Forgiven

[steamer]

Suppose I punched Joe in the nose simply because I don’t like him. Joe has never forgiven me for this. I become a Christian and then claim that I am forgiven for my offence of punching Joe in the nose.

Christians assert that the god they imagine forgives them of their offences even when the victims of those offenses do not.

Naturally this strikes me as rather backwards. As an atheist, if I wish to feel forgiven, I have to actually talk to Joe and make amends. I may imagine that the IPU forgives me, but my imagining does not affect anything in reality except perhaps my feelings. Christians merely imagine themselves forgiven and presumably also feel forgiven even though nothing in reality has changed for them either.

If imaginary entities such as god(s) are sufficient to attain forgiveness, then are other imaginary entities like the IPU or FSM equally sufficient to attain forgiveness? If I feel forgiven by these imagined entities what would be my motivation to seek actual forgiveness from Joe?

In the Christian view, is forgiveness from the god they imagine more important than forgiveness from an actual person? Does this strike anyone as dishonest and lazy? It also strikes me as being detrimental to society as a whole when thousands of Joes walk around without any closure while thousands of Christians imagine away their offences.

[Nice Squirrel]

Suppose I punched Joe in the nose simply because I don’t like him. Joe has never forgiven me for this. I become a Christian and then claim that I am forgiven for my offence of punching Joe in the nose.

Christians assert that the god they imagine forgives them of their offences even when the victims of those offenses do not.
You are equivocating God's forgiveness with John's forgiveness and self-forgiveness.

Naturally this strikes me as rather backwards. As an atheist, if I wish to feel forgiven, I have to actually talk to Joe and make amends. I may imagine that the IPU forgives me, but my imagining does not affect anything in reality except perhaps my feelings. Christians merely imagine themselves forgiven and presumably also feel forgiven even though nothing in reality has changed for them either.
As an Athiest you have special powers to see into the emotions of fellow humans and judge their feelings correctly?


If imaginary entities such as god(s) are sufficient to attain forgiveness, then are other imaginary entities like the IPU or FSM equally sufficient to attain forgiveness? If I feel forgiven by these imagined entities what would be my motivation to seek actual forgiveness from Joe? If you do not believe in an entity why would you be comforted by it? Why do you assume Christians automatically feel 100% comforted if they know God forgives them?

In the Christian view, is forgiveness from the god they imagine more important than forgiveness from an actual person? Does this strike anyone as dishonest and lazy? I see you have already assumed an answer to your question: In the Christian view, is forgiveness from the god they imagine more important than forgiveness from an actual person? It also strikes me as being detrimental to society as a whole when thousands of Joes walk around without any closure while thousands of Christians imagine away their offences.
What an amazing insight into the hearts of your fellow human beings! Funny how under your assumptions:
1) Christians feel no remorse nor need to make amends because God automatically makes things okay.
2) Atheists never rationalize their wrongs against others.

[steamer]

You are equivocating God's forgiveness with John's forgiveness and self-forgiveness.

Ok, lets be clear then,

God's forgiveness....an imaginary entities imagined forgiveness.

Joe's forgiveness...a real persons actual forgiveness of another.

Self Forgiveness...a real persons actual forgiveness of self.

Still seems pretty clrear that God's forgiveness is just something you imagine whereas actual forgiveness by Joe is a real thing that might have some value.


As an Athiest you have special powers to see into the emotions of fellow humans and judge their feelings correctly?

As an atheist I can tell when someone is offerring red herrings as opposed to honestly answering simple questions. Do you not feel forgiven after asking god for forgiveness in prayer?


If you do not believe in an entity why would you be comforted by it? Why do you assume Christians automatically feel 100% comforted if they know God forgives them?

I'm quite sure that I could at least imagine that I was comforted by it.

Christians do not have any knowledge of what any actual god(s) feel. They imagine the god(s) feelings for them. Do you not feel that you are 100% forgiven? Wasn't that the supposed meaning of the crucifiction story? Perhaps only "true Christians" feel 100% forgiven. Why don't you just imagine you are 100% forgiven instead of imagining only 90%?


I see you have already assumed an answer to your question: In the Christian view, is forgiveness from the god they imagine more important than forgiveness from an actual person?

It's a simple enough question, which is more important to you. Forgiveness from a god you only imagine, or forgiveness from an actual person?


What an amazing insight into the hearts of your fellow human beings! Funny how under your assumptions:
1) Christians feel no remorse nor need to make amends because God automatically makes things okay.
2) Atheists never rationalize their wrongs against others.

