I see on here a split of opinion with Christians on Austin Metcalf's dad, here and elsewhere.
I think both are incorrect in their own way.
One side says you don't forgive the unrepentant. Wrong, extremely wrong. Were the ones stoning Stephen to death repentant when he cried out for God to forgive them? No. The Bible puts no qualifications on who to forgive, only that you do.
The other side says he's being a Christian by forgiving the killer, and didn't do anything wrong and what I'd say is it's not wrong to forgive the killer, but I'd say that going on national TV and trying to make sure everyone complies with the cultures values on race has little or nothing to do with forgiveness, and so this side misses the mark.
You see, here's the biggest problem with what Austin Metcalf's dad did.
The black ghetto community needs to repent. They are like, in a way, a seperate nation like Ninevah who is told by all parties, including the church that they're not destined to hell.
Calling to repentance is an act of mercy in the Bible. Jonah didn't want to tell the Ninevites to repent because he didn't want them to experience God's mercy. When John the baptist comes on the scene preaching a message of repentance, it's repeated over and over that God's mercy has come. You want to love black people? Call the violence glorifying culture to repentance and warn them that huge swaths of their culture is akin to something like the Ninevites.
Essentially the dad is saying without realizing it "make sure you don't have any conversations that could be difficult for the inner city to hear, lest they realize their sins and turn and be saved".
Many black people will be going to hell unfortunately because even the church tickles their ear and never calls out their behavior even though the church is more than happy to call out their mostly white congregants behavior (which the church should).
Anyone who objectively looks at the black community can see that they fit the definition of a fool found in proverbs and yet no one wants to touch that subject, including Christians.
So, the dad should forgive the killer, even if it takes time to do, and it's odd that he would be so lacking in paternal instinct that he'd unemotionally virtue signal, which seems less like Biblical forgiveness and more like this modern day utter capitulation and celebration of black culture, and the next thing the father could do, which would be the loving thing and also an extremely dangerous and scary thing, which would be to absolutely address the racial issue. Look, it's not about race. Jesus said go preach to all the nations. By all accounts, the black culture is a foreign nation. They share no values, and their values that are taught from birth are completely leading people to hell. They qualify as a nation that needs repentance.
And as we see in the Bible, in order for people to accept Jesus, they first need to be told what they're violating, where they're astray, and what the consequences of sin are.
I don't see the church doing this with the black community. The exact opposite.
So the "don't forgive the unrepentant" Christians are wrong, as are the Christians who are failing to realize that the black, inner city, thug culture needs to face some extremely harsh facts for their eternal good.
Not the argument being made, and this is a mistake I see frequently.
The point is that the unrepentant CANNOT be forgiven, and by definition that is completely correct. God alone can forgive those who are not sorry for their actions. Man cannot. Saying "you are forgiven" is not something that Jeff Metcalf has the power to do. Because the animal who killed his son did not merely trespass against him, but against the dead innocent and the laws of God as well. Jeff Metcalf has no authority over two of those things, and the pretense towards that is blasphemy.
Man can offer forgiveness for a trespass against us specifically, but if it is thrown back in our faces(and hoo boy it sure has been), well that is the end of it.
You can also stand by the argument that to forgive someone tells them their action is forgiveable.
This means not only enabling their be behavior by removing the major consequences from their actions, but also removing their ability to reflect and repent by telling them they are already squared away. Giving forgiveness easily and freely its literally making a person worse, just as it is when you don't hold a child to some amount of discipline and responsibility to their choices, which is both a problem for them and society.
And by that juncture, by making them worse for society you are thereby creating more sin and suffering in this world. Your own actions are now an accomplice to greater sins.
All so you could lazily not have to stand up to someone and hold them to account.
And under this idea, you don't even need to squabble about what God wants or what man can do under God's rules (which people will always twist to what they want it to say, as this topic keeps showing). You are literally making a stand of "sin bad" and making an effort to reduce it.
Because Stephen forgave the completely unrepentant rabbis who stoned him, I would have to say you're incorrect. Stephen did not perpetrate a falsity as his last act on earth. It is possible for man to forgive the unrepentant. But is that a prescription? No, because the parable of the debtors involved repentant wrongdoers.
You're also conflating God's forgiveness and man's forgiveness. Jeff Metcalf can't pardon Karmelo Anthony's sins, yes, but that would be true even if Anthony genuinely repented. Human forgiveness is not about pardoning sins, it's about letting go of bitterness.
Having said all that, should Metcalf have forgiven Anthony? If it came from a place of genuine spirituality I would agree with StaticNoise2, but from what I've seen I have my doubts, and in that case no. Certainly not in public the day after the murder. More time is needed to collect one's thoughts.
Indeed, if Metcalf was actually sincere in his forgiveness, he should also be able to announce his public forgiveness for Jake Lang. Instead we have Metcalf speaking with more vitriol for "racists" than for the actual murderer.
Let's also keep in mind that Christ himself called forgiveness on the unrepentant Roman soldiers who crucified him because they didn't know what they were doing. Does this mean that God blanket forgives the unrepentant? No, it means God is merciful above human understanding and seeks tirelessly for all to be saved. I'm not saying this as a commentary on this story, but just so people understand more about forgiveness.
I presume you mean Saint Stephen the first martyr.
I would point out that individuals who are representatives of God are different than regular people. It's why priests can offer confession for example. Regular people cannot.
