Difficulty in Forgiveness

Thanks for the kind words, jaz.

I think regret is ok to feel, so long as you aren't dwelling in it. It's a process. Emotions aren't easily shed. But that doesn't mean the should be worn too long, either.

Good thoughts, DL, very good thoughts.

One thing I'd like to address though is conditional forgiveness. Christ sets the perfect examples for us of things like unconditional love and unconditional forgiveness, and we are to strive for these things. However, if we are expected to attain that perfection, then heaven is going to be an empty place indeed. Scripture states plainly that the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The only way (at the core) to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is to reject Jesus. In essence, the reason it is unforgivable is because the very act of desiring forgiveness for it removes any need to be forgiven at all.

I've heard Dahmer found Christ before his "accident". Of course I can't know the truth of it because I don't know his heart, but if it is true, then all his sins were forgiven by Christ. How many Christians can only say they've forgiven him? Not many, I'd bet. Christ is the source of unconditional forgiveness and sometimes we humans can tap into it and channel it, but other times it's just too much for us.

Humans struggle just as much with self-forgiveness as they do forgiveness of others. As egami said, often the head knows exactly what to do but the heart is a barrier. Something in us, whether it be organic or mental or social or demonic in nature, convinces us we must punish ourselves for our transgressions. No one enjoys failing to meet a standard one has set for oneself.

I agree with your points that Christ provides unconditional forgiveness - it is the statement made by His whole sacrifice.  I know we are not expected to attain perfection, however I have to put in the addendum that I do believe that we are expected to strive for it.

I think that the point is clear... and I'll phrase it in the words of another conversation... humans are good at phileo - the feelings, but cannot always tap into agape - the moral/value centered love.  This in turn creates a conflict between two things we love - in this case God and the Word, and this friend you care about.  Phileo is at war with the Agape. 

Situations like this one challenge us to look at everything connected to it.  Sometimes the beliefs that we hold are what should be challenged in the quest for the one Truth. 

My proposition is that - the heart isn't always the barrier.  It's artificial and a man made device to attain understanding to separate different types of love.  God's love and human love shouldn't be segregated out as perfect/imperfect... moral and seemingly unfeeling vs emotionally driven; unattainable vs the status quo.   God's Love is Whole and contains all aspects of Love as we know it.

Our feelings are part of our design - in God's image.  We can tell when these feelings are closer to what's true than what we want to logically believe.  How we handle that conflict is important - as I believe this is the channel that the Holy Spirit uses to speak with us. 

The real issue here is - How do we decide what "The Truth" is? 

I don't think the answer is to demonize feelings and punish ourselves for feeling them.   Love - even God's Love ... does not put agape over phileo in every instance.  In the cases where there is a conflict - as a general rule, it's easy to say that if your feelings are irrational, then it's best to trust your moral judgement instead of acting in passion.  In the human condition, however, we are sometimes in a position where our phileo is more reliable than our fallable agape... the agape we have from an understanding formed "seeing through the mirror dimly".

Right but being human leaves you with the burden of struggling with your own perceptions.   From that standpoint all faith and truth is relative.  We're blindfolded describing the elephant.

We do have to define truth for ourselves and act on it if it is something important to us.   You can't accept Truth if you do not know what Truth is.... or what part of the elephant you are holding/talking about.

I was reading over this thread 'cause something happened a little while ago that I think I've mostly worked through, but my immediate reaction was to be very angry with myself about.  I saw a movie that I found extremely disturbing and what I was angry with myself about was that I thought I knew the story the movie was taken from and had let my son read it.  Maybe I should say here that I find stories--especially bleak, cynical, or despairing stories--personally very hard to take and so to me this is a big deal.  

I started thinking about forgiving myself and what exactly I needed to forgive myself for.  And I decided it was for not knowing...for sometimes turning away from something and not seeing it clearly...

And then I realized that's really what forgiveness is about--trying to turn back and look even if our vision is always going to be imperfect...

