Sin and Forgiveness

don · 06-04-09 7:38 am

Recently a dialogue, here at atomorrow, took place regarding "sin": <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=14&post=5459#POST5459" target="_blank">http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?t pc=14&post=5459#POST5459</a> I guess I have always assumed that "sin" exists. It comes as an interesting point that agnostics and atheists resist using the term. So what is used instead? Certainly the agnostic/atheist has a moral code; i.e. some behaviors are commendable and others are despicable. What is the standard? Then, if the standard has been violated, what about forgiveness? ___________________________________ Some Reading Myth: Atheists and the Atheistic World View Don't Allow for Forgiveness at: <a href="http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheistsmorals/a/AtheistsForgive.htm" target="_blank">http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheistsmorals/ a/AtheistsForgive.htm</a> The sunflower By Simon Wiesenthal, Harry J. Cargas, Bonny V. Fetterman <a href="http://books.google.ca/books?id=XH8o60oj8bkC&pgis=1" target="_blank">http://books.google.ca/books?id=XH8o60oj8bkC&pgis= 1</a> Wiesenthal relates a troubling encounter with a Nazi soldier asking his forgiveness. The book presents various points of view on his reaction to this soldier. Cultivating a Forgiving Heart By Denise George <a href="http://books.google.ca/books?id=0bxZw0t-QmcC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0" target="_blank">http://books.google.ca/books?id=0bxZw0t-QmcC&print sec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0</a> This book, from a theist's viewpoint, provides case studies and discussion questions regarding forgiveness. Biblical word study for the Greek term "forgive". <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G863&t=KJV" target="_blank">http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexico n.cfm?Strongs=G863&t=KJV</a> ___________________________________ The stories in the links above tell of very troubling behavior and examine the role of forgiveness. Jesus taught about forgiveness. It is essential to Christian thinking. In the first article link above, an atheists affirms the importance of forgiveness. Is forgiveness something that all humanity values? Are there any differences between theistic forgiveness and non-theistic forgiveness? If so, what is that difference? .

neal · 06-04-09 10:01 am

It comes as an interesting point that agnostics and atheists resist using the term [sin]. Why would you think a nonbeliever would even think of a wrong act as being a sin? A "sin" refers to a god and what the person who believes in that god subjectively decides that that god wants. You don't sin against the government, but against a god. Is going one mile per hour over the speed limit a sin? Its against the law but do you ask for forgiveness from the government and plead for mercy over a speeding ticket or do you pray for forgiveness of a sin against God? A person tends to ask for mercy/forgiveness from the person[s] they have wronged. If they have wronged a person, they say they are sorry to that person. If they have broken a government law, they, or their attorney, begs for forgiveness/mercy from court authorized to by the state to prosecute that law. If a person feels they are subject to a god they would ask forgiveness from that god via a prayer or sacrifice offering or whatever is customary in their belief system. In a social civilization holding grudges and not forgiving is looked down on. This has nothing to do with whether the acts are sins to a believer or just an impolite act or the breaking of a speed limit. The difficulty in modern society is when a person, or group of people, decide that the civil laws are contrary to their deity's Will. Some muslim extremists feel that killing infidels is Allah's Will. They applauded the destruction of the World Trade Center. Another example would be Roeder's assassination of Dr. Tiller. Mr. Roeder subjectively decided that he would be doing God's Will by killing what he felt was a murderer in his God's eye. A nonbeliever would try to get the law changed but would not break the law by killing. A believer feels there is some higher law above the state law. Also, in the recent case from Brazil where the incestuous rape resulted in a pregnancy and subsequent abortion, the RCC excommunicated those involved in the abortion. The church claimed that God's Law trumps civil law. That is dangerous to society. A hypothetical that Hitchens used in the recent debate was about lying. Let's say that a neighbor woman comes banging on your door. She is visibly beaten and bloody. You let her in because she is trying to get to safety from her abusive husband. Shortly thereafter the husband bangs on the door looking for his wife, asking if she is there. Do you sin by breaking one of the Ten C's or not? Or, if you are a muslim, do you give the property (wife) back to the husband as it is legal under sharia law to beat your wife?

