The reality is is that forgiving is an internal action which heals you more so than anyone else. Carrying hatred inside is like holding onto cancer without seeking treatment.
Love Of Our Neighbour
- Thread starter sanctus
- Start date
The reality is is that forgiving is an internal action which heals you more so than anyone else. Carrying hatred inside is like holding onto cancer without seeking treatment.
That's very true. Harbouring any negative thought inside causes that thought to grow and become a part of one's state of being.
The expectations of individuals to individuals and society have been covered many times. What now needs to be covered and long overdue is the collective's code of conduct to individuals, and the repercussions to it for this entity's chosen actions.
Indeed, how is the collective to treat it's "neighbour" the individual, and what is to serve as a threat for disobedience? Because there is no definition in savioral terms for the souless entity, is the Church simply to ignore what it does.? What if the collective doesn't oblige? Is God going to unleash the maximum He can muster for punishment of this arrogant obstinate entity, .....earthly smiting? Does confidence that it doesn't fall into the redemption category allow it to go on and do it's injustice at will? What hellistic knuckle wracking does it expect to receive for bad conduct? Should individuals take heart in confidence without evidence that God will one "take care of them" as well.?
It is not enough that we abide by a code and can count on a heavenly award for righteous conduct. In the spirit of neighbourly love, we also care that justice is being metted out evenly and fairly to all entities that can choose. It is not completely satisying that we "made it" to heaven while aware some on earth are never destined to receive their due.
The heavenly wait their appointment with God to ask Him why, if the individual's sin is so severe, that the sin of this entity never merits the same punishment, all factors remaining equal?
I suppose we could carry this into our earthly lives. We could forget about the imbalance of one race getting the chair, as long as we keep our noses clean. We should concern ourselves with just the righteous neighbours, and ignore the crys of the sentenced who claim others got lessor sentences for the same crimes. After all we are fallible. Only if it were possible to have an infallible earthly justice would we not see such things occuring.........or would we by which higher standard.?
So we will go on cross checking each other for conformity, but we all know deep in our hearts we would like to be like another entity that gets away with everything, that is who we look up to and for sure we should emulate all entities that have God's favor.
AndyF
Indeed, how is the collective to treat it's "neighbour" the individual, and what is to serve as a threat for disobedience? Because there is no definition in savioral terms for the souless entity, is the Church simply to ignore what it does.? What if the collective doesn't oblige? Is God going to unleash the maximum He can muster for punishment of this arrogant obstinate entity, .....earthly smiting? Does confidence that it doesn't fall into the redemption category allow it to go on and do it's injustice at will? What hellistic knuckle wracking does it expect to receive for bad conduct? Should individuals take heart in confidence without evidence that God will one "take care of them" as well.?
It is not enough that we abide by a code and can count on a heavenly award for righteous conduct. In the spirit of neighbourly love, we also care that justice is being metted out evenly and fairly to all entities that can choose. It is not completely satisying that we "made it" to heaven while aware some on earth are never destined to receive their due.
The heavenly wait their appointment with God to ask Him why, if the individual's sin is so severe, that the sin of this entity never merits the same punishment, all factors remaining equal?
I suppose we could carry this into our earthly lives. We could forget about the imbalance of one race getting the chair, as long as we keep our noses clean. We should concern ourselves with just the righteous neighbours, and ignore the crys of the sentenced who claim others got lessor sentences for the same crimes. After all we are fallible. Only if it were possible to have an infallible earthly justice would we not see such things occuring.........or would we by which higher standard.?
So we will go on cross checking each other for conformity, but we all know deep in our hearts we would like to be like another entity that gets away with everything, that is who we look up to and for sure we should emulate all entities that have God's favor.
AndyF
Andy Ive reread your post 3 times now and I dont get it......Are you talking about "sinners" being forgiven while the "rightous" Behave and "do the work" Isnt there some story about the prodigal son or some such?
Sorry..... when I had posted that it was in reply to posts back on page 9 or before.... didn't realize that I was not to the end yet. It was just an observation on how a thread about love and forgivness could turn to talking about the death penalty....basically revenge killing.
I'm talking about favoritism and degrees of "bad" depending on who does the sin. The prodgical son is again comparing the interaction of individuals with individuals. It is time now to step in the arena of people and nations.
Would you feel it just if you burned forever for a crime that you did, if a collective also committed that crime but got off with a lesser sentence just because they ARE a collective? Would you feel it just if your daughter was executed for a crime that collectives got away with impunity?
