from the wrath you so rightly deserve. You will be forgiven, not because of anything you have done, but because Christ did all of the work and your debt is stamped, "Paid in Full."

If that wasn't good enough news, on the third day Christ rose from the grave and defeated death. Death has lost its sting, to be absent with the body is now to be present with the Lord.

I have no ulterior motive other than to see you saved and God glorified. I don't care if the United States survives past January 1st, 2008, whether it is a Christian nation or a pagan commonwealth of the European Union. I would be out of a job, but I don't care. What glorifies my God is you calling out to Him to save you, and Him being exalted for His goodness and kindness and patience and saving you and me despite our complete depravity and hatred of Him.

Consider this forgiveness long and hard, repent and trust in the Saviour, as I pointed out, we are stealing air from Him, and His patience could run out at any moment. 150,000 people die every day, and 149,000 of them thought they would see tomorrow.

And let me add that your original post said:

"You said: "If you think science 'leads to the logical conclusion that He exists' then you don't understand much about science or about logic."

Not so fast. Have you ever heard of the anthropic prinicple?"

Your post implies that you see evidence in the anthropic principle for a scientifically derived, logical conclusion that he exists. Now it appears you've backed away from that idea.

UCCer:

"Those of us who have faith look at life as divinely created and see beauty in God's creation. It's just a different way of seeing things that need not conflict in any way with science."

The position that these are non-conflicting views of the world is naive. It is not possible to carry out the process of science while allowing for supernatural intervention in the relationships between cause and effect that science attempts to understand. The view that there is no conflict reflects a lack of understanding of what science actually does.

"Which other combinations of physical contants can lead to intelligent life?" might seem an interesting question, but it is really equivalent to "which other combinations of DNA base pairs can lead to a being self-aware of my particular existence?" In fact the principle *is* used to assert the existence of a divine organizing force, and in that usage the arguments of the principle has been debunked.

Given lack of any evidence whatsover for your appeal to accept the way you "look at life as divinely created," what you are really saying is, "please allow me my fantasy." You're welcome to it.

I for one,forgive the 9/11 bombers for blowing up the WTC and the Pentagon,and killing those 3000 people. I understand they were trying to make the world a better place,even if they had a strange way of going about it.
I also forgive Bush for invading Iraq and Afghanistan and causing the death of hundreds of thousands of people.He too was trying to make the world a better place,and doing it his way.
To understand is to forgive. I understand. So I forgive.
I'm that kinda guy.All heart.

Rafael,

The anthropic priniciple is not a proof of God. Science can neither prove nor disprove God.
Belief in God is an act of faith. Those of us who have faith look at life as divinely created and see beauty in God's creation. It's just a different way of seeing things that need not conflict in any way with science.

Carter's weak anthropic principle says that we are able to observe the universe because the physical contants led to conditions that were preferrential to life. The strong anthropic principle postulates an ensemble of universes with different values for physical contants, and ours just happens to be one in which the physical contants are fine-tuned to allow for human life. I would not say that these have been debunked. It is a fair question, which other combinations of physical contants can lead to intelligent life? Another interesting aspect of the anthropic principle is the elegant mathematical relationships between the physical contants and laws of physics that our particular set of constants allow.

Some may infer from the anthropic principle that the universe seems purposeful. Those of faith generally consider life to be purposeful. Not a proof to be sure, but also not flawed reasoning.

Canyon,

Nice try, but I will let God do the judging. It doesn't matter to me what you or anyone else thinks is my ultimate destination. That's up to God and God alone. Incidentally, God may not be so happy that you are putting yourself in his place.

I do appreciate your comments about Christian versus Christianist values. In fact, I looked it up and found the wikipedia entry on Christianism/dominionism enlightening.

Finally, again to whoever impersonated me (I realize it's not you Canyon), just because I am Christian yet oppose fundamentalists and the republican party does not make me unAmerican or unpatriotic. Shame on you for your parody/impersonation.

"Sometimes I pray that the islamic terrorists destroy this nation of pigs."

Whoever you are, stop it. That was not me.

UCCer

Mohamed:

You almost lost me at "when we dare to challenge the deity." If we don't agree on that basic assumption, what is the point of building a discussion that depends on it? In any case, my point was more straightforward: you can't "prove the existence of the laws of X" using the laws of X. (Substituting the word "logic" for "X," I'm not even sure what "laws" are in question.)

I'll look for some of the works you mention when I have a moment. For now, I am trying to find time to read through Thomas Nagel's "The Last Word," which (to show how open I am) challenges a belief in evolution along epistomological lines that I have found intriguing since I formulated the paradox he raises in my own terms when I was in college.

Regards

Sometimes I pray that the islamic terrorists destroy this nation of pigs.

RAFAEL,

Sorry to gatecrash in a thread where I have not been involved so far nor invited to join. But, your mention of the anthropic principle in one of your postings caught my eye, and I scrolled through all your postings and related ones, and must say that I am very favourably impressed.

However, while I appreciate and applaud your superbly intelligent ackowledgement of the unknowable, I wish to comment on your reaction to anonymous' question: "Can you prove [presumably using logic, the basis of proof] that laws of logic exist scientifically?", which is : " Now there's a conundrum wrapped in an enigma."

Well, possibly, you're right. But, when we dare to challenge the deity (however conceived by others) we should not be afraid to cut the Gordian knot of "a conundrum wrapped up in an enigma" in ways other than Alexander's or yours. Alexander's solution,as I relish to remind warmongers, was to chop the knot up with his sword, go on to conquer the world and, in Afghanistan (?!!) be vanquished by the humble Malaria fly and be forced to retreat, in utter dejection, to his Sparta. Yours -- and I don't mean this at all disparagingly, considering how easily you probably could crush me with your massive intellect-- is to resort to a clever phrasing.