neal · 06-04-09 10:03 am

Forgiveness: <blockquote>To be wronged is nothing unless you continue to remember it.</blockquote><blockquote>Confucius</blockquote>

neal · 06-04-09 10:26 am

SIN<blockquote>Sin is a term used mainly in a religious context to describe an act that violates a moral rule, or the state of having committed such a violation. Commonly, the moral code of conduct is decreed by a divine entity, i.e. Divine law.</blockquote> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin" target=_top>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin</a>

don · 06-04-09 11:19 am

Sin is a term used mainly in a religious context It is useful to acknowledge this as the definition in our discussions. However, there are other uses of the term "sin" which do not relate to a deity:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:2. An offense, in general; a violation of propriety; a misdemeanor; as, a sin against good manners. ----- 3. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong. ----- 2. any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle. 3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time. <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sin" target=_top>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sin</a><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Note Proverbs 13:6: "Righteousness keepeth him that is upright in the way: but wickedness overthroweth the sinner." Notice that, according to this verse, a belief in God is not necessary for the "sinner" to suffer the consequences of his actions. It is the wickedness of the sinner that overthrows him. Other related terms: Wickedness, Iniquity, Evil, Perverse action, Depraved action, etc. Summary Note: It seems that the agnostic/atheist wants nothing to do with anything associated with a theistic worldview even if there exists a valid overlap of concept usage. .

neal · 06-04-09 12:30 pm

2. An offense, in general; a violation of propriety; a misdemeanor; as, a sin against good manners. I would consider the use of the term "sin", in a literal sense, as an act that can be shown from a sacred text to be against some god. Use of the term 'sin' in other instances are of a metaphorical nature. For instance, a fashion "sin" would be committed against the "fashion gods", etc.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:All The Cut Posts Tagged: fashion gods<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <blockquote><a href="http://nymag.com/tags/cut/fashion%20gods" target=_top>http://nymag.com/tags/cut/fashion%20gods</a></blockquote> <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Posted on 05.14.09 to fashion by Jason Know your Fashion Gods: Steven Meisel, The Imagist<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <blockquote><a href="http://www.jasoncarpio.com/obsessive/2009/05/know-your-fashion-gods-steven-meisel-the-imagist/" target=_top>http://www.jasoncarpio.com/obsessive/2009/05/know- your-fashion-gods-steven-meisel-the-imagist/</a></blockquote> <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Fashion Gods Descend on Island of the Gods Cliffside Bali Resort Features Spa, Fashionistas and Extremely Private Grounds<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <blockquote><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/BusinessTravel/story?id=4355627&page=1" target=_top>http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/BusinessTravel/story? id=4355627&page=1</a></blockquote> So, you have fashion gods, then you have fashion "sins" against those "gods":<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Choose the absolutely worst fashion sin a man could commit By Olga Davydova Posted 22 July, 2007 in Polls On Friday I put together my own version of men's seven deadly fashion sins.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <blockquote><a href="http://www.fashionablycute.net/choose-the-absolutely-worst-fashion-sin-a-man-could-commit/" target=_top>http://www.fashionablycute.net/choose-the-absolute ly-worst-fashion-sin-a-man-could-commit/</a></blockquote> I think you probably get the idea. It seems that the agnostic/atheist wants nothing to do with anything associated with a theistic worldview even if there exists a valid overlap of concept usage. It seems to me that theists want nothing to do with acknowledging that ethics and morality seems to exist among monkeys, apes, and other animals without any sign that they have any theistic beliefs motivating their behavior. The idea that some things are 'right' and some things are 'wrong' are not dependent on a guy in a suit or funny hat or silly robe getting up and reading a dusty book. Morals existed before humans invented religion. Its the theists that claim you can't be moral without their particular diety's set of rules.

neal · 06-04-09 12:35 pm

Steven Weinberg:<blockquote>"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."</blockquote>

neal · 06-04-09 12:49 pm

It seems that the agnostic/atheist wants nothing to do with anything associated with a theistic worldview even if there exists a valid overlap of concept usage. To me, that's like requiring Christians to acknowledge the Lunar God Sin, the origin of the semitic term. Sin, lunar, menses, menstrual, lunacy, lunatic, etc. Abraham came from Ur, right? They have excavated a huge temple dedicated to Sin (the God of Abram). I no more wish to refer to the ancient deity Sin as I would wish to think that doing something I felt was wrong for ME to do is a SIN of the judeo/christian reference against Yahweh/Jehovah/El Elyon/El/Jesus/Yeshua/Joshua/Holy Spirit etc ad infinitum.