Is this an honest appraisal of my post? Do you believe that the god you imagine prefers the company of honest men?

I'm sure Christians do feel remorse. This is the point of praying for many of them isn't it? You know, to beg forgiveness? Once they imagine they have forgiveness...then what. You tell me. Isn't god's forgiveness really the important thing? Doesn't seeking actual forgiveness fall way down on the priority list?

Please give some basis for this libel. How on earth did you get this out of what I posted? Everybody rationalizes. Some of us just don't do it in the name of an imagined entity.

2) Atheists never rationalize their wrongs against others.

[EricK]

And if Joe does forgive you, do you still need God's forgiveness?

In the Lord's Prayer it states "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us". To me that implies that the sins that God forgives are the sins against God (whatever they may be) whereas the sins that we (ie humans) forgive are the sins against humans. So God can not forgive you for punching Joe, but he can forgive you for eg eating pork or for having some other god before him.

[seebs]

Steamer, if you translate everything Christians believe in terms of the assumption that they're wrong, it is no surprise if you then conclude that their position makes no sense.

Your OP does in fact equivocate by ignoring the substantial distinctions between different contexts in which one might talk about "forgiveness". It just doesn't mean anything.

That said, I have seen at least a few Christians who did the same thing; they decided that since they were Christians, they didn't need to do anything about their errors, because they were forgiven. This can sometimes be very unhealthy, or sometimes be a good way for someone to come to terms with the fact that another person can just hold a grudge if that's what they wanna do.

[steamer]

Steamer, if you translate everything Christians believe in terms of the assumption that they're wrong, it is no surprise if you then conclude that their position makes no sense.

Seebs, If you deny the simple truths then the tougher ones get that much easier to deny as well. It's like an internal precedence given weight by repitition. So lets go back to the simplest truths.

The simplest of truths is that the god(s) theist imagine exist only in their imaginations. This is true whether any god(s) exist elsewhere or not as far as these theists, incuding yourself, have any knowledge of. You just don't have any knowledge that the god you imagine is something more than something you imagine. Neither does anyone else.

What we do know is that the story of Jesus contains teachings that men ought to be forgiving each other. We know men exist and it even sounds like a good idea that they ought to forgive each other their offences. What we don't know is that there is any such thing as a god.

I believe the reason this post is being boycotted by Christians is because they are very uncomfortable with the idea that Jesus would probably agree with me that the forgiveness attained from real people has value and the attainment of forgiveness from imaginary entities is worthless.

We all know that if god exists, then he/she/it is somewhat larger than can fit into a human mind. It is very easy then to conclude then that what one imagines god to be cannot actually be god. Therefore it must be what it actually is, something only imagined.

Imagined things can be real, but in order to know the accuracy of our imaginings, we must have the real thing for comparison. Theist don't have this so we must conclude that the thing they imagine is wholly imaginary.

Can you really tell me that Jesus would prefer that men seek forgiveness from things they only imagine over seeking the forgiveness of real men and women?


Your OP does in fact equivocate by ignoring the substantial distinctions between different contexts in which one might talk about "forgiveness". It just doesn't mean anything.

I agree that there are substantial distinctions between the artificial sence of well-being acquired by imaginging forgiveness where none exists and actually acquiring it. That is the whole point of this thread.


That said, I have seen at least a few Christians who did the same thing; they decided that since they were Christians, they didn't need to do anything about their errors, because they were forgiven. This can sometimes be very unhealthy, or sometimes be a good way for someone to come to terms with the fact that another person can just hold a grudge if that's what they wanna do.

If you are saying that it is generally detrimental to the good of human kind to gain feelings of well being through artificial means (imaginary forgiveness via imaginary gods) then I agree.

If you agree that the teachings of Jesus were not directed at any imagined beings but at real people and that the entity you imagine to be god is not a god but the coinage of your brain then we can also agree that being forgiven by a real person has value and being forgiven by something you imagine has none and indeed is really a dishonest and lazy cheat to gain the same feelings of well-being.

[His Noodly Appendage]

See, even if god does exist, it still makes no sense.

I kick my sister in the shins, and feel bad about it.

So, I go to my father, apologise to him and obtain his forgiveness.

What is this meant to fix?

If my sister has already forgiven me, that's sufficient - it's none of my father's business.

And if she hasn't... what the fuck gives my arrogant prick of a father the right to override her and forgive me on her behalf, and what the fuck right do I have to feel better for it?

[Doug Shaver]

I think Nice Squirrel's response was right on the money, except for one thing. What you're doing is not an equivocation, but a conflation.