Would it be possible for you to try to provide a sketch of a solution by making references to epistemology, the laws of thought, consciousness and the question how far humanity has progressed in unraveling the question of our knowing how to know. As somebody as well-read as you no doubt knows, Antonio D'Amasio's relatively-recently published "Descartes' Error" has shaken the certainties of many rationalists, among whose ranke you no doubt count yourself. I am more borderline myself.

I was very happy to learn, only this morning that my compatriot, Professor Charles Taylor of Mac Gill University has won the 2007 Templeton prize. I cannot wait to read his accpetance lecture. The Templeton Award acceptance lectures of Freeman Dyson in 2003 and of John D. Barrow in 2006 are excellent articles for somebody with a massive intellect as you and as open a mind to read. In case you have not yet done that, I would invite you to.

Meanwhile I am myself trying to answer the 'conundrum wrapped up in an enigma' starting with answering the question "What is nothing", building up my argument through "Flatland" and "String Theory" to the ideas contained in Roger Penrose's most recent publication "The Fabric of Reality".

Regards.

"You are aware that there is none good but God, no, not one. That should have been your answer, and now I am fearful for your ultimate destination."

You didn't give the right answer, so now I'm going to beat you up. Uccer had it right: Once a bully, always a bully.

Folks: even theologians gave up trying to prove the existence of god centuries ago because they realized it was a bogus venture. a finite being is not capable of knowing or proving the infinite. if you could prove it, there would be no such thing as faith. if you want to believe, fine, I have no problem with it. just stop trying to prove you are right.

and don't claim that only believers can forgive. in fact, without all the self righteous baggage that religion tends to foster in flawed individuals (I know you are evil because my preacher says so) - we atheists can let go of hatred and judgment more easily.

the "to forgive is god-like" argument is just another attempt to prove that god exists by making claims that certain good behaviors cannot be explained without a supernatural explanation, which, as I noted, is necessarily a bogus, circular argument. everything can be explained with or without the supernatural premise, and no one can prove either is true or false. in the meantime, it is perfectly legitimate to respond to folks who claim the infallibility of the bible, for instance, by pointing out actual facts about its origins, and such. believers do have to accept that, and deal with it as they are moved to do.

Uccer,

The purpose of that question was to see if you really are a Christian, or a christianist, like 91% of the United States is. 91% of tele-evangelists fall into this categoy as well. That you can't tell the difference between me and them is distressing, to say the least.

You are aware that there is none good but God, no, not one. That should have been your answer, and now I am fearful for your ultimate destination.

Please see:
http://www.livingwaters.com/learn/trueandfalse.htm

As for me...I hope Hillary Clinton is elected and will probably vote for her.
http://trustobey.blogspot.com/2007/10/beseech-angel-of-smyrna.html

Canyon Shearer:

You wrote "Uccer, Do you consider yourself to be a good person?"

What is the purpose of your question? Seems to be rhetorical. Nonetheless, I'll try to answer. I try to be a good person but often fail. That's why I humble myself before God. What about you, Canyon, do you consider yourself to be a good person?

Two clarifications. First, in my previous post, I frequently used "you" in the plural, meaning perhaps "you fundamentalists". Clearly, you are a fundamentalist. Clearly, fundamentalists define and enforce orthodoxy. Clearly, fundamentalist churches and tele-evangelists organized their followers to vote for Bush and his unChristian militaristic agenda. My statements are all defensible.

Second, I admit to being a bit harsh on you. But I am tired of seeing you fundamentalist pigs bully and intimidate us mainliners and liberal Christians. Perhaps fundamentalists see liberal Christians as easy targets because we generally don't fight back. I, however, do fight back. Let us be clear, your crowd has done far more bullying and slander.

TO PAGANPLACE:

Don't worry, God is a lot nicer than some people even want Him to be, at least to other people.

Lots of people are really going to be surprized, some pleasantly, some unpleasantly. Ultimately, tho, all will be well.

God is Love, not a loving God, but a Being of Love, Pure Love. Since we are made in God's Image if Love is shining thru us...get the point.

God's Plan is for all of God's people to be with Him in the Kingdom and all people are God's people.

Take care, see you in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Of course I've heard of the anthropic principle. I've heard of Pascal's wager too, and other weak logical arguments that have been debunked repeatedly. I've written about both of them before, as have many others. Here is what I wrote about the AP in an earlier thread.

"Your individual existence is almost infinitely improbable. Given the odds of your particular genetic sequence occurring in the 3 billion base pair sequence of DNA in a human genome is approximately 4 to the 3-billionth power (4^3000000000). To give you an idea how big that number is, MS Excel can only calculate 4^3000 (= 10 to the 180th power), and even that number is greater than the number of atoms in the universe. You can't even imagine how big 4^3000000000 gets.
And yet you are here to observe that you are here! Does that mean your existence and particular sequence did not occur as a result of chance, and proves the existence of a divine base pair shuffler?

Of course not. Anyone at all familiar with probability knows that although the probability of choosing any individual sequence is almost infinitely small, the collective probability of being chosen among all such sequences is no greater (more or less) than expected by chance.

The problem with the anthropic principle is the same. The universe seems so highly improbable that, to some, it must appear not to be due to chance. The equivalent problem is that there are a large number of "constants" that might have occurred but we would never know about them because (I presume) they wouldn't lead us to be able to be here to observe their existence. We can appreciate the improbability of this universe only because we are here to see it.

Those who claim the anthropic principle as proof of the existence of a divine force either don't understand probability very well or are being purposefully deceptive to suit an agenda."

One of my favorite things about On-Faith is learning what I believe from people who have no idea...

Uccer,

Do you consider yourself to be a good person?