I however am no saint nor priest, nor is Jeff Metcalf.
Yes. Something He has the authority to do. He asked the Lord to forgive those men, "for they know not what they do."
You can certainly ask the Lord to forgive someone. I never said otherwise.
I feel like forgiving people for their utter ignorance is okay. It's effectively an admission that they don't have moral agency in the matter. As in, if God stood in front of you and said, "hey bro, that's fucked up", they'd change their minds very quickly about whether or not it was right or wrong.
That's a whole different thing if someone knows it's wrong. Or worse, if they are anti-moral and think it is right to do evil; I'm not so sure that forgiveness is a good first option.
Considering that God is the creator of good, everyone should.
Regardless of denominational doctrine, Stephen was a deacon, not a priest. He assisted in church administration like modern deacons.
I'm only saying this to make sure people know that God has *at times forgiven the unrepentant. Very important point of theology when considering the billions of people who died without ever hearing about Christ.
I'm well aware. Catholics frequently use saints as a means of intercession with God, they being closer to Him than most. A saint is someone with more power and spiritual authority than a normal person. Stephen in that instance performed a miracle, as several of those men who stoned him were converted. Notably Paul the Apostle.
OK, then at this point we aren't talking about Biblical theology anymore, but the Catholic teaching of this story.
Factually Paul was converted by Jesus himself on the road to Damascus, not Stephen's words, but I'm sure you're aware of that already and Catholic tradition adds more context to the account.
I did not mean instantly no.
If God wanted us to make a distinction between the early saints and ourselves, He would have said "But those guys are of a different standard than you should be" Otherwise He's creating confusion. And we know it is written 'God is not the author of confusion, but of peace'
One instance of forgiveness was Paul was talking to his friends when he said
whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; 11 Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant.." 2 Corinthians chapter 2:10-
Second Corinthians carries a frequently apologetic tone in and of itself. Paul is talking to them about his intent to not have a painful visit to their church. He's reassuring them and telling them that any affront he may have caused in the past is one that he will "forgive" in turn.
Again, we see a translation problem into English. As you noted, God is not the author of confusion. Man is, and our flawed and limited understanding. Same as that whole "thou shalt not kill" thing, which isn't at all what the Fifth Commandment says. It says thou shalt not commit murder.
forgiveness is what you do on your end. It's internally forgiving them instead of holding on to bitterness, hatred, unforgiveness.
You can forgive someone and want them to face legal justice. They're not mutually exclusive.
You can and should forgive people who have been dead for 20 years. You can forgive people who are in hell right now and you should. The forgiveness we do is a separate thing from the forgiveness that Jesus offers because we don't have the spiritual merit to wipe away anyone's sins including our own unlike Jesus. Christians' forgiving is about us having a heart that recognizes our own spiritual depravity and the mercy we've received, and so we let go of the unforgiveness we have towards others.
Your forgiveness is not the same as God's forgiveness. You're forgiving their trespasses, as Jesus forgave you, but it doesn't mean their sins are forgiven to God unless they put their trust and faith in Jesus.
If Jeff Metcalf said "you are forgiven" in that prescriptive way, that would be blasphemous, but he didn't say that. He said, I forgive the killer. It's a different meaning.
As an example, I had to forgive people who were cruel to me in high school, as I was holding on to that bitterness.
I haven't seen them in nearly 20 years. I don't know if they're repentant. I know nothing about them. Most of them I can barely recall anything specific, but I had to come to a point where I forgave them and let it go.
It has nothing to do with them. Christian forgiveness is about your heart towards them.
Whether anyone is actually forgiven of their sins in the eyes of God is 100% down to what they do with Jesus, and is separate from the forgiveness that Christians give.
Not a Christian, so take this as a philosophical question.
Shouldn't forgiveness be earned?
I understand that the utility of forgiving someone is a good way at, let's call it, spiritually cleansing yourself of hate and resentment. And that's really important. But if you do that too early, you might be doing a lot of forgiving of someone who doesn't care that they've hurt you, and are prepared to keep going.
In a just world, forgiveness ought to be given by the victim, and forgiveness ought to be sought by the abuser. (Here's where I'm not a Christian) We obviously don't live in anything like a Just World. To me, the world is fully amoral. Morality is formed by men who agree to live among one another in such a way that they believe all will prosper. I can't imagine that someone who would easily offer forgiveness would not be hunted to extinction by predators.
A predator would think of such a man as easy prey, and wildly gullible. Predators see weakness as an invitation to attack. A predator kills your son, steals his things, watches you forgive him, and then chooses you for further attacks, not merely because you allow it, but because "you're stupid and you deserve to be attacked". The predator thinks that you deserve further abuse because your forgiveness makes you inferior. You're weak. You're a chump. Exploitation is all you're good for. It's right to attack you, because it's what you deserve. You're supposed to be the stepping stone for someone else because you are too weak, stupid, and gullible to take what you want. "In the land of the pigs, the butcher is king." That is the mentality of a predator, and why you must kill them. You can't live with them, one day, they'll kill you. They don't respect you unless you predate upon them. They only respect other predators.
If someone isn't willing to earn forgiveness, they may be a predator. And if they are, forgiveness is simply wasted on them. They are unrepentant and anti-moral, and so forgiveness will never mean anything to them. If forgiveness helps you, then fine, but don't think it will help them. Predators are effectively alien to you, as foreign as a force of nature. They simply are not operating under the rules you live by, they never will, they don't want, and nothing can command them. Well, except immediate violence, which is their language anyway. Display yourself as a predator with territory, and they'll respect it if and only if you hurt them badly enough.