[llamaluvr]

I would believe that the best solution would be to seek forgiveness from both Joe and God. Joe because you hurt Joe, and God because you violated the law he stated and the natural order he created by punching Joe in the face.

When you repent before God, part of repentance is trying to correct the wrongs you committed, if possible. So, you ask God for forgiveness, and you also try to reconcile things with Joe. If Joe rejects your approach, you might feel bad to have severed a friendship with him, but at least you tried.

Now, if you ask God for forgiveness, and you have the opportunity to reconcile with Joe, and you don't, you're sinning all over again. You need ask God for forgiveness again, and you still have to go try to reconcile with Joe. If you are still stubborn about this, then- guess what? You're sinning again.

I think it is in error to attribute to much effiacy to the forgiveness obtained from Joe. It does feel good, but Joe isn't the almightly judge of the universe, so his response doesn't necessarily reflect the response of God. If he rejects your apology, he might be sinning, too. We don't do right by reconciling with him, but by trying to.

In fact, Joe might have already forgiven you before you even approach him, but you would still be in sin if you held your grudge against him, despite obtaining his forgiveness.

[steamer]

I would believe that the best solution would be to seek forgiveness from both Joe and God. Joe because you hurt Joe, and God because you violated the law he stated and the natural order he created by punching Joe in the face.

Since Joe is real and god is something you imagine, Joe is the only one who can forgive you your trespass. When you pray to the god you imagine, what exactly is it that you do? Do you just talk out loud and assume that some god-thing hears? Do you direct your thoughts towards god like a telepath? Do you imagine god hearing you just as you imagine god? Do you imagine his feelings towards your supplication as well? How far does it go?


When you repent before God, part of repentance is trying to correct the wrongs you committed, if possible. So, you ask God for forgiveness, and you also try to reconcile things with Joe. If Joe rejects your approach, you might feel bad to have severed a friendship with him, but at least you tried.

You've got it backwards...and this was part of my point. Joe is known to be real, the god you imagine is known to be imagined. Why would you give more importance to seeking forgivness from something you imagine than from a real person? Joe may or may not forgive, real life is like that. Is it just that much more pleasant to pretend? Doesn't that also make future trespasses that much more likely since forgiveness is only an a prayer away? A pretend communication with an imagined god seems much easier than a real communication with someone who is irritated with you.


Now, if you ask God for forgiveness, and you have the opportunity to reconcile with Joe, and you don't, you're sinning all over again. You need ask God for forgiveness again, and you still have to go try to reconcile with Joe. If you are still stubborn about this, then- guess what? You're sinning again.

You don't seem to understand. If you have a shred of honesty left then you must admit that your only interaction with any god is with the one you imagine. Who gives a fuck what communication you have with something you only imagine? It doesn't mean shit. The only thing that does matter is your reconciliation with the real person of Joe. The rest is pretend and certainly Joe won't give a shit to hear that you've pretended God forgave you.


I think it is in error to attribute to much effiacy to the forgiveness obtained from Joe. It does feel good, but Joe isn't the almightly judge of the universe, so his response doesn't necessarily reflect the response of God. If he rejects your apology, he might be sinning, too. We don't do right by reconciling with him, but by trying to.

Utterly amazing. Guess what, the being you imagine isn't the ruler of the universe either. The being you imagine is just that, a pretend entity you've made up and decided to talk to. God, if he exists outside your imagination, is not the being you imagine. What you imagine is just something you imagine...it is not god. Wouldn't god be awfully small if he was what you imagine? So, try reconciling with Joe and tell your imagined god to STFU.


In fact, Joe might have already forgiven you before you even approach him, but you would still be in sin if you held your grudge against him, despite obtaining his forgiveness.

You are right that it would be better for you to reconcile with Joe if you can. What you do in you imagination is up to you and generally of no consequence as long as it isn't a substitute for what you ought to do in reality.

[Soul Invictus]

Christians assert that the god they imagine forgives them of their offences even when the victims of those offenses do not.

I've seen this done a lot, and I'm confused by this as well. I would think, or hope that someone who does something wrong would want to atone for it and make amends with the person that they violated.

If I feel forgiven by these imagined entities what would be my motivation to seek actual forgiveness from Joe?

I guess it depends on the individual, by for me, my motivation would be a moral and ethical one.

In the Christian view, is forgiveness from the god they imagine more important than forgiveness from an actual person? Does this strike anyone as dishonest and lazy?

It doesn't strike me as lazy so much as it strikes me an issue with that person's integrity.