neal · 06-04-09 1:02 pm

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Archeological discoveries from the time of Abraham paint a vivid picture of the religious life of Mesopotamia. Its inhabitants were polytheists who believed in a pantheon, in which each god had a sphere of influence. The large temple dedicated to the Akkadian[10] moon god, Sin, was the main centre of Ur. Haran also had the moon as the central godhead. This temple was believed to be the physical home of God. The chief god of the temple was a wooden idol with additional idols, or ‘gods’, to serve him.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <blockquote><a href="http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/293/" target=_top>http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/293/</a></blockquote> <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/13/1377.jpg" alt=""> <blockquote>The Great Ziggurat of Ur, the temple of moon god Nanna, also known as Sin. Shot in 2004, the photograph is courtesy of Lasse Jensen.</blockquote>

elaine · 06-04-09 4:10 pm

Neal has done an excellent job of explaining the difference between sin (a religious term) and wrong-doing, which depends on the society in which one lives: what is "wrong" in one society may or may not be wrong in another. Think of Afghanistan and some of the other Middle Eastern nations where their morals are certainly not Western ones. Here are some comparisons with ancient cultures: A Belief in Sin Believing that the gods had given them all they had, the Sumerians (ca. 4000 B.C.) saw the intentions of their gods as good. Believing that their gods had great powers and controlled their world, they needed an explanation for their hardships and misfortunes. They concluded that their hardships and misfortunes were the result of human deeds that displeased the gods -- in a word, sin. They believed that when someone displeased their gods, these gods let demons punish the offender with sickness, disease or environmental disasters. The Sumerians experienced infrequent rains that sometimes created disastrous floods, and they believed that these floods were punishments created by a demon god that lived in the depths of the Gulf of Persia. And to explain the misfortunes and suffering of infants, the Sumerians believed that sin was inborn, that never was a child born without sin. Therefore, wrote a Sumerian, when one suffered it was best not to curse the gods but to glorify them, to appeal to them, and to wait patiently for their deliverance

elaine · 06-04-09 4:20 pm

Chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead (Egypt) deals with the judgment before the god of the underworld, Osiris. It is very useful to our understanding of what was and what was not acceptable behavior. The text includes two declarations of innocence in which the deceased denies having committed various crimes. These include some very generalized statements, such as "I have done no injustice to people, nor have I maltreated an animal" or "I have done no wrong (isfet)", but it also records some very specific faults: Crimes of a cultic nature: blasphemy, stealing from temple offerings or offerings to the dead, defiling the purity of a sacred place Crimes of an economic nature: tampering with the grain measure, the boundaries of fields, or the plummet of the balance Criminal acts: theft and murder Exploitation of the weak and causing injury: depriving orphans of their property, causing pain or grief, doing injury, causing hunger Moral and social failings: lying, committing adultery, ignoring the truth, slandering servants before their master, being aggressive, eavesdropping, losing one's temper, speaking without thinking. It has been said that the modern Christian Bible can be summed up in two sentences. Love God. Love your neighbor. Clearly these standards are not new to that text. (Compare later biblical statements.) For the Greeks, the worst crime was hubris. It covered a multitude of bad behaviors. All cultures of which we have any records had rules of conduct and punishments. Calling it sin changes only the association connected with a particular religious belief: monotheism, which came later than these other cultures. No society functions in isolation, borrowing from others and being influenced by those around them.

elaine · 06-04-09 4:48 pm

According to the Bible, sin and animal sacrifices are tied together: the first requires the second. Even after Adam and Eve sinned, they were given coverings of skin; if not animal, what else? When Cain and Abel offered sacrifices, only an animal was accepted. Why? There is no explanation given as to why one was accepted and the other one was not. Limiting one's knowledge to the one ancient myth of beginnings found in the Hebrew stories, it becomes the only one that is true and relevant. However, when comparing those Bible stories with those of cultures both before and contemporary, they all have amazing similarities: giants, monsters, heroes who overcame great obstacles; and female temptresses, great floods and how the heroes prevailed. Some destroyed great buildings (Samson?) killed giants (David?) and others comparable to those found in the Bible, especially Judges. The more one reads, studies, and compares early historical tales of origins, the more one realizes that none ever originated in exclusion; they are all interwined and to claim only one can be true, regardless of the improbabilities, only declares the naivete.

don · 06-04-09 5:13 pm

What about forgiveness? What role does forgiveness play in the life of the agnostic/atheist?