Forgiveness isn't meant to be blind or done naively.
Jesus commands Christians to "be wise as serpents and innocent as doves" and Proverbs tells us to not even trust a neighbor or a friend.
You can forgive someone while recognizing that they're bad news and you need to get away from that person.
And when you see that the person seems to have changed, depending on the circumstance, you can reconcile with that person, but it should be done intelligently and accurately assessing things so you don't get chewed up and spit out.
People do try to take advantage of gracious natures so that's why Christians should be careful to sus that out.
But you can forgive someone while deciding unless something changes, you're never going to associate with that person.
One example could be, you used to be into drugs, and your drug dealer did a lot of screwed up stuff to you.
If a Christian forgives that drug dealer, should they then go reconcile with that drug dealer?
Probably not, because if drugs were an issue for them, the wisest thing to do is get rid of any contacts from your phone that have anything to do with drugs but still be praying for them.
Now if you've been 10 years sober and drugs aren't a temptation for you anymore, and you want to share the gospel with the person who used to be your drug dealer, now it's a different situation, but in both situations a Christian shouldn't be going in naively and assuming good about the other persons nature.
You can forgive and also recognize that people search for weakness and will chew you up and spit you out if they get the chance and you ought to be careful.
That's why Jesus said in Matthew 10:16 "Be wise as serpents, and innocent as doves".
In other words, be kind, be loving, but also be smart.
Okay, I suppose that makes sense, but I feel like it's a bit too vague. A Christian should forgive, but must do so with the wisdom to proceed appropriately given the situation that they are in. That, I gather. So I think I need a follow-up question:
Would you consider Austin's father's apology to have been wise? If so: why is it wise. If not, what would be wise?
If "it's too personal to know" (as in, we can't know what Austin's father emotionally/spiritually needs), then what would a hypothetical wise forgiveness look like for a father who's son was murdered.
I guess I'm trying to find the boundary conditions of where wisdom could be in this, and I think the drug dealer analogy is a bit too distant from the current scandal. I'm going to caveat this with the acknowledgement that I don't expect you to have all-knowing wisdom and have a 'perfect' or even 'correct' answer. I'm just trying to flesh out your reasoning because it's a bit different than mine.
I'll speak generally and say that forgiving someone doesn't need to be public and on the news, and spoken about at all, much less right at the moment when you're possibly emotional.
When he said there's no racial element, that's just incorrect. Even if there was zero racial motive in that crime or anything to talk about wtih racial background of that perpetrator, you cannot deny how the two circumstances are treated there isn't a racial element.
It's like saying there's no racial element in the OJ Simpson trial. I don't think OJ committed murder for racial motives, but it's one of our most racial moments in US history as a significant amount of one side rooted for murder to be allowed for racial motives.
So wise, or unwise, him saying no one should bring up race is just incorrect, as those who have been paying attention notice where the disproportionate amount of violence is coming from and the attitude of that community.
But you have to grant that he could have been in an irrational and emotional state and stuck his foot in his mouth because it's his way of dealing with the trauma. His example is actually too unreliable because if your son just died, it's just about impossible to make a guess of what was going through his mind.
To answer what a wise forgiveness would look like, there's Christians who have talked about having a loved one murdererd and the years it took to forgive the person, but they were ultimately led by God to forgive the person. This wasn't a public thing, it wasn't on the news, it's just something that they wrestle with and the timing is different for everyone.
I find myself having to forgive people I've already forgiven because something will remind me of something and the wound gets opened up again and I have to remember what Jesus forgave me of, and I let it go.
Forgiveness is something you do and isn't a showy thing for the news and the community. No one even has to know you have forgiven someone or even know that someone has wronged you.
If it comes up at an appropriate time, it's not wrong to talk about it.
I think in Austin's father's case, he had the misfortune of, because of the racial dynamics of the country, get catapulted into the media with perhaps pressure, at the very least a subconcious knowing pressure of being labelled this or that and may have made a mistake.
I think the best thing Austin's father should have done is said a very short thing, just said "I'm in mourning and I don't want to speak" which not one person would fault anyone in that position for saying.
Then bring that hurt to God with the help of other loved ones. That forgiveness process doesn't have to be in any way public or for cameras. The world isn't obligated to know your wrestling with difficult topics and working out how to forgive.
No one expects someone to be able to forgive something like that immediately. There's an expectation that it will take time and healing.
So what I'd say is it wasn't the best thing for the father to go the route he did. I'm not able to judge his heart and actually Christians are commanded not to judge other people's heart. He and I have the same judge, so it's not my job to judge his heart.
I can just say there were issues that arose with what he did and how he did it. His heart may have been in the right place. Your heart can be in the right place and make the wrong decision because we're easily misled by our heart and our heart is deceitful.
But again, his son just died, so a lot of latitude should be granted to someone in that position.
I'm more irritated at the culture that promotes and continues to promote a sacred cow-ism of the ghetto culture where no one can ever say what's obvious.
But Austin's father should be given grace because he probably wasn't in his right head.
This. You said exactly what i wanted to say but i wasn't sure how to put it in words
Thanks.
Forgiveness means absolution. Save for personal affronts, no mere human being can absolve a damn thing. Furthermore, it is exclusively a two way street.