What does that say about the judgement to you.? You would rightly conclude that the measure of severity is not has serious as the sentence portrays, because the judge gave a lessor sentence to someone else. It would question God's statement that His love for us is the maximum that is possible to give. You would conclude that it is a love to a degree somewhat less than a sinning collective's, therefore not a total love to you. Total love would be reserved to he/it that is in His maximum favor, proven by His maximum mercy He can bestow on an entity. So what is the truth that the Church is telling us?. Either God is emposing the maximum sentence for the maximum grievence no exceptions, or, depending who is sinning it could be not all that grave.
If the "other" entity was sinning at least as grave as individuals, then at least some of them would be in hell en masse in the form they have chose to commit the sin, and to this day none are there.
AndyF
A fair question and something I am trying to resolve within myself.
The Church has a strange attitude toward societies. It would like that it were an abstract entity because of it's favoritism and bad influence to individuals. Individuals are to take no more than mild notice as to it's character similarities to individuals. Headlines or decisions concerning it should never be studied in context of Church teachings, or should never be given more than brief study, nor pressed to be acted on. Every once in a while someone would say "how come" in making comparisons with God and societies. Every once and a while the Church finds it necessary to make some comment on it's behaviour, so we know it exists and is a form recognizable by God.
I think that evidence so far is insufficient to verify if justice is metted to collectives fairly. This alone should satisfy, but in the universal theories of justice, there is something wrong with this statement right away. In true justice nothing is taken for granted, and as it deals with God everything needs to be. So I think it's not Just that we need to wait for the next life to find out if it is/was fair.
It supposes that the workings of justice can be hidden from those it is being applied to, which is a scary thought. It supposes that there are no inalienable rights. It supposes that beings are born into a world where a judge exists that doubles as a mediator, and judging takes place in a celestial establishment where conflict of interest cannot take place, which itself is not a proper environment to discuss opposing views or cases. It should be a neutral one where there exists a possibility that any side could lose, and persuassion is a possibility. If it is true that there is a double standard in judgements then that is a scary scenerio and we are indeed in a predicament.
If we take on the pschological veil of trust so as to cope in this predicament, (which to a great majority unknown to them is resignment to fate, not trust), and then in the afterlife they discover they passed, they are still within the environ of a supreme being who deems it just to double standard. Regardless of what destination we find ourselves, if there is one and we find ourselves in heaven, we are bound by that universal Good to come to the defense of those in hell. If we are in hell we have the inallienable right to have this double standard explained to a universal audience.
It gets even more concerning when you discover reprobation. (newadvent.org/predestination)
So all these inferances are interesting to contemplate. But to your question, the jury is out waiting evidence.
AndyF
I
In my Belief System our lives are Soul Work. We chose to be in this body and in this life. Each life we learn about one thing or another........my life Im learning about forgiveness and victomhood and self worth. Its alot to work on but Ive seen bits of the other side of the veil so its very worth it. Justice is as you see it, your peception. I used to hat my step because I felt so hurt by what he did to mre. The second I gave my forgiveness and meant it I saw the justice that he had to live with.........he's an old sad man and will die knowing he killed a small child (me).
I hope that helps your conundrum between you and your god.
Namaste
Tam
I hope that helps your conundrum between you and your god.
Namaste
Tam
Well sanctus, somehow I missed seeing that in my routine cruising around in threads I've posted in. There is much I don't agree with you on, as you well know, but when you're right, you're right, and I think everything's right in those two paragraphs. I've several times held you up as an example of how to be both religious and reasonable, notably to snfu73 in this thread and westmanguy in another one where he asked, in essence, how to debate people like me. The central message of Christianity it seems to me, as I've said before, is acceptance, tolerance, inclusiveness, and forgiveness, and that makes good sense regardless of your religious beliefs. Would that there were more priests who understand that.
dont you think that more priests are like that? i find that catholic priests are more open than say pentecostal ministers. the cult my dad went into pretty well condemned everybody to hell on a regular basis, which was pretty freaky to be honest with you.
how do you choose according to your belief system? i mean, if youre choosing, right, where are you when youre doing this choosing????
well, thats kinda normal for this forum
especially in the religious threads cos all the antichristians rush in to post the minute any of us post anything religious. and youll find they pretty much same the same thing in every post on every thread. guess they figure if they write it enough well all change our minds about god...hah hah hah hah
I agree, with one exception. The Christian teachings are exclusive, not inclusive. That is one of the features of the faith that is disquieting to some.
I meant the Church is inclusive in the sense that it'll welcome anybody who comes to it sincerely, it doesn't exclude people on irrelevant grounds, like the group that excluded my mother essentially because her style of dress wasn't dowdy enough for some uptight elders.
Oh sure, I didn't mean to imply sanctus is the only one, I've known several such priests. I meant only that there aren't enough of them. I've also known some serious hellfire and brimstone types that I didn't think were good for anybody, but as you implicitly suggested, they were fundamentalists of the worst sort, not catholics.