First off, because you and I have such a habit of using our own distinct words to describe the exact same idea, I'd like to point out that I think we're doing it again.

To solidify my stance, I will not accept that truth is ever relative in any circumstances. Truth is a solid, immutable, fixed ruler by which all other things are measured. Its tools are common sense, logic, and reason.

Faith, separately, is also not relative. It either exists or it does not. "Half a faith" is nonsensical, to overstate the point.

Whether or not you draw false conclusions based on which part of the elephant you are touching is irrelevant. You're touching an elephant no matter what your mind tells you. In spiritual terms, I feel the number one internal objection to Christ is that people are flat out mad that the universe is what it is instead of what they want it to be. Moral relativity lets people make up the universe as they go along, and it has so far accomplished nothing as a result. Accepting relativity of truth is one of the strongest dangers to self I can imagine.

That's all fine and good - but how do you distinguish what the solid, immutable Truth is when there is a conflict of opinions?

Or... how do you decide which person's relative truth is a false conclusion based on the part of the elephant they are touching vs. a relative truth that closer describes the elephant that only God can see in whole?

You gather more information. You never stop gathering information. The more you know, the more Truth you uncover. The Bible clearly and repetitively tells us everything we need to know, it's only the details that benefit from further clarification. The contents of the Bible were not, contrary to popular opinion, determined haphazardly.

To continue using the elephant story, those people weren't sent in to discover the truth. They were sent in to see what their perceptions given their unique limitations were. The people setting up the environment knew what the truth was already. That's just not really how things in the real world work. Jesus wants us to know Him, wants us to know Truth, and has left more than sufficient information. Relativity of truth only occurs when someone refuses to accept that as truth, so their only alternative is to seek another. Even outside of the aspect of Jesus as Truth, truth always works the same way. To recall an analogy I made elsewhere, you can't untruth the train that is headed right for you and survive; you have to accept the truth and get off the tracks.

You learn to distinguish what the solid, immutable truth is by virtue of growing close to He that defined it.

Prayer, the Bible...

I agree with that.

My point is that every Christian denomination claims to have the one Truth.  When it comes down to it a spiritual walk is an individual one - and we each take on a slightly different shade of meaning - even down to the words we use and how we define them, though we agree on basics for the most part. 

We as humans are fallable in many different ways.  Sometimes the mistakes we make aren't as obvious as we'd like them to be at first glance.   

I think our whole human experience taken together with careful (prayerful) reflection on what this One Truth is, will lead us to the answers that we need.

My point is that every Christian denomination claims to have the one Truth. -DL

I don't think that's quite a fair statement at face value. The denomination I attend doesn't claim to have the one truth. They claim God has the one truth and then they detail out their perception of what that truth is in doctrine.

Some denominations may claim that, but I am making a distinction there that maybe you agree with...I don' t know. 

There are literally hundreds of denominations so I obviously can't speak for them all, but I'm unaware of even a single one claiming any special rights or privileges to Truth. The few that have, such as Gnosticism, have been nearly instantly deemed heretical by the group as a whole. In essentials unity, in non-essentials, liberty, in all things, charity. All denominations I've ever been exposed to or heard of share the exact same concept of the essentials.

DL is 100% right in that our walk with the Lord (or away from, as the case may be) is personal and unique. The Lord Himself, however, is always the same. "I AM" is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. He delights in our diversity but is not diverse within Himself.

I should have known better than to use such extreme speech.

Let me clarify - every Christian denomination that I have had the experience of trying out has claimed to have "the one Truth" - and I certainly haven't experienced them all.

I will make this comment then let it drop since you don't want to pursue it further. Just a suggestion...

I would suggest that perhaps the mentality of those within the denomination harbor this mindset versus that actual doctrine spelling this out in such distinct terms.

I have witnessed that attitude in most churches I've been to at various levels...conversely, I've witnessed that attitude in non-Christians.

That very well could be.