It's why confession exists. I know Protestants don't have that and all, but the theological basis for it is there nonetheless.
The animal who killed Austin Metcalf is not sorry. How can you be forgiven and absolved, for something you are proud of doing?
Your argument is foolish. You cannot forgive the dead either by the way, that's why the Last Rites exist in the first place.
No it doesn't. If it did, there'd be no point in people forgiving others at all, since the final absolution comes from God.
Forgiveness is about letting go of your own personal anger, or overcoming it, and being willing to hope for salvation, even for those that wronged you. And Christians do want everyone to find peace.
It has no impact on the absolution of the person you're forgiving, because that's in God's hands, as well as whether or not the other person truly repents. But anyone can forgive anyone else. And anyone can ask for God to forgive someone. Doesn't mean He will, but you can ask.
That is in fact the thing to do, but calling it "forgiveness" is wrong, and an issue with the English translation during the reformation years.
Let me put it this way.
You offer a handshake to another man. He looks, turns around, and walks away.
Did you actually shake his hand just because you tried?
You're right. it helps to have the scripture to back it up, it's all there, but well said anyway
I should have used scripture, you're right.
It can help, but many Christians (and most non-Christians discussing Christian matters) think that we (as Christians) can only make definitive statements and judgments if it's supported by a Biblical passage. The Bible isn't the sum total of all knowledge and wisdom, with a commandment on how to act perfectly in every scenario, that tells us how to do calculus, or physics, or interpret the tax code, etc. If it was, it would be infinitely long. That's not the purpose of the Bible, either.
Christians, especially since the enlightenment and the growth of "science!", have forgotten that creation is also a work of God, and it's His greatest work. When God points to His divinity and power, He doesn't point to scripture. He points to creation (Job 38).
Don't ever forget that God's will is inlaid into creation itself. All of truth, rules of logic, mathematical laws, scientific laws, they're all of God and from God. This is why, when we act in accordance with truth, with God, we're rewarded with success, abundance, safety, joy, community, justice, inward peace, health, and fecundity, the very things God promises us, in scripture, when we act in accordance with Him. When we act in discordance to God, to truth, we are "rewarded" with the opposite.
To learn, to know the rules of truth and logic via what creation tells us, is to learn of God, to learn God's will. We can use that wisdom to shape our own ideas, philosophies, judgments, actions, and behaviors, and be just as Christian when we do so, as when we quote scripture. We don't need to rely on scripture for absolutely everything, because scripture doesn't answer everything. If scripture and creation seem to contradict, it means we don't understand it fully. Some things will be a mystery to us, and will remain a mystery until we're educated by God at our time of judgment. We are finite, imperfect, and mortal, after all.
But, truth is often quite clear and easy to decipher, it's just that it's so obvious it's easy for people to miss. Most of the profound things I've learned over the years have been obvious, but overlooked, things usually taken for granted. We often get in our own way, and get lost in the minutiae and weeds, or get hung up on this or that, thinking in false dichotomies, and our ego gets in the way, when the foundations, the obvious, are unconsidered and ignored, while people foolishly build houses upon their personal stretch of sand, because of their ego.
Do not ignore or reject creation when espousing truth and God's will, or you become apostate as a Christian, as to do so is to reject God and His greatest work.
I simply reject your interpretation because the actions of historical Christians from the year 0- ~1950 were completely contrary to what you have presented in this post. I freely admit I'm new to Christianity, but I refuse to believe Christ wanted us to be simpering, useless pussies while at the same time condemning every generation previously who didn't grovel to animals that murdered their children.
"He who does not have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one"
Did you only read my first part and stop?
I pointed out that the church's responsibility is to preach repentance to cultures that lack God and that it's cowering and sacred cowing of the black culture is them failing in their duties.
But it's not correct to say that historical Christians were not forgiving and merciful and turned the other cheek for 1950 years.
In Acts we see the church being persecuted and laying down their lives despite the intense persecution.
All throughout history this has been the case. Christian missionaries in Japan got slaughtered in the 1600s by the Japanese and died for their faith.
Christians were the main victims in the Roman coliseums who were devoured by lions to cheering crowds. The way that Christians reacted to a persecuting culture being so different than the world which seeks to preserve it's own life at any cost, while Christians are willing to give up their lives for the sake of the gospel has radically saved countless people.
Christians are actually the most persecuted and killed people group. In China, they meet in small underground churches, and the police bust in and beat up old grannies, and the result is Christianity spreads because people see the way Christians have joy in all circumstances and realize "there must be something there"
All other religions must dominate in order to spread. Because God is our power, and we spread even through persecution because what we believe in is stronger than all the world's powers, we baffle the world and the world doesn't know what to make of us.
There are examples of Christians being violent, such as the crusades and the inquisition, but you won't find much biblical justification for that and it's the exception not the norm, and usually it's when the church is corrupt and so powerful that they behave like actual countries.
No, we are not meant to simp. The church right now rightly doesn't have an issue calling out the gay nonsense, or the "trans" nonsense.
Not being violent doesn't mean you are fearful. Quite the opposite. We are called to speak the gospel boldly no matter who it offends.
My post even argued that the church is long over-due to extend that calling out of behavior to the black community even if it means you get shunned, you get de-banked, you get killed, because God's got it and people's eternal fate are being ignored because of cultural taboo.