[Biff the unclean]

My favorite real life forgiveness story was on the news 5 or 6 years back. This couple was swamped in credit card debt. They wrote letters to Visa, Master Card and Am Ex saying that they had prayed over their bills at great length asking Christ to guide them. And Christ had spoken to them via the Holy Spirit and told them that all of their debts were forgiven.

This was on the radio news during their trial.

[steamer]

I think Nice Squirrel's response was right on the money, except for one thing. What you're doing is not an equivocation, but a conflation.

Nice squirrel didn't respond at all except with nits against the wording of the post...Just as you are doing.

Perhaps you and nice squirrel would like to martial the gumption to actually respond to why it is better to seek forgivness from your own imagination than it is to seek it from a party you've committed some offence against?

[Doug Shaver]

Nice squirrel didn't respond at all except with nits against the wording of the post...Just as you are doing.
Your post was illogical. Pointing that out is not nitpicking.

[steamer]

Your post was illogical. Pointing that out is not nitpicking.

Perhaps you and nice squirrel would like to martial the gumption to actually respond to why it is better to seek forgivness from your own imagination than it is to seek it from a party you've committed some offence against?

[llamaluvr]

Since Joe is real and god is something you imagine, Joe is the only one who can forgive you your trespass. When you pray to the god you imagine, what exactly is it that you do? Do you just talk out loud and assume that some god-thing hears? Do you direct your thoughts towards god like a telepath? Do you imagine god hearing you just as you imagine god? Do you imagine his feelings towards your supplication as well? How far does it go?

I try not to rely on subjective feelings for my forgiveness. I go to Confession. At the very least, I'm asking for Joe's forgiveness and talking to somebody else about it.


You've got it backwards...and this was part of my point. Joe is known to be real, the god you imagine is known to be imagined. Why would you give more importance to seeking forgivness from something you imagine than from a real person? Joe may or may not forgive, real life is like that. Is it just that much more pleasant to pretend? Doesn't that also make future trespasses that much more likely since forgiveness is only an a prayer away? A pretend communication with an imagined god seems much easier than a real communication with someone who is irritated with you.

So, you beat yourself up if you give an honest try at reconciliation, but the other party rebuffs? Dude, that's not healthy. I try to reconcile, I don't beat myself up if I fail, and I ask God for forgiveness. I'm taking all the steps you would take, too- just adding another one.



You don't seem to understand. If you have a shred of honesty left then you must admit that your only interaction with any god is with the one you imagine. Who gives a fuck what communication you have with something you only imagine? It doesn't mean shit. The only thing that does matter is your reconciliation with the real person of Joe. The rest is pretend and certainly Joe won't give a shit to hear that you've pretended God forgave you.

I swear on every expletive in your response that I honestly believe I can be reconciled with God. How do you plan to test my honesty?



Utterly amazing. Guess what, the being you imagine isn't the ruler of the universe either. The being you imagine is just that, a pretend entity you've made up and decided to talk to. God, if he exists outside your imagination, is not the being you imagine. What you imagine is just something you imagine...it is not god. Wouldn't god be awfully small if he was what you imagine? So, try reconciling with Joe and tell your imagined god to STFU.
Why would my imagined God be small? The God I'm imagining is the uncaused first cause, the omnipotent ruler of the Universe.

And while I thank you for crediting me with the invention of my God, I can't take credit. My church is 2000 years old. Somebody must have prior art.



You are right that it would be better for you to reconcile with Joe if you can. What you do in you imagination is up to you and generally of no consequence as long as it isn't a substitute for what you ought to do in reality.
Thanks, I try not to.

[Doug Shaver]

Perhaps you and nice squirrel would like to martial the gumption to actually respond to why it is better to seek forgivness from your own imagination
If I were a believer, I would reject your presumption about God being a figment of my imagination.

[post tenebras lux]

Perhaps you and nice squirrel would like to martial the gumption to actually respond to why it is better to seek forgivness from your own imagination If I were a believer, I would reject your presumption about God being a figment of my imagination.If you're rejecting steamer's argument, then perhaps it would be better to rebut his post where he goes into the details. Here it is:Seebs, If you deny the simple truths then the tougher ones get that much easier to deny as well. It's like an internal precedence given weight by repitition. So lets go back to the simplest truths.

The simplest of truths is that the god(s) theist imagine exist only in their imaginations. This is true whether any god(s) exist elsewhere or not as far as these theists, incuding yourself, have any knowledge of. You just don't have any knowledge that the god you imagine is something more than something you imagine. Neither does anyone else.