Rafael,

You said: "If you think science 'leads to the logical conclusion that He exists' then you don't understand much about science or about logic."

Not so fast. Have you ever heard of the anthropic prinicple?

Canyon Shearer:

Part of me wants to be sympathetic with you, as a fellow follower of Jesus. In your last post, you portray yourself as a lonely preacher who, despite being surrounded by many "hecklers", is undeterred in trying to get the message through.

But then I am reminded that, in fact, there are millions of your ilk out there. You have hijacked Christianity, imposing your own particular interpretation of the Bible as the only truth. You have slandered Christians of differing views, including Catholics and mainline Protestants. You have called for the demise of mainline denominations. You have organized to re-elect President Bush, whose administration is one of the most corrupt and criminal in American history.

So I can't just simply dismiss you as a lonely fool. Rather, I see you fundamentalists as having an agenda to impose your own form of imperial theocracy. I want people to be aware of all your hypocracy and your subversion of the Gospel from a message of liberation into an instrument of control.

Reasonable:

Somehow your identification with the religion of your parents got through. You didn't wind up a Muslim.

Most people practice or identify with what their parents did. It's not a secret from the overwhelming pattern that religion is largely a matter of cultural indoctrination. And whether you believe or practice more or less than your parents, it's all a matter of degree.

If you think science "leads to the logical conclusion that He exists" then you don't understand much about science or about logic.

'Reasonable,'

Pardon if it sounds rude, but you yammer and yammer on with the same words used by people who do all manner of random and cruel things cause they think they understand some words that are then supposed to tell them something...

That was redundant in the first place.

If ou believe your Christ had the power to make you free...

Then *be* free. Gods. It's not that hard.

This is not a substitute for science, any more than religion is a substitute for *life.*

You say all these things...

Why?

What for?

What do you want to do now?

The Book is not about obedience, there , Pagan. It is about the love of Christ and wanting to do what He wants because he loves us and we love Him. God has not preference about politics, or if someone has the tendency to sin in one way or another.
I never said that God is bigger than science. Science explains some things, but really it leads to the logical conclusion that He exists.

God and his Word revealed in the Scriptures- the Bible are one and the same. We are in the age of grace now. Believe me, when that time is over, all of us will discover how big he really is.

I mean, do you *understand* Reasonable?

You're all spooled up about knowing in your mortal head 'The Truth.' So much that you think it's a threat if others don't obey this book no one can obey cause it doesn't even really actually obey itself.

Maybe there's a lesson there, too.

But you're *so afraid.*

To speak your language, if 'God' is bigger than 'science,' what if 'God' is bigger than your words and images and ideas?

What if that's *not* the problem?

What if we have souls and we really, actually, ought to do things in the here and now, not in acordance with how some preacher interprets a book, but in accordance with *what we're given to live now?*

What if, the 'big questions' we're taught to be threatened about just aren't our thing right now?

Thomas Baum keeps saying, 'See you in the Kingdom,' and I smirk, 'Won't Mother england be surprised.'

My Catholic ancestors were *just as damned* for being Catholic as I supposedly am for being Pagan. Or queer, or registered Democrat, for that matter.

Is that your God's universe?

Your God is too small.

I tell myself this every morning, cause it hurts. (hurts a lot sometimes, and I do get cranky about it)

*taptap.* You're alive, spud. We all are. Some people seem to need *So hard* to believe in *words,* cause someone taught you that's all we *got.*

I say, no.

We got a lot more. No words can give or take that to or from us.

And any God that don't like that has some explaining to *me* to do.

Funny, though, small creature that I am, this is not a big worry.

Blessed be. If you can.

You know, much is said between people who say, 'My God as advertised by me vs 'No God.'

I think what *really* scares a lot of people is the idea that there are in fact beings bigger than us in this universe, ...but who cannot be controlled by a bad translation of some bad ideas.

I mean, when Christians lose their *ahem,* it's not about the tired old 'God' vs atheism debate.

You're *scared out of your Pampers* that God exists but cannot be controlled by your words.

This is *not* the scary part of reality. I swear.

Rafael:

Actually, my parents were not very religious. They never really emphasized knowing about God except for during the holidays and the exercise of Easter and Christmas.

I came to the TRUTH of Jesus Christ after I left the fold and read through the gospels seriously.

Let go of YOUR prejudices against the Lord of the Universe, and you will find peace.

Canyon Shearer,

I forgive you, you little Tw#t.

" FRIEND:

Not forgiving is animal-like.

Forgiving is god-like."

If you believe this, you might be edified by ...paying attention to some animals once in a while.

Might make you less-freaked about being a primate, come to think of it.

Canyon:

"Street preachers THRIVE on hecklers, they are pretty much the only way were are guaranteed a crowd larger than single-digits. So it is, I pick the most apostate and/or secular of posters to respond to, knowing I will have a crowd of listeners with one or two (hundred) hecklers."

What you may not understand is that other people on the street know turnabout's fair play.

Keep exposing the ugliness of what some would otherwise blindly-kneel to.

But don't be surprised when hundreds of Bishop Spongs appear to tell you you're just raving.

You just don't get it, 'Reasonable'

(If you have to claim you're 'reasonable,' that's probably a big clue that's not the case)

" Reasonable"
.....:It is not elitism.

Christ is available to everyone.
It is up to everyone to make the choice.

It is a choice."

See, Sport, what makes you an 'elitist,' when claiming others are 'elitists' for only believing what they see, while you will only see what you already *believe* is this:

Who outside your 'elite' said you got to define the 'choice' in the first place, sport?

This is where you lack respect for humanity, as many protestations of humility as you make while trying to dehumanize others.

No, son.

It's *not about 'Who Accepts Christ, and By 'Reasonable's Terms.'

This is life. This is humanity.

Right now.

Your little in-crowd has nothing to do with it.