john8verse32 · 06-04-09 5:19 pm

Cain and Abel offered sacrifices, only an animal was accepted. Why? maybe because this was stone age ancient hunter-gatherer/ nomads way of telling their children that due to climate and geography, the herding of animals would prevail (kill off) the stationary raising of crops.... ie, the gods didn't smile on crops... the weather gods did honor the concept of hunting and raising animals in nomadic fashion. only after irrigation was invented did static farming become practical, and then only along the year round big rivers. The silly thing is our ancestor goat herders claimed their God "called" olde Abe.... and told him to leave a well watered land near harran, Turkey, and move to a desert!!! then later, when drought threatened this God's favorite tribe, this God didn't help them overcome the drought, but "led" them via the Joseph tale to survive along another great river. Where later their story would include the borrowed tale of babies rafting rivers in reed baskets to glorify a great leader in their family history. Then this God tells them to go retake the land they had left, ethnically cleanse and kill all the people who had stayed there and made the land work. And he commanded them to "use" the local virgins in the process to unknowingly dilute their genetic uniqueness. it only makes sense as the manipulated, sometimes imagined tale of a small tribe of scientifically ignorant, superstitious peoples in search of their identity, a homeland and a place in history, as they imagined their divinity controlled them and the too often threatened to punish them with disasters in the threatening world around them.

elaine · 06-04-09 7:43 pm

When you have hurt or wronged someone, isn't it always appropriate to apologize, and if they accept your apology as sincere, what more is needed? How easy would it be to forgive if someone murdered your child? I have heard murderers when sentenced to life, have asked for forgiveness. No one can demand forgiveness, and there are instances so terrible, that forgiveness should neither be required or expected. One can gradually live and feel closure but forgiveness is not demanded. Where in the Bible is it demanded that forgiveness be accepted no matter the magnitude of the crime?

don · 06-04-09 8:23 pm

What role does forgiveness play in the life of the agnostic/atheist? After posting this, I went back and read the previous posts and realized that my question has already been answered.

elaine · 06-04-09 8:35 pm

Where is the evidence that Christianity (or any other religious beliefs), is better, kinder or more gracious than those who hold no religious beliefs? Can it be denied that this is not true: "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

don · 06-04-09 9:41 pm

Forgiveness Case Study - The Hatfields and McCoys <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:The Voice of America But first, have you ever heard of the Hatfields and the McCoys? Well, keep listening! Hatfield and McCoy Reunion HOST: One of the best-known family disputes in American history has officially ended. Members of the Hatfield and McCoy families have signed a treaty to end more than one-hundred years of disagreement. Shep O'Neal explains. ANNCR: The dispute between these two families began in the eighteen-sixties. At that time, Randolph McCoy was head of the McCoy family in the southern state of Kentucky. Anderson Hatfield lived with his family across the state border in West Virginia. Each was a farmer. Each had at least thirteen children. History experts are not really sure how the dispute started. Some people say it began over tensions that developed during the American Civil War. Others believe bad feelings developed in eighteen-seventy-three when Randolph McCoy accused Floyd Hatfield of stealing a pig. Floyd Hatfield was later found innocent. But the fairness of the trial was questioned. The dispute between the two families turned violent in eighteen-eighty-two. Three sons of Randolph McCoy shot and killed Anderson Hatfield's younger brother after he insulted one of them. The McCoys were arrested. But this did not satisfy Anderson Hatfield. He kidnapped and killed them as punishment for killing his brother. The McCoy family reacted. At least twelve people were killed during the violence that followed. Fighting between the Hatfields and McCoys ended in nineteen-hundred. Today, members of these two families say they hope any long-term effects of the dispute have ended as well. To celebrate this goodwill, Reo Hatfield proposed a treaty. He said that if the Hatfields and McCoys can settle their differences, other disputing people can as well. So, more than sixty members of the two families signed the treaty on June fourteenth. They gathered in Pikeville, Kentucky, the hometown of the McCoy family. The Hatfields came from Matewan, West Virginia. The governors of Kentucky and West Virginia declared June fourteenth "Hatfield and McCoy Reconciliation Day." The two families have gathered on this day for the past four years to honor their family members and to remember their history together. <a href="http://www.manythings.org/voa/03/030718am_t.htm" target=_top>http://www.manythings.org/voa/03/030718am_t.htm</a> <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>The CBS Report<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Hatfield vs. McCoys The two Appalachian families despised each other in the 1800s. No one really knows how the neighbors and in-laws' feud began, but there are many theories of how it escalated. During the Civil War, the Hatfields, of West Virginia, sided with the Confederates, while the McCoys, of Kentucky, fought on the Union side. The first death in the feud was recorded in 1865. Harmon McCoy, who had been discharged from the Union army because of a broken leg, was killed; no suspects were found. In 1878, an interfamily romance, competition for timber resources and a dispute over a pig created more hard feelings. The McCoys claimed the Hatfield stole a pig. The case went to court where the Hatfields won. Later, a Hatfield boy supposedly romanced and impregnated a McCoy girl. The Hatfield boy was nearly killed and the McCoy had a miscarriage. The families ended the feud in 1891 and shook hands in 1976. Today, the two sides hold an annual Hatfield-McCoy reunion festival to show that there aren't any hard feelings, although a dispute over access to a cemetery led to a court battle in which both sides claimed a partial victory in 2003. In an event broadcast by CBS News' The Saturday Early Show on June 14, 2003, the two families signed a truce stating both sides "do hereby and formally declare an official end to all hostilities, implied, inferred and real, between the families, now and forevermore." The governors of Kentucky and West Virginia proclaimed the day as Hatfield-McCoy Reconciliation Day. <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/48hours/bad_neighbors/feuds_hatcoy.html" target=_top>http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/48hours/bad_neighbor s/feuds_hatcoy.html</a> <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Some Thoughts<ol><li>How do the Hatfields and the McCoys illustrate the role of forgiveness in civil society? <LI>The romance in this story reminds me of Romeo and Juliet. <LI>Does a forgiving attitude take away all disputes? <LI>The feud ended in 1891 and they finally shook hands in 1976? <LI>I wonder what those annual gatherings are like. Do they really have peace? <LI>What effect would the Hatfield-McCoy Reconciliation Day have on the individuals and their sense of forgiveness? <LI>The Hatfields and McCoys may have professed to be Christians. Does Christianity really make a difference in the reconciliation process?</li></ol> .