What we do know is that the story of Jesus contains teachings that men ought to be forgiving each other. We know men exist and it even sounds like a good idea that they ought to forgive each other their offences. What we don't know is that there is any such thing as a god.

I believe the reason this post is being boycotted by Christians is because they are very uncomfortable with the idea that Jesus would probably agree with me that the forgiveness attained from real people has value and the attainment of forgiveness from imaginary entities is worthless.

We all know that if god exists, then he/she/it is somewhat larger than can fit into a human mind. It is very easy then to conclude then that what one imagines god to be cannot actually be god. Therefore it must be what it actually is, something only imagined.

Imagined things can be real, but in order to know the accuracy of our imaginings, we must have the real thing for comparison. Theist don't have this so we must conclude that the thing they imagine is wholly imaginary.

Can you really tell me that Jesus would prefer that men seek forgiveness from things they only imagine over seeking the forgiveness of real men and women?



I agree that there are substantial distinctions between the artificial sence of well-being acquired by imaginging forgiveness where none exists and actually acquiring it. That is the whole point of this thread.



If you are saying that it is generally detrimental to the good of human kind to gain feelings of well being through artificial means (imaginary forgiveness via imaginary gods) then I agree.

If you agree that the teachings of Jesus were not directed at any imagined beings but at real people and that the entity you imagine to be god is not a god but the coinage of your brain then we can also agree that being forgiven by a real person has value and being forgiven by something you imagine has none and indeed is really a dishonest and lazy cheat to gain the same feelings of well-being.

[post tenebras lux]

That said, I have seen at least a few Christians who did the same thing; they decided that since they were Christians, they didn't need to do anything about their errors, because they were forgiven. This can sometimes be very unhealthy, or sometimes be a good way for someone to come to terms with the fact that another person can just hold a grudge if that's what they wanna do.It seems to me that there are many christians who act as if the believe that they have some (god-given [sic]) right to be forgiven by others (non-members of their church) they have wronged, even when they are unrepentant.

That way, they win both ways:
1) if I 'forgive' them - or 'turn the other cheek' - they get the chance to wrong me again; if I complain, they use the fact that I 'forgave' them the first time to claim that I'm 'just making a fuss' and that I (obviously) don't really feel wronged.
2) if I continue to hold them off so as to prevent them from wronging me again; they accuse me of 'holding a grudge', of 'being vindictive', and even of 'persecuting them' when I try to explain to third parties why I am wary of them. :huh:

[steamer]

If I were a believer, I would reject your presumption about God being a figment of my imagination.

It is not a presumption at all.

Real things can be imagined and unreal things can be imagined. Without any access to the real thing, one cannot know the accuracy of what one imagines. If the accuracy of the thing imagined cannot be determined then it could be that the imagining is wholly inaccurate.

These imagined things with no known counterpart in reality are called imaginary and as far as we know all gods fall squarely in this catagory whether they exist somewhere outside the imagination or not.

[steamer]

I try not to rely on subjective feelings for my forgiveness. I go to Confession. At the very least, I'm asking for Joe's forgiveness and talking to somebody else about it.

Feelings are always subjective and I’d imagine that going to confession changes those feelings of guilt or remorse. Does it? If not, why would you bother?

Most people, including us rational atheist, usually are more rationalizing than rational when we have wronged someone. Admitting you've wronged someone in confession is at least an admission that you are aware that you've done something wrong. Most of us, I think, don't get that far and religion actually might have a beneficial effect in that way.

The problem with religions though is they also offer an artificial way of changing those unpleasant feelings we get when we know we have acted badly. In the secular world, the only way to change those feelings is to endure them until they fade, or to actually try and make things right with Joe. I’m sure I don’t have to list the many advantages of an actual reconciliation with Joe which are not gained by the counterfeit forgiveness of an imagined god.

Feeling forgiven by a god you only imagine is akin to having sex with a woman you only imagine. The fantasy only provides some of the benefits of the reality. Fortunately though, women are known to exist outside of ones imagination.


So, you beat yourself up if you give an honest try at reconciliation, but the other party rebuffs? Dude, that's not healthy. I try to reconcile, I don't beat myself up if I fail, and I ask God for forgiveness. I'm taking all the steps you would take, too- just adding another one.

I think you are wrong that it isn’t healthy to feel those feelings that are natural to us when we know we are in the wrong. Those feelings are what cause us to attempt the reconciliation in the first place. The primary value of those feelings to ourselves, to Joe and to society in general is that we try not to repeat the behavior that causes them. You don’t beat yourself up if you fail because you consider forgiveness from your imagined god more important than forgiveness from the actual Joe. You circumvent the purpose of those feelings which I suspect you’d regard as god-given.