Nor do you have anything to do with *reason* when you say that.

*Reason* is available to everyone. Of whatever creed.

This is how we are going to get along.

Or, failing that, ...meet with selection pressure on a scale you may not find either pleasant nor suitably apocaylptic for your ego.

Get it?

ALEX,

You read very selective works, and don't follow up in the logic. What you should do is, not only read Gandhi's own works, but also those of his collaborators, critics, opponents (such as Churchill)etc. You must be totally ignorant to believe that anybody can operate alone -- as you rightly point out, Gandhi worked with Kalam Azad, but also with Ali Jinnah, Valabbhai Patel and Jawaharlal Nehru. About Lenasia Muslims you will have to dig in South African sources.

As you also know Gandhi's own son ---let's say did not get along with him, and leave it at that. So, Alex don't give me the crap about Kalam Azad fighting Muhammad Ali Jinnah all his life. I hope, for you, that you are not an Islamophobic Hindu!

You also write " Since there were no citations that one could use to verify the many statements you made". You are hopelessly afflicted with a terminal case of intellectual laziness. I have cited the names of John Rawls, Bertrand Russell, Ted Honderich, John von Neumann, Oskar Morgenstern, Stuart Kauffmann, E. O. Wilson about general works on conflict and resolution, rationality, altruism, forgiveness, the toleration of intolerance. But all you know is Gandhi the man, not the philosophy, how the ideas took birth in several places whose names and the names of whose protagonists are lost in the mist of time (cognoscenti speak of the First Tale of Morality of Gilgamesh), how they evolved over time with increasing degrees of philosophical reasoning without scientific testing, how later developments (including, of course, Game Theory) enabled more rigorous formulations and superbly logical refinements that withstand the most skeptical onslaughts (in this context, you might want to read Michael Shermer's incisive but flawed critique of "Non-Zero" in The Sketic website, which has a stong atheistic bent). That suffices to expose your narrowmindedness, except to tell you that I had discussed all this with one Madhuri Sondhi, author of seral books, who had attempted to critique Ted Honderich's theories but bugled up very badly the same way you bungled because she could see only Gandhi the man in her argumentation. I posted my opinion piece on the opendemocracy website (unfortunately I don't readily have the URL, But you might like to check the arguments in the following links

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0029-4624(198203)16%3A1%3C78%3ATCLBMA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-responsibility

Finally about Buddhism, just two words -- which variety of Buddhist faith and practice are you referring to?

In the absence of a clarification, so far, let me tell about an incisive observation about Sinhalese Buddhism which congnoscenti have made. When the Tamil Tigers were committing their atrocities several years back and many were captured and had to be executed by a firing squad, Buddhsit priests decided that, since certain strict interpretations of Sinhalese Buddhism absolutely forbids killing and therefore execution by firing squad, the prisoners were to be hooded in long shrouds on which white dost would be placed at the exact spot where the heart is, so that the firing squad would not be aiming to kill but to hit the spot!

Religious mercy!

Have a peaceful night's sleep, Alex, and check the links I provided tomorrow.

A point of clarification. I am, by nature, an open-air preacher; but I have been given the gift of ridiculously fast fingers. The Apostle Paul had beautiful feet, I have beautiful fingers.

"How beautiful are the fingers of those who type the good news!" - Romans 10:15

Street preachers THRIVE on hecklers, they are pretty much the only way were are guaranteed a crowd larger than single-digits. So it is, I pick the most apostate and/or secular of posters to respond to, knowing I will have a crowd of listeners with one or two (hundred) hecklers.

While it may seem that the open-air preacher is addressing the heckler, he is simply using him in order to preach to the crowd. So I appreciate your comments, in order to keep this thread at the top of On-Faith's forum, so that the crowd comes in to see what the hubbub is!

May God bless you, and keep you, and save you,
Canyon

To Mohamed Malleck:

Yes, I am still here. Thanks for your clarifications. What you wrote was quite a lot to chew on !

Since there were no citations that one could use to verify the many statements you made, I simply googled and could not find any historical evidence to your assertion that Gandhi learnt or developed his “satyagraha” movement or the concept itself from the tutelage of “Lenasia Muslims”.

True, he was invited by a Muslim merchant (Dada Abdullah Sheth) in South Africa to plead a case contesting the merchant’s rights to own and conduct a business. He stayed in S. Africa for many years and while suffering the indignities of apartheid developed the concept of “satyagraha” (force of truth) which we call nonviolent resistance.

In the Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL034.PDF) and from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha) it is stated that Gandhi developed his philosophy from the concepts of ahimsa of the Hindu Upanishads, tenets of Jainism, Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount, writings of Leo Tolstoy, John Ruskin, and Henry David Thoreau. There is indeed one line in his “collected works” where he says that he learned from Imam Hussein, “how to be wronged and yet emerge a winner."

M.A.Jinnah had nothing to do with the Salt Satyagraha. The movement was led by Sarojini Naidu and Abdul Kalam Azad, and the latter emerged as the most prominent opponent of a separate nation (Pakistan) for Muslims and opposed M.A.Jinnah throughout his life. Azad was also the first Minister of Education in Nehru’s first Cabinet of the Republic of India.

I was appalled to read some of your provocative and patently false conclusions about satyagraha.

Gandhi’s as well as the writings of other reputable authors regarding Gandhi’s contribution to nonviolent struggles against injustice would be shocked to read the following that you added in your post:

“Do as much as you can to hit the adversary tit-for-tat without exposing yourself to undue danger, without hurting innocents but aiming to cause as much hardship on the oppressor as he inflicts on you. Do so not just by clearly legal means but, if necessary, using means that are borderline between the legal and the illegal. The oppressor is sure to retaliate with ferocity, using illegal means because they feel that they wield power and are above the law. The strategy is to force them, gradually, to commit atrocities up to the point where the 'minimum level of morality' is reached.”