But when that day comes, when the government persecutes you, we don't act like the world does. Read Revelation about how those killed in the tribulation will have a special song they sing to God, and Babylon who will be destroyed will have been getting drunk on the blood of the saints.
We don't need to take revenge unlike the world because revenge is God's and He will one day bring all things to account.
"Taking revenge" and "not being a pussy" are two very different things. I'm not advocating for the dad to go postal, but neither do I think him acting out his fantastical boomer martyr complex is helpful in any way.
This is where the mistranslation of meek has bastardized Christian understanding and enabled a feminine form to take root. Meek or Praus in Greek is a bridled strength, not being a coward. You bridle your strength with you neighbor (turn the other cheek), you bridle you strength before your master (God), you kill/ punish the evil (Jael driving a tent spike through the head of Sisera, David and Goliath, etc).
Your understanding of history is, I submit, grievously flawed.
Well, the crusaders and inquisitors were indeed violent, that much I cannot dispute.
It's just that the context and circumstances which said violence occurred as reaction against 200% justified the aforementioned violence, facts which the powers that be have worked very hard to distort & obfuscate for a very long time as part of the general 'Christianity bad' agenda.
Well, in general I'm deriding the idea that Christianity is or should be pacifistic. Particularly the part where we supposedly will find no scriptural justification for things like the Crusades.
Certainly true. Hell even the infamous 4th Crusade which targeted the Byzantines over their original Muslim target in Egypt was less retarded and more justified than is oft portrayed in pop-history. The Byzantines had killed upwards to 30x as many Latin Christians (mostly, but not entirely Italians) in a genocidal massacre targeting the latter than the crusaders killed Byzantine civilians in their own sack of Constantinople, some 20 years before the Venetians derailed the crusader army to get revenge.
And Enrico Dandolo, the Venetian Doge responsible for the above, also was himself blinded by the Byzantines, probably in the Constantinopolitan tumult of 1171-72. Little wonder why, after so many insults and direct attacks both upon his own person and his fellow Catholics/Italians, he would decide to take the first opportunity he could to take the Orthodox (who had also been trying to puppetize the crusaders from the very start and infamously abandoned the First Crusade once they started going off Alexios I's rails) down a bunch of pegs.
Would Christianity have survived if it wasn't for the crusades? If acting as simps and just turned the other cheek to muslims while they killed, raped and pillage thru Europe was the correct course of action and that course of action would have lead to the eradication of Christianity what does that say about us?
You're thinking of the Battle of Tours in 732, when united Europeans turned back the Muslim hordes from France. The Crusades started in 1095 earliest and were about defending Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire, with mixed results. Eventually the Ottomans took over and sadly Constantinople became Istanbul.
Guess I should have payed more attention in history. I thought it was connected. Since you seem to know a lot about this stuff, how come they didn't remove the Moors from current day Spain? Wasn't that just a big of a threat as the fall of Constantinople?
They would've loved to remove them, but the simple reason is that the Franks didn't have enough resources. After the Umayyad were turned back at Tours, they had a couple of holdouts in southern France. It took a few years for Charles Martell and his son to fully drive them out.
But the Umayyad were smashed at Tours and their leader was killed. They weren't a mortal threat to Western Europe after that.
Were there not were multiple crusades?
Yes, hence why I said Crusades. Some were successful, some weren't.
you actually think the crusaders and inquisition were wrong? are you serious?
I'm on the same boat. I'm new to Christianity but I find it hard to accept that we're suppose to be this pathetic pussies that are suppose to grovel before anyone who wants to murder us, steal from us and even genocide us. How did Christianity grow with such a message?
Forgiveness is not groveling. That's a simple misreading of the OP.
If you read Jesus' "turn the other cheek" teaching in Matthew, that could be interpreted as groveling, but it's a teaching for individual attitudes, not corporate attitudes (i.e., as a body of people who have to defend their vulnerable and weak).
Turn the other cheek is about forcing those who attack you to face you as an equal
Your time frame would include Jesus, and he would have forgiven them even as he chased them with a whip.
In some cases he would've forgiven them even as he tied the millstone around their necks and pushed them over the edge of the boat.
Equating human capacity to forgive with god…
How so? It would only be practicing what he preached. Doesn't mean it's not God doing the forgiving too in that one specific instance. The point is we have to let go of the negativity and hatred so that punishment and repentance can lead to redemption.
I just posted the answer to this as a main reply actually.
Yes, precisely. The two are not mutually exclusive however. Hence he would forgive them while chasing them with a whip, while tieing the millstone around their neck.
While the clarification is valuable, this is a facile inference, as one can easily be abandoned without forgiveness.
Which Hebrew word is used in the parable of the debtors?
You’re conflating the two again. The human forgiving is to abandon or dismiss, we are not expected to grant absolution, which is the current pushed definition of “forgiveness”, that is reserved for god alone.
If you’re referring to Christ with the whip and the money changers then it would be in Greek, not Hebrew. I can’t say for sure because neither version is used in the direct texts of John or Matthew
I did not say that at all. Only God has the power to absolve sins and grant eternal life.
I'm referring to the parable of the debtors in Matthew 18 and Luke 7.
The pedant patrol is on the ball today! How's the weather in Tel Aviv?
Well, that went from respectful to...something...real quick.
Just teasing, but I guess it fell flat.
Everyone knows the rabbis get triggered when someone talks about Jesus!
Something we surely both agree on
Oy vey! Calm down, rabbi. No one's touching your precious nuclear program.... yet.