I swear on every expletive in your response that I honestly believe I can be reconciled with God. How do you plan to test my honesty?

I’m quite sure that you have the capability to imagine a god and then to imagine you are reconciled. Do you have the honesty to know that what you imagine can be and often is in error? If your imagination were in error, how could you know it? Do you suppose you’d feel different? Aren’t those feelings though internally generated by you?


Why would my imagined God be small? The God I'm imagining is the uncaused first cause, the omnipotent ruler of the Universe.

He would be small compared to an actual god if he managed to fit entirely within your head and imagination.

Is this an admission though that this god you imagine is not THE god but only a thing imagined? Is this an admission that the only god you have ever interacted with is this same thing you’ve only imagined? If your imagination were in error, how would you know? How would you know your imagination isn’t completely in error?


And while I thank you for crediting me with the invention of my God, I can't take credit. My church is 2000 years old. Somebody must have prior art.

Actually no, your imagined god will die with you. The biblical descriptions of someone else’s imagined god, will last awhile though. Perhaps you should write yours down? Perhaps you already imagine god to be different than the biblical description. Just one other point, a description of a god is not an actual god either.

The science of men is nearly as old as man. Do you think I’d be impressed that your churches childish fantasies have survived when we both know how much men love to imagine themselves to be more important than they actually are? I suspect it will last thousands of years more unless we learn to teach our children the difference between what we know and what we only imagine.

[WWJD4aKlondikeBar]

So a hypothetical sociopath sets up a special suicide kit at home and then goes out on a rampage; stealing, killing, raping, robbing, burning and generally trying to hit all seven deadly sins in one day. Then he gets home before the cops/FBI/army are onto him and sets about his suicide kit. He takes some halucanogens and sodium penathol (sp?) and under that influence he sincerely reads his pre-arranged script begging God for forgiveness. Wouldn't it piss you off to be standing in Heaven next to him? :angel:

[Doug Shaver]

It is not a presumption at all.

God's nonexistence might be an inference for you, but if I don't accept it, you are being presumptuous if you accuse me of incoherence for believing something inconsistent with it.

[steamer]

God's nonexistence might be an inference for you, but if I don't accept it, you are being presumptuous if you accuse me of incoherence for believing something inconsistent with it.

Have you read any of this thread? I'm not even arguing god's existence. My argument in this thread stands whether any god's happen to exist outside of the imagininations of men or not.

[llamaluvr]

Feelings are always subjective and I’d imagine that going to confession changes those feelings of guilt or remorse. Does it? If not, why would you bother?

Most people, including us rational atheist, usually are more rationalizing than rational when we have wronged someone. Admitting you've wronged someone in confession is at least an admission that you are aware that you've done something wrong. Most of us, I think, don't get that far and religion actually might have a beneficial effect in that way.

The problem with religions though is they also offer an artificial way of changing those unpleasant feelings we get when we know we have acted badly. In the secular world, the only way to change those feelings is to endure them until they fade, or to actually try and make things right with Joe. I’m sure I don’t have to list the many advantages of an actual reconciliation with Joe which are not gained by the counterfeit forgiveness of an imagined god.

Feeling forgiven by a god you only imagine is akin to having sex with a woman you only imagine. The fantasy only provides some of the benefits of the reality. Fortunately though, women are known to exist outside of ones imagination.

Mileage will vary depending on the person, but...I honestly have been so much better about apologising to people ever since I abandoned Protestantism for Catholicism. I guess you could say I have a healthy dose of "Catholic guilt." I still mess up and need to ask for forgiveness, but, because I'm much more concerned about my actions, I feel much more of an honus to make things right. And, if I ignore that honus, I'm pretty sure that I'm sinning mortally, so that obviously makes it that much more imparative that I make things right- failing to do so would be a sin of omission.

I feel both a stronger pull towards reconciling with man and with God as a result of my religion, because, in my religion, the stakes are quite high for failing to do good- there is no way for me to ignore the call for peace among men and not forfeit my salvation.


I think you are wrong that it isn’t healthy to feel those feelings that are natural to us when we know we are in the wrong. Those feelings are what cause us to attempt the reconciliation in the first place. The primary value of those feelings to ourselves, to Joe and to society in general is that we try not to repeat the behavior that causes them. You don’t beat yourself up if you fail because you consider forgiveness from your imagined god more important than forgiveness from the actual Joe. You circumvent the purpose of those feelings which I suspect you’d regard as god-given.