pilgrim99 · 06-04-09 9:45 pm

Christianity addresses man's sin issue. If one has no sin, then one has no need for Christianity or more specifically, Christ. Christianity is not a social or cultural club for the kind and gentle. I know some Christians who are pretty rough around the edges, who would give Peter, James and John a run for their money. Christ came to save sinners. Among who, I count myself.

don · 06-04-09 9:58 pm

If one has no sin, then one has no need for Christianity or more specifically, Christ. Devon, is this the same as saying: If one has no relationship problems, then one has no need for Christianity or more specifically, Christ. OR Other behavioral difficulties could be inserted such as addictions, perversions, anger-management problems, stealing, murder, adulteries, lying, verbally abusive, mean-spirited posting, etc. etc. etc. I suggest that whether a person wants to call wrong behavior a "sin" or not is a minor concern. The major concerns involve wickedness toward other people. Christ does offer a solution to one's wicked habits or ways. .

pilgrim99 · 06-04-09 10:23 pm

Don, I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying, but I believe that Christ came to restore our broken relationship with God. This relationship was broken as a result of sin.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:But your sinful acts have alienated you from your God; your sins have caused him to reject you and not listen to your prayers. Isaiah 59:2 NET But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear.Isaiah 59:2 NASB But there is a problem––your sins have cut you off from God. Because of your sin, he has turned away and will not listen anymore. Isaiah 59:2 NLT There's nothing wrong with God; the wrong is in you. Your wrongheaded lives caused the split between you and God. Your sins got between you so that he doesn't hear. Isaiah 59:2 The Message<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Broken human relationships are also the result of sin. Once we are reconciled to God, we will begin to reconcile with our fellow humans.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:If anyone says “I love God” and yet hates his fellow Christian, he is a liar, because the one who does not love his fellow Christian whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And the commandment we have from him is this: that the one who loves God should love his fellow Christian too. 1 John4: 20-21 NET<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Grk “his brother.” Here the term “brother” means “fellow believer” or “fellow Christian”... ...In the repeated uses of this form of address throughout the letter, it is important to remember that sometimes it refers (1) to genuine Christians (those who have remained faithful to the apostolic eyewitness testimony about who Jesus is, as outlined in the Prologue to the letter, 1:1-4; an example of this usage is 2:10; 3:14, 16), but often it refers (2) to the secessionist opponents whose views the author rejects (examples are found here at 2:9, as well as 2:11; 3:10; 3:15; 3:17; 4:20). Of course, to be technically accurate, in the latter case the reference is really to a “fellow member of the community”; the use of the term “fellow Christian” in the translation no more implies that such an individual is genuinely saved than the literal term “brother” which the author uses for such people. But a translation like “fellow member of the community” or “fellow member of the congregation” is extremely awkward and simply cannot be employed consistently throughout. NET Translator notes<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

elaine · 06-05-09 12:39 am

The length of the Hatfield McCoy feud is nothing compared to the long-standing hatred between Jews and Arabs, between many tribes extending back more than a thousand years (following Mohamed's death). There are some familial feuds that are so far back in history that the origins are not truly known, only that the two sides are sworn enemies. The Bible relates many stories such as this; except in the OT, the Hebrews told of vanquishing entire nations with never asking forgiveness, nor did their God require it, simply that they should all be killed. The OT is full of violence, so not a very good example of forgiveness, IMO. The NT shows a completely different picture. But the problem arises when Christians try to combine the two testaments with the same god of both. From such a disparate account of God has arisen most of the atheism and agnosticism seen today. Christians have an almost insurmountable task of trying to persuade non-believers to trust in this God. The question is: which one?