I know you can't judge a denomination/religion by the people who practice it ... thing is ... it's hard to draw the line of separation when it comes right down to it.  These same people go in and rewrite church doctrine eventually... I've been at one of those meetings.  It's a slippery slope.

I understand why the comment I made was unfair to Christian denominations in general and so I hope I haven't insulted or offended anyone.  My opinion on this isn't relevant to the more important topic at hand.

I'm not trying to swipe at the Christian religion in general.  I hope that's clear.

DL, I will probably offend you before you offend me, probably...I am very hard to offend, somehow though I lose sight of how easily others are and forget so I come of as offensive unintentionally at times. :)

I completely see what you are saying. I think ESi and I were just making the distinction that we see as a bit important.

I agree, it's hard to draw that line, but the way I draw it as a believer is once again in search of a home church due to a recent move is this:

First, I look at what's on paper. If I agree there with the essentials, then so far so good.

Second, I look at what comes from the pulpit. If I agree there with the essentials, then so far so good.

Lastly, I look at the congregation...if they are warm and accepting and seemingly, generally practicing what is preached, or striving for it maybe is a better way to put it, then I am ok there.

I just assume that most congregations, secular or religious, will have a degree of this attitude that it's "our way or the highway" and I overlook it if it isn't severe and the written doctrine and leadership aren't largely this way.

Just my personal approach...I think I see where you are coming from. And there are certainly congregations that emit this sense. And I think it chases a lot of people away.

I'm not really interested in addressing this topic here, sorry... it's tangential to what I intended to discuss.  Write it off whatever way you'd like.

Those durn definitions again.

I didn't mean to imply that you had written things off already (as if you didn't care about me or my opinion)... or that writing the conversation off was a bad thing at all.  I think packing it away would be a good thing... here - have some luggage for that...

...just ... whatever you need to do to pack it up, I ain't gonna hold it against ya... if you had anything else to say if I'd said anything you thought was out of line.

I agree truth is not relative. It's fixed and absolute. What is subjective, or relative, is our perception of truth. Part of growing in our walk with God is constantly trying to shed that perception which is incorrect.

I also agree that faith isn't relative. I wouldn't say there isn't "half-faith" by definition, however, I might make the distinction that I believe you can grow in your faith.

But, yeah...moral relativity, to me, is a grave danger. If everything is relative then that means there are no absolutes. Can one be absolutely sure if there are no absolutes? No. :)

I have misread my own sentence 12 times now...lol, I am on here, the geocaching website and a sports website...and trying to get work done.

I am just going to re-write the dumb thing now...

Odd, it won't let me edit that particular reply, but I can others...maybe it's like "dude, give it up".

I agree, there is not half-faith. You either have it or you don't, but having it can be variable in the sense that I believe you can grow deeper in your faith.

egami - I've recently learned once your comment is directly replied to, the option to edit your comment dissapears. 

I wanted to give my deepest sympathy to you guys, ESi and egami.  Though every situation is different, I do identify with the complications of your situation and all that follows from personal experience. 

I've just been reading through the comments this morning and decided I'd chime in now... I think there are alot of good points thrown around but I felt a *warm sensation* with DL's comments.  I'm not currently mourning the death of anyone I know but I have in the past and indeed felt guilty that I didn't step up and DO something.  Like influence in even the slightest bit.   The way in which he passed - I could have prevented it, or delayed at the least, had I spoken up.  But I didn't and I have to live with that.  So even if DL's advice isn't very useful for one person, it could be for anyone reading it.  Guilt can eat a person alive.  

DL, I greatly appreciate the insight you provided. 

I'm glad the conversation was helpful in some way... even though I probably completely misunderstood the whole reason you posted this egami.

The crazy train is coming - jump off the tracks, people!

I am just now realizing that I have not mentioned that I am sorry for your and ESi's loss as well.   I truly am sorry and express my condolences. 