Here is what Gandhi himself wrote:

“I have drawn the distinction between passive resistance as understood and practised in the West and satyagraha before I had evolved the doctrine of the latter to its full logical and spiritual extent. I often used “passive resistance” and “satyagraha” as synonymous terms: but as the doctrine of satyagraha developed, the expression “passive resistance” ceases even to be synonymous, as passive resistance has admitted of violence as in the case of suffragettes and has been universally acknowledged to be a weapon of the weak. Moreover, passive resistance does not necessarily involve complete adherence to truth under every circumstance. Therefore it is different from satyagraha in three essentials: Satyagraha is a weapon of the strong; it admits of no violence under any circumstance whatever; and it ever insists upon truth. I think I have now made the distinction perfectly clear.”

“The Satyagrahi’s object is to convert, not to coerce, The opponent must be converted, at least as far as to stop obstructing the just end, for this cooperation to take place. The theory of satyagraha sees means and ends as inseparable. The means used to obtain an end are wrapped up and attached to that end. Therefore, it is contradictory to try to use unjust means to obtain justice or to try to use violence to obtain peace."

As Gandhi wrote: “They say, 'means are, after all, means'. I would say, 'means are, after all, everything'. As the means so the end” Gandhi used an example to explain this: “If I want to deprive you of your watch, I shall certainly have to fight for it; if I want to buy your watch, I shall have to pay for it; and if I want a gift, I shall have to plead for it; and, according to the means I employ, the watch is stolen property, my own property, or a donation”.

Gandhi rejected the idea that injustice can or should be fought against “by any means necessary”.

I shall say no more about what you posted beyond a request to you, in true Gandhian spirit, viz., not to distort truth. It helps no one. Thanks. Regards, Alex

ALEX,

I hope that you are still there, my firend.

Any feedback from you after my clarifications.

I am waiting for your feedback to tell you something about Buddhst practice. About Christian practice as distinct from Christian teaching, I have made my views clear elsewhere on this forum with plenty of evidence. If you want to be blind, be my guest. Currently, George Bush is my guest.

ALEX,

I am reading your response late, but here is what I have to say about Gandhi's aahimsa, whose core concept, if I may remind you, he learnt from the Muslims of South Africa (notably the Muslims of Lenasia), who had hired him as a lawyer to advise them in their already launched struggle to counter the ignoble aprtheid era pass laws. The summary that I am about to give is the best that I have been able to put together after very wide reading, including John Rawls' "Theory of Justice", the writings of Bertrand Russell [notably "Why I am Not a Christian" and "My Philosophical Development"] and of Ted Honderich, as well as the cutting-edge modern science writings of E.O. Wilson, Stuart Kauffamnn, Wright (Unto Others and Non-Zero) and so many others.

Gandhi was repeatedly asked by his supporters, including after the Amritsar massacre, to explain the real-world dynamics or rationale how non-violence can stop violence. There had been (if I remember well, before Amritsar) the long march across India to the sea to make salt (the British had imposed a State monopoly on the making of salt and breaking that monopoly would result in imprisonment), and many of the most vulnerable people got killed (not Gandhi himself, though --- to explosive for the imperialist British to kill!). Gandhi initially explained that the British were so heavily armed that confronting violence with violence would only result in MORE NUMEROUS numerous Indians, even MORE VULNERABLE vulnerable than those who had got killed at the seaside during the Long March or than those who were massacred at Amritsar. With a spontaneous, uncalculated reaction to thoughtful skepticism about the apparent ineffectiveness of non-violence, he offered, as he always did, to be at the forefront all the time, so that he would be the first to expose himself to the danger. He was dissauded by Valabbhai Patel, Jawaharlal Nehru and Ali Jinnah.

Subsequently, as British wiliness and dirty methods became worse leading to inter-Indian fighting and massacres between Muslims and Hindus, the skeptics and those who had suffered too much became far more critical of the efectiveness of non-violence. He appealed to the Hindu and Muslim holy men to preach to their followers while he went into meditation to focus both his lawyer's logic and his spiritual energies. Then gradually, in consultation with many, many militants of non-violence including Kalaam Azad and the logically-intransigent Muslim lawyer Muhammad Ali Jinnah, he finetuned his strategy -- the idea of non-vilence, he explained, is not passive resistance, but active civil disobedience. Do as much as you can to hit the adversary tit-for-tat without exposing yourself to undue danger, without hurting innocents but aiming to cause as much hardship on the oppressor as he inflicts on you. Do so not just by clearly legal means but, if necessary, using means that are borderline between the legal and the illegal. The oppressor is sure to retaliate with ferocity, using illegal means because they feel that they wield power and are above the law. The strategy is to force them, gradaully, to commit atrocities up to the point where the 'minimum level of morality' is reached. When that flood level of immorality is breached, the oppressor will lose the support of even their most die-hard supporters. AT THAT POINT, NON-VIOLENCE HAS REACHED THE POINT WHERE THE FINAL MOVE THAT ENSURES VICTORY CAN BE MADE.

These ideas were developed before 1947. In the 1950's, John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern wrote their treatise on Game Theory. Since then, alot of scientific research has been done and tested. The latest concepts being investigated by scientists is that of the 'optimal penal code'.

Well, there is much, much more that I can tell, but that sjould already be a lot for you to chew on, including the references.

All the best.

TO HUMANITY:

Being a Christian is more than calling yourself a Christian and it is more than knowing God's Name. One day all will be glad that God has a Plan. One day some of the people that call themselves "christian" will find out what being a christian was suppose to be.