don · 06-05-09 7:35 am

Forgiveness Impossible? - Case Study - Parents Circle Families Forum "Strangely I do not aspire to revenge but the possibility that I will be able to forgive or forget our family tragedy does not exist. On the other hand I feel that we are obligated (however difficult it may be) to remove from the public discourse the mutual hatred, produced by the crimes we have committed against each other, so that we can try to prevent further bereavement and make conciliation a possibility." Highlights: The author, a Jewish woman, lost her mother in an explosion ordered by Arafat. She joins the Forum of Israeli-Palestinian bereaved families for Peace. She relates the symbolic giving of blood; Palestinians give blood at a Jewsih clinic. Jews give blood at a Palestinian clinic. She describes meeting Arafat, the man who ordered the attack that killed her mother. She shook his hand; not because of forgiveness but as a desire to stop the blood shed.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Nir Yesod At the top of the steps that lead down from Misgav Am to Ramallah (written in the autumn of 2002) Misgav Am is in a pastoral area overlooking southern Lebanon and the Hermon and spread out below is the Huleh Valley. The view is spectacular. Occasionally the quiet is disturbed. I grew up there during the seventies and eighties in a reality in which war was no stranger. The kibbutz was often attacked by a barrage of Katyushas fired by the PLO from their bases in southern Lebanon. Then, in the dead of night, sleepy and barefoot, covered by a blanket we would run to the shelters. I was in the second grade when Zahal entered Lebanon for the first time (Operation Litany), and consequently, for two weeks we lived underground. In the shelter we studied, ate, played and slept. We were not allowed to put even our noses outside. This insane reality has not changed. On the last day of Pesach in April 1980 5 members of the “the Arab Front for the Liberation of Palestine” infiltrated the kibbutz and gained control of the building housing the babies. They immediately murdered Sammy Shani, the kibbutz secretary, and the baby Eyal Gluska. After many, long hours and after a battle in which Eldad Zafrir of the Golani commando unit was killed and many others were wounded, Zahal managed to release the hostages. The feeling that Misgav-Am was impenetrable was replaced by constant fear. A little more than a year later another catastrophe struck, this time in my family. In the early hours of the 20th July 1981, one of the days later known as the 10-day battle, after having spent several days in the shelter my mother went out to take a shower before work. A salvo of katyushas fired by the PLO from Lebanon towards Misgav Am caught her at the entrance of our house, one step away from the entrance. The shelter shook. Only a few meters separate the room I slept in and my parents’ room. My mother slept with me in the shelter and for some reason she decided to get up and go to work that day. The kibbutz was almost completely paralyzed in those days and only a few went to fulfill emergency duties. She was not among the few but still she went. After a short while our father came to fetch me and my brothers at the bottom of the steps of the shelter and said:” Mother is gone”. I don’t remember that I cried, maybe because a child born on the kibbutz is not allowed to cry. Maybe because a boy not yet 11 years old did not fully understand what his father was trying to tell him. Perhaps I do not understand to this day. My father did not hold on. In March 1993 he too “was gone”. Strange, but the desire for revenge was not part of me. Somehow I tried, years later, to make sense of the loss. I assume that this attempt helped me to survive and was the motor, which drove me to the activity, which I will tell about here. Four days after my mother was killed a cease-fire was declared in the north. Indirect negotiations led to an agreement signed between Israel and the PLO, which lasted for a little over 10 months. In the beginning of June 1982 an assassin from Abu Nidal’s organization (Abu Nidal was one of those who broke away from the PLO and was hated by Arafat) attacked the Israeli ambassador to Britain, Shlomo Argov, and fatally wounded him. In retaliation the Israel government decided to invade Lebanon with the aim of “destroying the nests of terrorists”. This pretentiousness cost much blood. Twenty years passed, part of the players are still in the field but the pretentiousness continues to lead us and the spilt blood continues to flow. After the outbreak of the El-Aksa Intifada, I joined the Forum of Israeli-Palestinian bereaved families for Peace. The main