It's just paulian cucks, bro, can't do shit about them.
Stephen in acts (which are paulian, not christian) apes Christ, obviously, without understanding that Christ, unlike some random dude, has the power to forgive sins and that, well, Christ was crucified under the Old Testament and Stephen was being stoned under the New One.
The reason Christ was incredibly generous in his forgiveness is that, back then, nobody's been read their miranda rights. Old Testament itself meaning nothing as it wasn't for the gentiles aka majority of the world. And even jews were mislead as pharisees have edited their tradition heavily - let's not forget that, since the destruction of the first temple, Old Testament is incomplete.
Nowadays in the west, if you reject Christ, you're doing it rather aware and consciously. You're choosing to hate Christ, literally - and yes, killing your neighbour is absolutely hating Christ.
So actually are the paulian cucks that tell you to love and forgive people who hate Christ?
As you said I don't think he actually forgave him and it was empty virtue signaling. His angry video about them lying about his son certainly seems like he hasn't
Best take I've seen on the situation yet. It's a difficult situation, and emotion easily clouds judgements. I fully believe the father was pressured into saying what he said for the camera.
At the beginning you may have been right about government influence, but the amount of unbridaled faggotry he's displayed since then, down to "getting racial" with whites defending him, leads me to simply conclude he's being a fucking boomer.
No doubt he's still being pressured to act a certain way. You're right in that it doesn't make it any less despicable.
There is still part of me that very much wants to believe this is all some gay op. I really hope it is because that would at least give me some hope. As it stands now though, he's really going above and beyond for said op.
I admit to making this argument, however, I don't believe in God, so I'm not following Christian teachings. I just don't think that the intentional meekness, weakness, and submission before evil that we are seeing can (or should) be Christian.
I, certainly, am not going to do it.
Call me an interloper if you wish, but that's just my two cents.
I think the debate between Kaarous and Shadow here is fine. I understand that forgiveness 'is divine'. And that forgiving people for their trespasses can actually do well for the individual, but I don't believe it is typically appropriate especially when the body is still warm, and no repentance has been made, and no accountability has been done, and no responsibility is taken.
That kind of forgiveness seems to be a worthless, and irrelevant one. It is foolhardy to forgive the man who is actively shooting at you. Especially since you have placed your forgiveness even ahead of justice.
If that's Christian, then so be it, but it's one of those things I will have a permanent rejection of. Same way I reject the idea that the pope can't be questioned. If he's a communist, he'd better be!
This whole obsession with forgiveness, and the constant debate over which flavor of cuck God wants us to be is precisely why I am not a Christian. I cuck for nobody, even God.
It is infuriating to watch the right wing constantly roll over and spread their cheeks for evil people just because they think they will be rewarded in the afterlife for it. Marx was partially correct when he called religion the opiate of the masses. The bonus that comes with Christianity is that it's also the fencing used to keep us in line as they herd us into the slaughterhouse.
None of you will be praying your way out of this, so pull your heads out of your asses and accept that already.
Did you miss the part where I said the church needs to address what's wrong with the black community and the black community needs to face harsh truths?
Forgiving individuals you hold unforgiveness to and having righteous anger at the unjust scales and doing what you can to address those scales are not mutually exclusive.
I think the reason you're predominantly seeing pushback is in a large part of what you say about the church and its relation to the black community. Canadians have a similar case with their indians, kiwis with their Maori, and Aussies with their Abos. The thread connecting all these disparate groups is the boomer churches operating in these nations.
It would be much easier to tolerate a voice saying we need to forgive if the body we were a representative of actually dealt with these problems instead of immediately bending over and self-flagellating every single fucking time. You say the church needs to address the black community and I agree. It also needs to be, in a secular democracy, advocating for Anthony to receive the death penalty immediately.
You and I of course know this is never going to happen, because every Christian church and every denomination has been dominated by boomers with post-racial, civil-rights-era, "racism is the greatest sin" propaganda. This is a generation so fully invested in the Hitler Man Bad meme that proper justice, like the swift incarceration and execution of Anthony, is seen as racist fascism first, which they then hastily cloth in Christian martyr garb so they don't appear racist.
We all know that on some level it is in a Christian's duty to forgive, but even that forgiveness is heavily poisoned by the worship culture we have surrounding blacks and other minorities. We need to change that reality first.
You and I are on the same page.
People think I'm a "boomer Christian" who bends over for everything because of this arbitrary redefining of forgiveness with categories being twisted to and fro.
The entire reason I stopped attending my church and now just attend a Bible study is because of how they responded to BLM's "summer of love".
I'm not at all down with the current church's even most subtle liberalism.
But the church having issues (every generation has its own issues in the church which is why in Revelation, the majority of the 7 churches get chastised) isn't a reason to throw out the Bible and interpret it in a foreign manner.
It makes it sound closer to Islam than Christianity when the interpretation is stretched so far.
Did you miss the part where you are posting this on a middle of nowhere forum with a few dozen users, while the people actually doing the preaching in churches are saying the opposite?
The purpose of a system is what it does. What you think it should be is irrelevant. "Real
communismChristianity has never been tried" is just cope.I'm replying to this post to inform the Christians downvoting that you better get used to attitudes like this in the years to come, because the more you cling to dying boomer "Christianity" the more you're going to see it and have to contend with it.