Take care, see you in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TO MR MARK:

You wrote on your post of 11-15-2007 at 2:42 PM, "It's beyond me how people who are privileged to live in a democracy apparently wish to spend "eternity" living in a dictatorship.", the reason it is beyond you is that you haven't met God.

You also wrote, "You can have your imaginary king and his imaginary kingdom.", well, God is not imaginary, I have met God and He is a Trinity and He is Love, Pure Love. If God was even remotely like what some of the people that call themselves "christian" think that He is, than that would be beyond horrific.

Take care, I will see you and ALL OF HUMANITY in the Kingdom, contrary to the vile, venemous, bitter, hatred being spewed out by some that know His Name.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

There we go again, claiming that atheists can't forgive. To me, it's the faithful who are taught that anyone who doesn't believe what they believe are to be pitied, and that sinners will be judged, who have the harder time not holding on to their own judgment of the sinner. The rest of us can let it go much easier. forgiveness consists merely of not judging.

To Uccer: Canyon Shearer thinks that he is the evangelical in residence for this site. He does not seem to realize that many like me just skip the inane theses that he posts often.

To Mahammad Mallik: Yes, say something about Gandhi. I would like to hear it. There is not a single political leader outside of Gandhi and Nelson Mandela who have demonstrated by exemplary conduct the power of unconditional forgiveness of one's adversaries.

Among Christian communities, it is rare to find such behaviors on the part of our war-mongering political leaders. The best witness to the unconditional forgiveness tenet of Jesus was exemplified recently by the Amish community in Pennsylvania who not only forgave the mad man who killed innocent women and children but ministered to the murderer's wife and family by sharing with them portions of the monies that poured in to assist the Amish in their hour of tragedy.

That is true Christian conduct and that is unconditional forgiveness which we dont find in any of our political or judeo-Christian or Islamic leaders who profess at every moment their faith for gaining public "recognition" among their respective constituencies. All that is done with an eye towards garnering public acceptance of their leadership status.

It is also right for some on this site to point out that unconditional forgiveness is not unique to Christ's preaching. It is prevalent in Buddhism as well. Peace and Shanti.

Not forgiving is animal-like.

Forgiving is god-like.

"Reason"able:

Not clear where your concept of "elitism" comes from. Certainly it would be hard to argue--using your definition--that rational, evidence-based thought is not available to everyone. My guess is that you "choose" it in most aspects of your life, except where your superstitions, most likely handed down from your parents, overwhelm it.

The prolific, and in this case confused, anonymous:

"Can you prove [presumably using logic, the basis of proof] that laws of logic exist scientifically?"

Now there's a conundrum wrapped in an enigma.

It is not elitism.

Christ is available to everyone.

It is up to everyone to make the choice.

It is a choice.

"What any of you must realize about Mr.Mark is that he is one of these elitists that can only fathom what he he smell, touch, see, and feel with his five senses. Love, faith, and hope- three of the greatest things in and on this earth, can't be proven really in any real scientific sense of the word. It is a pitiful state to be in when you can't even think that faith is something that awful.

To reject the love of Christ is the same also."

See, 'Reasonable,' you rebuke Mr. Mark as one who can only believe what he sees, but then you go into your Christian elitism that can only see what ...and how it believes.

The rest of the world wasn't put here for *your* elitism, either.

Canyon Shearer:

Please tell, why do you always feel compelled to blast Bishop Spong and the other liberal Christian commentators on this panel? Do you feel threatened by what they have to say? This is a free country and people should be able to worship as they choose. Let me tell you, I don't need you to interpret the Bible for me. I will follow Jesus with my faith community, without fear of intimidation by you. I am not afraid of you fundamentalist pigs.

Why don't you instead go after your friends the tele-evangelists who are now under congressional investigation for tipping a bit too much of their ministries' collections to their own pockets. It seems to be that the god these evangelists worship is money. Jesus taught you can't serve two masters.

What any of you must realize about Mr.Mark is that he is one of these elitists that can only fathom what he he smell, touch, see, and feel with his five senses. Love, faith, and hope- three of the greatest things in and on this earth, can't be proven really in any real scientific sense of the word. It is a pitiful state to be in when you can't even think that faith is something that awful.

To reject the love of Christ is the same also.

Like Paul said, "For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God. " Amazing that someone can critique the saving message of the gospel- the logic goes like this- Well, you are all fools for believing in it, even if it gives you peace and contentment, but even if it is true,
I don't want it cause God offered me a way out but I would not want it anyway even if the way out is offerred to me.

Pathetic.

"South Africa is a miracle. I do not know of another example in history where the political authorities in a nation gave up their power voluntarily without bloodshed and civil war."

You forget America, Bishop Spong. There were a few cracked heads, but I was conceived in a world where NYPD could have beaten, tortured, and raped me for being queer, and *born* into one where they *couldn't.* Quite so much.

Few rough spots and a lot of troubled days were in between there and where we are now, where some powerful people you've run afoul of want to roll back the clock.

My first memories are of relatives coming home in riot gear, exhausted from race riots that they couldn't tell me about for years.

Maybe you don't know another example, Bishop Spong, but I do.

Right here. In our America, which we like to forget wasn't so different from Apartheid in living memory.

Blood was spilled, yes, ...but no more than in Joburg or anywhere like that..

Call it a miracle, but, you know, maybe that's just the parallax of our sense of history.

When people try to call you a horrible person for standing up for queer rights, I think they forget, or never knew, ...Just how bad things *used* to be.

Even in my own lifetime.

I was born to a *very* different time. A *very* different world.

One that was already changing before I had a word to say about it, but I saw.

Don't tell me that's a miracle.

Tell me ...this is what we *do.*

Mr Mark,

On what basis do you say that faith is overrated? On what basis do you use the laws of logic? Can you prove that laws of logic exist scientifically?