activities of the “Family Forum” are in the educational, and communication framework. Members of the Forum give lectures in schools where they share with the pupils the loss they have experienced and their conclusions thereafter. The pupils are stunned. They have never seen a Palestinian and Israeli sitting together, talking about their mutual pain and the possibility of attaining conciliation. These activities aim to make the public aware of the enormous tragedy common to both nations, in this bleeding country, which is dear to both. I wish to devote a few words to one such activity, which took place not long ago: donation of blood from Palestinians and Israelis. On the 8th October, in the morning, a few Palestinian members of the Forum arrived at the Magen David station in Jerusalem and donated blood. At lunchtime a few Israeli members of the Forum went to the government hospital in Ramallah also to donate blood. The object of this activity was to say to both nations and their leaders: we share our blood and future. At the Kalandiya Barrier, south of Ramallah, most of the Forum members managed to mingle with the Palestinian pedestrians and cross the border. Itzchak Frankental, chairman of the Forum, and I were left behind. Since we were barred from crossing the barrier, we tried to find somewhere else to cross the border. A local taxi, winding its way deftly in the narrow and desolate streets of Ramallah, took us to the local hospital. The blood donation procedure ended and our hosts, members of the medical staff, parted from us with warm words as we left on our way to the Mukata’a. If you have not been there it will be difficult to sense what all of us were thinking. The area is almost completely destroyed and we had the feeling of having arrived at a place that had just experienced a serious earthquake. What remains is a building, part of which is still standing, inside which Arafat and his people are crowded. The rest is mostly destroyed. A very terrible feeling. In another part of the Mukata’a the debris is being cleared and some construction work is being done. However, it is far from full reconstruction. The cars stopped and we waded through thick dust, the result of the unbelievable damage, to the entrance of the Palestinian Authority building. Armed policemen, who politely showed us the way, upstairs, to the office, met us. At the end of the Palestinian cabinet meeting, Arafat received us in his narrow and humble office, One by one we approached and shook his hand. It was my turn. I shake the hand of the murderer of my mother, Tsippy Yesod. I shake the hand of the man who is closely connected to my family’s tragedy--- the death of my mother and that of my father a few years later----and say a few words of greeting in Arabic. Years after my mother’s death I paged through a book full of documents, taken during the Lebanon war, and found amongst the documents the order to fire on Misgav-Am on the cursed morning of the 20th July when my mother was killed by the direct hit of a Katyusha. The commander-in-chief of the armed Palestinian forces, Yassar Arafat, signed the order. It was important to me to meet Arafat. Strangely I do not aspire to revenge but the possibility that I will be able to forgive or forget our family tragedy does not exist. On the other hand I feel that we are obligated (however difficult it may be) to remove from the public discourse the mutual hatred, produced by the crimes we have committed against each other, so that we can try to prevent further bereavement and make conciliation a possibility. I am convinced that it is of great importance to meet with the leaders of the Palestinian nation. The leaders and their people are the means whereby this unnecessary and cruel bloodbath in which we are all wallowing both Palestinians and Israelis will end. The refusal of most of the public in Israel and its government to speak with the Palestinians or worse the disregard of the basic, legitimate rights of the Palestinians on their land, God save us all, is leading not only away from reaching the peace and quiet we all long for but causing us to march slowly but surely towards a deep chasm. The fresh graves dug daily, on both sides of the border, are the hair-raising evidence of the process. Our forum the PCFF, has set as its goal to try and change this reality and to show Israeli society the price paid and that which will be paid by many, many, too many, other families in Israel and Palestine only because there is no peace. <a href="http://www.theparentscircle.com/stories/Nir_Yesod.doc" target=_top>http://www.theparentscircle.com/stories/Nir_Yesod. doc</a> <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