Look man, try to broaden your perspective to more than the last few decades. If boomer Christianity was the true essence then America wouldn't even exist.
So if the Church is not doing the job of helping the black community we're back at black people are never responsible for their own actions. All of us are actually at fault, including the dad whose son died?
Do we just forgive ourselves now and just move on?
if you ask me, forgiveness has nothing to do with it. getting emotional about the situation, be it love or hate, inevitably leads to an overreaction.
The proper reaction is a utilitarian one. We have a murderer who is being defended, has not apologized, and shows no signs of remorse for what he did. This kind of person is inevitably going to kill again. Worse, his defense signals to other killers that they too can get away scott free. Therefore, the proper reaction is to either quarantine him from society or remove him altogether. Not only would this prevent future danger, it would act as a deterrent to other potential murderers.
This is another bad translation example like “meek”. There are two forms of “forgive” in the original Bible, the mortal and divine forms. The mortal form is aphiemi which means to release, dismiss, or abandon. The divine form is charizomai which is the granting of favor, or giving grace, absolution. Casting out someone and leaving them to die in the wild is literally “forgiveness” for humans. The divine form of forgiveness is the one that people associate all forgiveness in the Bible with, modern Christianity somehow warped into believing they could grant absolution.
Why the Black Church Forgives Dylann Roof https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/why-the-black-church-forgives-dylann-roof/
I quote this for discussion. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with quoted parts above
It is easier to forgive, when you have mostly everyone already condeming the killer and the killer's family is not receiving funds, claiming self defense, and might get away with it due to racist jury nullification.
Thanks for writing, OP. I'm in agreement with you. Forgiving trespass is something we do for ourselves, not for the aggressor.
https://www.lawofone.info/s/50#7
Ngl, I've long since learned not to go to the Online Right for any spiritual advice, no offense to OP. I think he's trying to be reasonable, but many of the comments are why I gave up on that. There are way too many people on the right who are nominal Christians for the cultural and traditional aspects and don't really believe it in their hearts. They respect and desire the sort of edifices of Christianity that built traditional Western European civilization, but the true heartfelt passion for Jesus and to be His follower and disciple no matter where He made lead is not in them. You can tell by how they reject the Jesus of the Bible and instead craft a counterfeit version of Jesus, one who sneers and mocks the same things they do, one who is a bloodthirsty as them, one who condescends in victory as them, one who hates all the same things they hate. They've very clearly settled on their own ideal vision of the world, how things ought to be, who the good ones and bad ones are, who should have power and who shouldn't, etc and then created a Jesus in their heads who conveniently matches that to the T. They outright reject the numerous parts of the Bible that explicitly say that following Jesus is going to conflict with your own sinful nature. Jesus will call on you to do things that you don't want to do, that you cannot see the worldly wisdom in, that seem folly to you. He will ask you to put aside you own selfish desires and follow Him instead and it will be painful and challenging and a lot of time you won't want to do it. And the Online 'Christian' Right doesn't do that. Their version of Jesus already agrees with them in everything, so there's nothing challenging.
Whether OP is right or wrong, I can't say. But I know that the Online 'Christian' Right's vision of Jesus being some vengeful and spiteful king riding in to conquer and subjugate all the undesirables and get revenge on all the people they think are wrong and evil while they get to watch from the sidelines, or are even encouraged to join in, it's all unbiblical and I choose not to have anything to do with it. So not speaking to you specifically OP, but this forum is one of the last places I would seek sound spiritual advice. There are a lot of people on this forum and others on the Right who are the brother of the Prodigal Son, or the servant who had his debt forgiven by the king but did not forgive the debt from his fellow servant. There are a lot who will cry out "but I fought and wanted to kill people who didn't follow you Lord, I rubbed their faces in defeat and laughed at them and mocked them for not believing in you, I showed them scorn and spite and malice for not being on our team Lord" and they will hear "I never knew you' in reply.
This thread's comments are a perfect example. So much desire to be right, to be seen being right, to rub one's opponents face in you being right with a smug condescending sneer while laughing at others for being fools. It's so clearly unwholesome and unloving, and yet so many 'Christians' love that sort of thing. So many 'Christians' who want to cross the finish line first and stand on the podium while the Lord gives them a trophy so they can look down on all the losers and failures who were wrong and not as smart or wise or correct as them, when they don't realize they were supposed to be helping others across the same finish line the whole time.
You're a JIDF that likes to defend jews and now you are trying to promote the cuck version of Christianity? wow what a surprise.
Yeah, I've noticed that.
I think we're in the end times, and the Bible is actually speaking of the end times generation when it describes them as "having a form of godliness but denying it's power".
I've noticed that with the young right.
They recognize that atheism and the rejection of all things rooted in Christianity as the disaster that it is and in response they seek tradition and orthodoxy. Unfortunately, it's not the word of God and Jesus that they seem to be filled by or seek, but by a general "I'm not a degenerate like the woke" sort of satisfaction, and the Bible is completely secondary to them, only useful if the verse can be used or twisted to their purpose.
You'd think the Bible were only comprised of about 4 verses, such as the synagogue of Satan, selling your cloak for a sword, etc.
Smiggleballs is a JIDF that likes to defend jews. Its not surprising he supports the cuck version of Christianity.
I too defend on the basis of the covenant promise, and further clarified in Romans 9, that God is not done with Israel and people are acting foolishly if they are conceited and think Christians have replaced them.