DOTHERIGHTTHING,

No, Sir, I have not had a similar experience, but I have had the weakness, on more than one (maybe two) occasions to try to correct misspsellings after having hit the submit button, so my message has appeared twice.

Allow me to take this opportunity to say that my comments are not meant nastily, but I feel strongly about the delicate balance I think I am striving to strike between my Islamic (which is very close to Christian) faith and rationality. I don't think there is any irreconcilable difference among the three, but deeply-probing questions need to be asked of ourselves and honest answers given.

All the best, Sir!

Lotta faith in that statement. :)

Dear Pablo -

Re: Jesus.

What happens when you willingly choose not to follow him? Does Jesus say, "That's fine with me. You're entitled to your opinion. I respect that. Enjoy an eternity of bliss"?

I don't think so. I think he says, "you're entitled to your opinion, but since you chose not to follow me, you'll burn in hell for eternity."

Spoken like a true "my way or the highway" despot.

Free will is one of the great myths of Xianity. You have the free will of a herd of sheep. You have the peace of the tomb.

BTW - Faith is the most over-rated commodity on this planet. It's poor substitute for logic and an even poorer substitute for knowledge.

But, you've made your imaginary bed. Enjoy it.

To Mohamed MALLECK, Swift Current, Canada and other readers of the comments for my previous post that appeared three times in a row.

I inadvertantly repeated myself three times not because of personal insecurity but because I was unsure that my attempt to post has succeeded. You see, sometimes (as in my posting today on this comments page) when I try to post a comment, the WaPo web interface sends me one or more "Debug" messages, making it appear to me that my attempts to post have failed. Thus I try again and end up with multiple identical postings.

Have you ever had a similar experience?

DO THE RIGHT THING,

You don't seem to believe in your self having to repeat yourself three times.

I could tell you a lot about Gandhi, but it's better for you to read for yourself.

But, let's do the right thing.

About the punishment -- sanctions -- that devoutly Christain America wants, by all means to impose on evil, Muslim country Iran.

I know that we don't have anything to "forgive" Iran since the IAEA report is, at worst, mixed and, in any case China (leave alone Russia -- given its stance on Kosovo which I for one have the courage not to forgive unless it mends its ways) will veto a third round of sanctions.

Can we just do the right, REASONABLE thing --- let's wait for Xavier Solana's report and see if there is any incriminating evidence. Then the issue of Christian forgiveness might or might not kick in. Let's avoid unChristian pre-emptive -- well not strikes, that may be judged to be VERY CHRISTIAN --- sanctions.

Life in the Spirit

8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Mr Mark,

I have no doubt that you cannot comprehend this since you do not know my King Jesus. If you did you would not make statements like the one you made. Jesus is no dictator His people willingly follow Him. He sets us (His followers) free from the bondage of sin and death through His great redeeming act of love on the cross and gives us new life through the power of His resurrection.

Nothing is so strong as gentleness, and nothing is so gentle as real strength. - Francis de Sales

The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong. - Mahatma Ghandi

Nothing is so strong as gentleness, and nothing is so gentle as real strength. - Francis de Sales

The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong. - Mahatma Ghandi

Nothing is so strong as gentleness, and nothing is so gentle as real strength. - Francis de Sales

The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong. - Mahatma Ghandi

They also lie with immpunity. Since when do Christians forgive. There has never been a religion more militant than christianity.

To B and RHR who said, "By the title the implication is only christians forgive."

Perhaps you missed the companion article by Starhawk, "Why Pagans Forgive".

ANGRY MAN,

No, you're wrong.

Simulating repentance or penance in order to obtain undeserved forgivenessis for the weak.

Avoiding to have to stand up against habitual perpetrators of evil and preaching forgiveness when it is not deserved is cowardice.

Compelling others to forive when forgiveness can result in greater harm to society than, yes, even the life-imprisonment (I am against the death penalty) of a perpetrator who has been proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt is NOT ONLY STUPID BUT CRIMINAL.

So help me, God.

Forgiveness is for the weak. It doesn't solve problems -- it creates them because others perceive forgiving as a weak response. The only sure fire way to resolve problems is by dominating, subjugating and, if necessary, destroying your enemy.

Reverend, Sir,

Did you read the news that, just a few days before he was to receive the Nobel peace prize, former South African President Frederick De Klerk had known about (and probaby was complicit in) the murder during their sleep of five teenage boys? You can read it in The Guardian newsppaer of UK issue of 6 August 2007.

Did you know that, in order to avoid having to face charges relating to the poisoning of the then-Secretary General of the South African Council of Churches, Reverend Frank Chikane, in 1989, former South African Police Minister, Adriaan Vlok went to his office unannounced to wash his feet in Christian repentance? Skeptics warned of cynical calculations. Adriann Vlok is now in prison, I think.

Did you know that, at the time of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings, the family of 'people's doctor' Abubakar Asvat, had wanted to press charges for the killing of the verygood-hearted Muslim doctor? That was because, despite their readiness to forgive in the name of national reconciliation, Winnie Mandela had ignored the repeated pleadings by Desmond Tutu to acknowledge having foreknowledge of the murder of 'people's doctor' Abubakar Asvat by her football club team just because the excellent Muslim doctor 'knew too much' for having treated Stompy Sempei who had also been murdered by Winnie's football team?

But, Abubakar Asvat's family has forgiven.

I think it was a mistake for them to forgive/ Do you know who denounced De Klerk? Apartheid-era South African security police commander Eugene De Kock. Do you know that the same De Klerk had heartlessly abondoned his wife of more than 30 years in oreder to marry a younger woman?

Do not cheapen morality, Sir. Do your part, Reverend, in at least instituting a judicial review to look into accusations that there is a case to bring Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney to the International Criminal Court to answer charges of war crimes.