neal · 06-05-09 9:10 am

Forgiveness for the Jews is contrary to the Torah. God gave the jews ownership of Yahweh's land. This area has specific borders. Besides the incidents when David and Jonah attempted to flee the land controlled by their tribal deity there is also the story of a foreigner, Naaman, coming to get healed. He is impressed with the power of their God. Wasn't it Naaman that asked for 2 donkeys be loaded up with dirt so that he could take it to his foreign country in order to worship the jewish God?<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:2 Kings 5:17 And Naaman said, Shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mules' burden of earth? for thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto the LORD. 18 In this thing the LORD pardon thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon thy servant in this thing. 19 And he said unto him, Go in peace. So he departed from him a little way.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> From your quote above<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:On the other hand I feel that we are obligated (however difficult it may be) to remove from the public discourse the mutual hatred, produced by the crimes we have committed against each other, so that we can try to prevent further bereavement and make conciliation a possibility.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> That would be impossible without banning the Torah from public discourse. Orthodox Jews have gone so far as to murder their own Prime Minister because he was trying to make a land-for-peace deal. Leviticus 18:25; 20:23-24, states, <blockquote>"And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people."</blockquote> Deuteronomy 9:4-6; 18:12 states, <blockquote>"Speak not thou in thine heart, after that the LORD thy God hath cast them out from before thee, saying, For my righteousness the LORD hath brought me in to possess this land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD doth drive them out from before thee. Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Understand therefore, that the LORD thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiff necked people. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee." "And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the LORD: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee. Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite. Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods , and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods."</blockquote> Numbers 33:51-54 states, <blockquote>"Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye are gone over Jordan into the land of Canaan; Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places: And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein: for I have given you the land to possess it. And ye shall divide the land by lot for an inheritance among your families: and to the more ye shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer ye shall give the less inheritance: every man's inheritance shall be in the place where his lot falleth; according to the tribes of your fathers ye shall inherit."</blockquote> Deuteronomy 7:1-5; 20:16-17; 25:17 states, <blockquote>"When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. [***] But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: [***] Therefore it shall be, when the LORD thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it."</blockquote> Joshua 3:10; 6:17, 21; 13:6 states, <blockquote>"And Joshua said, Hereby ye shall know that the living God is among you, and that he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Hivites, and the Perizzites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites. And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent. [***]And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and donkey, with the edge of the sword. But Joshua had said unto the two men that had spied out the country, Go into the harlot's house, and bring out thence the woman, and all that she hath, as ye sware unto her. [Note the Jewish love of whores, whom as Chaldeans, they worshiped viz. Ishtar.] [***] All the inhabitants of the hill country from Lebanon unto Misrephoth-maim, and all the Sidonians, them will I drive out from before the children of Israel: only divide thou it by lot unto the Israelites for an inheritance, as I have commanded thee."</blockquote> (Message edited by neal on June 05, 2009) (Message edited by neal on June 05, 2009)

neal · 06-05-09 10:10 am

I suggest that whether a person wants to call wrong behavior a "sin" or not is a minor concern. The major concerns involve wickedness toward other people. Don, the evidence suggests, from studies of the USA vs other western developed countries, that the opposite is true. The less christian a country is the less there are of problems with murder, rape, child abuse, spouse abuse, divorce, etc. Even in the USA, the more religious parts of the country have the most crime (South- the Bible Belt). Abortions, divorce, murders, etc. I saw a study a few days ago where they looked at young religious women. Of those that were unmarried the abortion rate was 5 times higher if the young lady had gone to a parochial school versus a public school. I can't find ANY EVIDENCE that what you claim is consistent with what actually happens.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 06-04-09 7:38 am

Sin and Forgiveness

#2 06-04-09 10:01 am

Re: Sin and Forgiveness

#3 06-04-09 10:03 am

Re: Sin and Forgiveness

#4 06-04-09 10:26 am

Re: Sin and Forgiveness

#5 06-04-09 11:19 am

Re: Sin and Forgiveness

#6 06-04-09 12:30 pm

Re: Sin and Forgiveness

#7 06-04-09 12:35 pm

Re: Sin and Forgiveness

#8 06-04-09 12:49 pm

Re: Sin and Forgiveness

#9 06-04-09 1:02 pm

Re: Sin and Forgiveness

#10 06-04-09 4:10 pm

Re: Sin and Forgiveness

#11 06-04-09 4:20 pm

Re: Sin and Forgiveness

#12 06-04-09 4:48 pm

Re: Sin and Forgiveness

#13 06-04-09 5:13 pm

Re: Sin and Forgiveness

#14 06-04-09 5:19 pm

Re: Sin and Forgiveness

#15 06-04-09 7:43 pm

Re: Sin and Forgiveness

#16 06-04-09 8:23 pm

Re: Sin and Forgiveness

#17 06-04-09 8:35 pm

Re: Sin and Forgiveness

#18 06-04-09 9:41 pm

Re: Sin and Forgiveness

#19 06-04-09 9:45 pm

Re: Sin and Forgiveness

#20 06-04-09 9:58 pm

Re: Sin and Forgiveness

#21 06-04-09 10:23 pm

Re: Sin and Forgiveness

#22 06-05-09 12:39 am

Re: Sin and Forgiveness

#23 06-05-09 7:35 am

Re: Sin and Forgiveness

#24 06-05-09 9:10 am

Re: Sin and Forgiveness

#25 06-05-09 10:10 am

Re: Sin and Forgiveness

Board footer