It's very healthy to feel like you should seek reconciliation. I'm saying that it's not healthy to get yourself down if you honestly seek reconciliation and the other party tells you to shove off. Sure, you can mourn the loss of the friendship, but don't mourn your efforts if they were solid.

The thing about human forgiveness is that it is fallible. Joe might not forgive you when he should, or he might forgive you for things he shouldn't (for instance, wrongs against others). Or he might insinuate that his forgiveness is more important than it really is. Joe's forgiveness is important, but our lives cannot revolve around Joe's approval.

[Johnny Skeptic]

I feel both a stronger pull towards reconciling with man and with God as a result of my religion, because, in my religion, the stakes are quite high for failing to do good - there is no way for me to ignore the call for peace among men and not forfeit my salvation.

Are you making a case for Pascal's Wager, which is built upon threats? Actually, it is impossible for decent people to accept the God of the Bible because of his frequently poor character. If you wish to debate this issue, I will start a new thread that will be titled 'God has poor character'.

[steamer]

Mileage will vary depending on the person, but...I honestly have been so much better about apologising to people ever since I abandoned Protestantism for Catholicism. I guess you could say I have a healthy dose of "Catholic guilt."

Your actions in the real world are commendable. Catholic guilt in my understanding is often only an additional and unnecessary burden caused more often by imagined rather than real causes. A Catholic friend of mine told me a story about how he ate an M&M he found in the back seat at a time when he was supposed to be fasting. Whatever the ceremony was, he failed to mention having broken his fast and suffered the guilt of that for years. I never really understood why he didn’t just imagine a god forgave him since he only imagined a god was offended.


I still mess up and need to ask for forgiveness, but, because I'm much more concerned about my actions, I feel much more of an honus to make things right. And, if I ignore that honus, I'm pretty sure that I'm sinning mortally, so that obviously makes it that much more imparative that I make things right- failing to do so would be a sin of omission.

I think this is why you are comfortable posting in this thread while the other Christians that visited were not. In your mind it seems at least equally important that you seek forgiveness from god and from Joe because not seeking forgiveness also offends the god you imagine. I think many other Christians feel that the forgiveness of men is so vastly unimportant compared to the imagined forgiveness of their imagined god that once they feel they’ve imagined their god has forgiven them, actual forgiveness from Joe is insignificant and of little value. Do you suppose you would seek forgiveness from Joe even without imagining that god is offended?

It is also a tendency of men though to convince themselves they weren’t wrong at all; that their offences weren’t really intended to be hurtful. Do you think fear of god is likely to increase the tendency towards rationalization? Does the god business cause even minor offences to seem like a much bigger problem than they actually are? Does this turn a little guilt into a lot of unnecessary and valueless guilt like my friend whose only real world offence was lying about eating an M&M?

In the secular world, wronging someone often feels bad and we don’t like the feeling. I suspect this developed because men have always lived in groups, but that’s another thread. We recognize how much more likely Joe is to wrong us in the future and how he may wrong others especially those close to us. We become wary of Joe. Our local society is less safe and our general anxiety is increased. In the end, it is often easier to make amends than to endure the consequences. It is a natural thing to want to feel good.


I feel both a stronger pull towards reconciling with man and with God as a result of my religion, because, in my religion, the stakes are quite high for failing to do good- there is no way for me to ignore the call for peace among men and not forfeit my salvation.

I’m unsure why you think you would fail to do good were it not for your religion. It appears to me that men have evolved to feel badly about wronging others and it seems that those near-universal, evolved feelings are the only way we really know what wronging another even means.


It's very healthy to feel like you should seek reconciliation. I'm saying that it's not healthy to get yourself down if you honestly seek reconciliation and the other party tells you to shove off. Sure, you can mourn the loss of the friendship, but don't mourn your efforts if they were solid.

Imagination can cause us to have feelings. It is one of the reasons that imagination is so useful. It allows us to know how we would feel if we acted certain ways without actually having to act them. In truth, I could probably get over the feelings caused by wronging someone by merely imagining them away. If I do nothing the feelings will fade over time, but if I do nothing then I lose all benefit and am left with only consequence.


The thing about human forgiveness is that it is fallible. Joe might not forgive you when he should, or he might forgive you for things he shouldn't (for instance, wrongs against others). Or he might insinuate that his forgiveness is more important than it really is. Joe's forgiveness is important, but our lives cannot revolve around Joe's approval.