We've been grafted in, and one day Israel will repent at the end.
Just read Romans 9
Supporting Israel doesn't mean you think they're perfect or that they're behaving righteously. It is the church position to defend Israel as the scripture is clear on where Israel sits today. They sit as temporarily hardened, but the Abrahamic covenant still in effect and they will be restored, and nations that oppose Israel are doing so to their own destruction.
We Christians who support Israel KNOW that Jews are not saved until they place their faith in Christ. Support means, in the side of Israel vs all the nations that want to destroy it, like what we're seeing today and what is prophesized will be the anti-Christ's army, we fall on the side of supporting Israel, and not all the other nations.
That is the scriptural position.
Isn't the Israel in the Bible not the literal country of Israel but the Christian peoplem
So spend more time teaching them by replying to then with scripture to show they're wrong
You honestly think anyone on this site, or even the internet as a whole, really has the willingness or ability to have their mind changed by an internet argument? Maybe you've been on a different internet than me this whole time, cause I've never seen that. I've seen a whole lot of people trading points back and forth, becoming more firmly entrenched, degrading into insults, with the one who has the less popular view being utterly dogpiled and being pushed out of the forum regardless of whether they're correct. You cannot correct someone who views the entire concept of you thinking they're wrong means you're their enemy and need to be defeated. There is a time and place for them to receive correction. Back and forth comment battles on an internet forum ain't it. I've already learned that, hence I no longer get involved.
Now see, that reply makes me think you're JIDF. Should Christians have given up on spreading the Bible because people didn't immediately covert to Christianity? No, things take time, people argue, but people also think and process differently with time. If people down voting you, isulting you, or disagreeing with you, are things that make you give up then you are weak and prideful.
Yes, this is a phenomenon with the Right as people retreat to their Christian roots in order to solve practical, political issues. Christianity is thus the means, not the end.
Anyone that truly takes up the banner of Christ must attempt to understand and uphold all of His teachings, all the way from Matthew 5 to the Revelation sword from the mouth. I will say that the boomercons are experiencing the start of a well-deserved rebuke for selectively ignoring the latter side.
True, but regarding that sword, one of the hardest lessons for me as I get angrier and angrier about politics is that we as disciples were given a very clear command that our mission is to ensure as few of Christ's children get thrown into the pit as possible. Christ has set aside all of the stuff with swords, flames, judgement, and the destruction of the guilty for Himself. Vengeance is His, and His alone. Learning to simply trust that every wrong, every slight, every wound and attack against me will be addressed and recompense will be made, and that it's not my role to demand it right now at my own hands, has been very challenging. And in fact still is every day.
But you are correct that there are far too many on the Right who use Christianity as a means to seek and achieve what they want out of the world, not as an end apart from the world itself.
There will come a day when the Democrat party (and the GOP), LGBTQ orgs, communists, CAIR, the WEF, the ADL, SPLC, and all the rest will be burned away never to be remembered again by any soul for the rest of time. But the question that we will all be asked. The Question. The one that counts for everything, will always remain. "Do you love Me?"
Have an answer.
Yes, completely agree. "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." We pursue justice instead.
Most of the New Testament (and arguably the Old Testament) is written about the seriousness of this issue. False confidence is probably the biggest danger of Christianity. A true understanding of love is what protects salvation.
I thought I'd they are a Christian, they are not going to Hell. Regardless of how poorly they act.
The ghetto black community, largely, as evidence by their fruit, is not Christian.
"You will know them by their fruit".
Wearing a cross as part of rapper fashion, attending church, and pointing up when you score a touchdown doesn't make you a Christian. It means you're a cultural Christian, or you answer with an affirmative to being a Christian, but it doesn't mean you're saved or have accepted Jesus for the forgiveness of your sins.
There are saved Christians in the black community, of course just like all communities, including ones that struggle like all people with sin and the fleshly desires and struggles, but the vast majority culture of that community shows they do not follow Christ by observing their very blatant and outward behavior.
Even Italian mafia have sometimes attended Catholic mass. Occasionally attending church doesn't mean you're saved any more than visiting McDonald's makes you a hamburger to borrow the oft-repeated but true turn of phrase.
Maybe I grew up very different. Where I grew up, the Christian people were largely saved. It wasn't just a moniker. But that doesn't mean they grew up all to be good adults. Many turned against the faith.
You grew up in the ghetto type community?
I'm not the judge on people's standing when it comes to salvation, whether they've truly accepted Christ or not.
But the discernment that we do have and are permitted to execute tells us that if you see someone who murders, steals, commits violence, is quick to anger, lies, hates, never takes accountability, never admits wrongdoing, and many other things, you can fairly well assume they're not a true believer.
And the ghetto community, the one that mocks and twerks in front of DJ Daniel because he wants to be a police officer, that attitude is totally 180 opposite of Christianity.
That ghetto attitude is what I'm talking about.
The place you grew up and the people you've had relationships with, I haven't seen that or experienced what you experience, I'm just looking over at a general culture and noting what I see, the way I look at Japan and can tell that the culture in general is lost as evidenced by their accepting and comfortability with sexual lewdness in public as just a "normal" thing, such as it being acceptable to look at porn anime comics on public transit among many other things.
I suspect the "dad" actually is a cuck and acts this way because the twins aren't blood related to him.
From this perspective his behavior makes sense.
I agree. Forgive, but he should not try and reconcile with the family that clearly does not want to.