PABLO writes:
"Christians forgive because they follow the example of their King."

It's beyond me how people who are privileged to live in a democracy apparently wish to spend "eternity" living in a dictatorship.

You can have your imaginary king and his imaginary kingdom.

"Question: 'How can we forgive our enemies? Should we, even if they have committed atrocities?'"

"Unconditional Forgiveness"

Perhaps someone could enlighten me by explaining where this implies only Christians can forgive?
I guess I'll need to forgive your reading incomprehension.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and I find myself surprisingly in total agreement with Bishop Spong on his entry this week.

Christians forgive because they follow the example of their King. Jesus showed us how to love when He died on the cross in place of sinners like you and me.

Giveme a break.

What does the title have to do with htis article.

The implication is that only christians forgive.

What does any of this have to do with the title. By the title the implication is only christians forgive.

What does any of this have to do with the title. By the title the implication is only christians forgive.

What does any of this have to do with the title. By the title the implication is only christians forgive.

I have seen people who still gave birth to the pain long after the offender had died or the incident had long pasted. A heart in conflict will know no rest. Forgiving doesn't mean that you'll allow yourself to become a door mat, but it's about releasing your pain. If you are willing, you'll forgive out of love and compassion. Jesus forgave those who nailed him to the cross and asked our heavenly Father to forgive them, surely we can do so much less. Maybe un-forgiveness is a sign of a Christian whose concept of real love hasn't reached their hearts.

I enjoyed Bishop Spong's thoughtful comments on forgiveness. And, I was also able to forgive Canyon Shearer for the latter's long-winded infliction of cruelty on readers like me by writing irrelevant essays like the one that is posted above. I skipped most of it to make it easy to practice my ability to forgive "preachers" of the Shearer type.

I enjoyed Bishop Spong's thoughtful comments on forgiveness. And, I was also able to forgive Canyon Shearer for the latter's long-winded infliction of cruelty on readers like me by writing irrelevant essays like the one that is posted above. I skipped most of it to make it easy to practice my ability to forgive "preachers" of the Shearer type.

Bishop Spong,

Interesting to see you posting, I had hoped you had been laughed out of town. Usually I disagree with you 100%, but not this time, this time I can't disagree with you because you didn't say anything.

Since I have nothing to respond to, and in order to fulfill my agenda, I am reposting my article from Martin Marty's thread from this morning:

This topic is so deep that a 100-page discourse would probably barely scratch the surface, there are so many facets of forgiveness.

Forgiveness should be freely given if the one that has offended is genuine in their sorrow for wronging you. This is a forgiveness the world can understand.

Another is Jesus' command to love your enemy, Paul adds, "In doing this, you will heap coals on their heads." This is the unrepentant enemy, the person that has wronged you on purpose and will wrong you again tomorrow. Turn the other cheek, says Jesus.

This is the forgiveness that is foolishness to those that are perishing. It is the basic human emotion to return seven-fold any damage done to them. Al Qaeda knocked over about a dozen of our buildings, so we knocked over all of their buildings. Germany sunk a boat with a few Americans on it, so we sunk the pride of every one of their citizens. Japan dropped little bombs on Honolulu early in the morning, so we dropped big bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki early in the morning. Force for force is the world model.

Jesus said, "Whosoever is forgiven much, loves much." In forgiveness, Jesus caused introspection and sorrow. The forgiveness came first and the necessary repentance came afterwards.

God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. In earlier convenants, in order for the deadliness of sin to be understood, God gave His ordained judges the authority to enforce an eye-for-an-eye, a tooth-for-a-tooth sentences. Blasphemers, thieves, adulterers; the punishment under God's ordained judges for these was death. Today, God does not give us the authority to enforce penalties against Him, He is storing up wrath for the Day of Judgment to be poured out on the unrepentant. Today, we have become complacent because very few people (Mussolini and Voltaire are exceptions) are stricten dead within a correlated timeframe from when they show their hatred of God by cursing His name. In our present day, the adulterer walks free of man's judgment, but God said, "Whosoever looks upon someone to lust after them has committed adultery with them already in their heart." God's longsuffering is the only thing keeping the adulterer from facing an eternity in Hell. 15,000 homicides go unsolved each year, society is powerless to punish these murderers. But we are confident in this, that God will send not only the adulterers, murderers, and rapists to the lake of fire, but also the liars, and the thieves, the blasphemers, and the fornicators.

The Bible tells us that the soul that sins, it shall die. God has showed towards you His mercy in patiently enduring your iniquity. You have been given a temporary reprieve in order that you be called to repentance. God has temporarily forgiven you much, but His wrath abides on you and He will not ignore sin forever. If you die in your sins, you will face the second death, the death of the soul, a conscious eternity of pain, separation from all of the goodness of God, and weeping and nashing of teeth.

But here is love, not that you loved God, but that He loved you, He sent His Son to be the propitiation for your sins. Jesus Christ, 2000 years ago, was born of a virgin where He lived a perfect life of righteousness, forgiveness, correction, reproving, and submission to God. He had not earned a single lash of the whip for trespassing the law of God, but He willingly stepped up and took your lashes so that you wouldn't have to. Jesus Christ was beaten beyond recognition in the most deliberate and painful of ways. Then He was hung on the cross in your stead, He died a sinner's death so you won't have to.

He was laid in the tomb, dead for three days, but on the third day He rose from the grave and defeated death. In this, if you'll place your faith in Christ to save you, you will be granted eternal life, and while your body will die, your soul will live with God for eternity.

While you were yet sinning, Christ died for you, so that you can be forgiven. If you'll place your trust in Jesus Christ, He will save you, and while you have been forgiven much, you will love much, and Christ's love will work in your life the repentance necessary to complete the redemptive requirements the world requires for forgiveness.