Nor should they, but I’m sure you will have noticed that your feelings change on the attempted reconciliation regardless of the outcome.

[llamaluvr]

Your actions in the real world are commendable. Catholic guilt in my understanding is often only an additional and unnecessary burden caused more often by imagined rather than real causes. A Catholic friend of mine told me a story about how he ate an M&M he found in the back seat at a time when he was supposed to be fasting. Whatever the ceremony was, he failed to mention having broken his fast and suffered the guilt of that for years. I never really understood why he didn’t just imagine a god forgave him since he only imagined a god was offended.

I think your friend took it a bit to the extreme. If it was a somewhat involuntary action (ie, he saw an M&M and didn't even think about it), he wouldn't have had the awareness of the act for it to be a grave sin, the sin which causes santifying grace to withdrawl. Even if he was fully aware, I'm not sure that, of any of the required Catholic fasts (of which there are very few), if breaking any even represents grave matter.


I think this is why you are comfortable posting in this thread while the other Christians that visited were not. In your mind it seems at least equally important that you seek forgiveness from god and from Joe because not seeking forgiveness also offends the god you imagine. I think many other Christians feel that the forgiveness of men is so vastly unimportant compared to the imagined forgiveness of their imagined god that once they feel they’ve imagined their god has forgiven them, actual forgiveness from Joe is insignificant and of little value. Do you suppose you would seek forgiveness from Joe even without imagining that god is offended?

Depends. Judging based on how I was before I was Catholic, I would defintely seek forgiveness from Joe if I felt the relationship was at some risk of being damaged, even if only a little, or if it was a serious matter, even if I wasn't friends with him. But now I find myself trying to reconcile even on small matters where I feel I offended, at risk of slight embarassment due to the other party not taking offense- party out of obligation to divine law, partly due to actually wanting to represent my God well. The latter has especially become important, because I feel like there's extra scrutiny upon Catholics in this regard.


It is also a tendency of men though to convince themselves they weren’t wrong at all; that their offences weren’t really intended to be hurtful. Do you think fear of god is likely to increase the tendency towards rationalization? Does the god business cause even minor offences to seem like a much bigger problem than they actually are? Does this turn a little guilt into a lot of unnecessary and valueless guilt like my friend whose only real world offence was lying about eating an M&M?

I think the rationalization of one's action is pretty much universal across religious lines. Nobody ever wants to be wrong in anyone's eyes, and many folks will do all sorts of moral contortions to keep it that way.


I’m unsure why you think you would fail to do good were it not for your religion. It appears to me that men have evolved to feel badly about wronging others and it seems that those near-universal, evolved feelings are the only way we really know what wronging another even means.

I believe there is something intrinsic about the universe that makes some things good and some things bad. I'm not even talking about divine revelation, but natural law. Through reason we can understand things to be good or bad, but that reasoning is hollow without it reflecting actual reason and order, and not merely preferences. Sure, murder is bad, but why were things set up such that it was bad? Why would the idea that murder is a righteous act that sets the victim free into some euphoric state of being be so absurd to most? That's why religion is important to morality- we need the logos so that we don't just have a natural law we arbitrarily can understand, but one is backed up in nature itself.

More specifically, it's not just any religion. There's plenty of Christian traditions that do not really that big of an emphasis on reconciliation. As a non-Catholic Christian, I think I was pretty good at reconciling. But as a Catholic, my past self has been exposed as someone who was pretty pitiful at that, because it is a system that strongly emphasizes that those actions are non-negotiable manifestations of being Christian.


Are you making a case for Pascal's Wager, which is built upon threats?
No, not really. Someone who chooses to partake in a full sacramental life in the Church yet conciously does not want to believe will be in mortal sin for as long as he doesn't confess his disdain for God. Even if he does confess it, inasmuch as he persists consiously in this he will be sinning even still. Even looking at simply what we know of the economy of salvation, I have a hard time seeing a situation where God will not honor such a man's wishes to not be united with him.

[Biff the unclean]

When I first arrived in this country a friend of the family took me to see Mary Martin in Peter Pan. In the scene where Tinker Bell was dying and Peter told us all to clap our hands to save her I was too self-conscious to do so.
My guilt over not saving Tink sat on me like a stone

30 something years later I bumped into Ms Martin at the Rainbow Room in Rockefeller Center and made my apologies for my willingness to let poor Tinker Bell die. She looked me up and down and said “Catholic huh?” I rolled my eyes “That’s okay,” she said, “I hear this all the time. All is forgiven.”

I’ve felt better ever since.