I've been trying to avoid emoting too much, due to the fact that I've had to deal with 2 funerals in the past week and I didn't really wish to infuse the conversation with stuff that was meaninful only to my situation.  I think it would have made everything all the more confusing.

LOL

I don't know why but I simply had to say it. 

... isn't lame. 

I laughed out loud in fact. 

Like I said...

Answers to issues are often easier when they aren't an issue you are currently dealing with. ;)

Maybe I didn't articulate things well enough. Sometimes typed text just fails to deliver the completeness of the message...at any rate, the main point is this:

I know the right thing to do. It's just that doing it is another thing...despite the fact that it works in my favor.

Whether he was saved or not really doesn't matter in relation to my position with God. However, I was irresponsible either way, so the fact of his salvation isn't an issue, but my irresponsibility unquestionably is...I apologize if I didn't make that clear enough to begin with.

Again, the point is merely a reflection of where I am at...I will do the right thing, it will be a process and not a point in time, but nonetheless...it's not easy.

I don't think it's a common problem so much about forgiveness, specifically. I think it's a common problem in general with mankind. We are flesh. And as easy it is to sit and type out what we feel is a correct solution to an issue...at the end of the day, doing the right thing is often difficult.

And, I am not trying to be condescending or insensitive, but your reply didn't help me...not because it wasn't largely accurate, but because I do indeed know what is right do intellectually. It's just that the magnitude of this particular situation, due to the personal nature of it, makes it harder than for you, or someone on sitting on the outside, to actually deal with because I am the one dealing with the realness of it.

Again, don't take any of that as an attack...sometimes my frankness gets interpreted as insensitivity or harshness. We largely agree...

... but also appreciate you clarification that this what you are doing.

You're right, I wasn't sure what your issues were *exactly* by your post.  I just addressed the situation generally, really... because I'm not really sure that I know what you believe "is the right thing to do" - and I think it should be clear (whether we agree or not) what I'm talking about. 

Anyway, I think I actually covered what you say "your issue" is... as far as your "irresponsibility".  I mentioned that it's helpful sometimes to revisit the situation after setting your feelings aside.  Divide and conquer.  Separate the issues logically to see where the feelings cross over and complicate the mess. 

I challenge you ask again - "Were you really irresponsible??? - what measure are you using to make this judgement? ... or are your feelings out of line with the truth in this matter?  It's a complicated issue.

It's going to be difficult - if I can judge by the strength of your emotions in this matter... again, the only way to deal to this is to focus on the moral reasoning and set aside your feelings when they're out of whack.  It's as easy as you make it.

In that manner I think you're right about humankind - we are our own worst enemies.   A lot has happened to me in this life - but the biggest messes are about what I've done to myself. 

I challenge you ask again - "Were you really irresponsible??? - what measure are you using to make this judgement? ... or are your feelings out of line with the truth in this matter? It's a complicated issue. -DL

I am well past this stage, and the answer is unquestionably 'yes'. This event is months past. It's not a question of confusing emotion with fact.

You're right, I wasn't sure what your issues were *exactly* by your post. I just addressed the situation generally, really... because I'm not really sure that I know what you believe "is the right thing to do" - and I think it should be clear (whether we agree or not) what I'm talking about. -DL

I deliberately avoided clarifying what I know to be the right thing to do because I don't want it to become a subject of debate.

Based on your reply we largely agree, but not totally. I just want to avoid the particulars, because ultimately my answering to God on that aspect is based solely on my interpretation of what is right and how I respond.

If that makes sense...but, mainly I didn't want the confound the issue and keep it more focused on the actual struggle with doing what was right, in this case, actually forgiving myself.

I appreciate that you want to keep your spiritual walk out of the public forum.  I guess I'm not sure what the purpose of your post is.  It seemed like you were asking advice - and so I gave some advice... I'm not trying to pry or argue for arguement's sake.

The act of forgiving oneself or helping you to do that would take the details about yourself that you do not want to share.  It's far to complicated to make some general applicable rule for this situation beyond the general advice I had to offer.