MK forum

Bemused they have already shot themselves in the foot, they may not know it they are now pointing the gun at their own head.

Ah, now I know about "sin" and "forgiveness".

It is like when I commit a domestic misdemeanour and I go and get flowers and chocolates and apologize profusely to the wonderful and benevolent Mrs Bemused. Who kindly forgives me, at her discretion, but I do have to pay the price for my misdeed and pay for the flowers and chocolates out of my own funds, not the joint cash fund or Canine Bemused's allowance.

Of course there are some differences in this arrangement. If I remember correctly God forgives and then casts the sin from His memory. In marriage there is no such casting, it is written in a little book and brought up with other misdeeds when the next indiscretion is committed. I may be a bit hazy on the theological component of forgiveness and the forgetting of sins, but experience tells me I am very correct in knowing that my misdeeds are all accounted for and catalogued for future reference here on earth in the realms of marital heaven

From one non-entity to another ...

Often forgiveness can actually be more easily seen in what it is NOT rather than what it is. Let me explain a bit ...

#1 Forgiveness is NOT a feeling. It is an act of the will, it involves a series of decisions.

#2 Forgiveness is NOT forgetting. Forgetting is a passive event that occurs over time; whereas forgiveness is an active choice and a deliberate course of action. Often we need to make that choice over and over, due to our tendency as human beings to bring past incidents back up to use as a lever or a club in some future incident.

#3 Forgiveness is NOT excusing the actions. Excusing says, "That's OK," and implies that "What you did wasn't really wrong." True forgiveness deals honestly and openly with the sin, and results in freedom.

But as we all know, this is such a huge topic, and these only address one facet of it. I'm just offering some food for thought. And these thoughts are not original with me (whose opinions truly are?), they are taken from a book entitled, "The Peacemaker."

signed: Mr Invisible (I can't believe I was suckered in to posting again!)

[quote="BevST"]I spent most of my life in a Christian organization (the C&MA) which continually teaches about forgiveness, but only under extreme duress mentions justice or reporting criminal abuse to civil law authorities because it is a crime. They immediately speak to victims about the importance of forgiveness, but I have never heard that they have reported even one missionary who has been credibly accused of sexual assault to civil law authorities (that's an awkward sentence - but you get my meaning). In fact, about four years ago I gave them a list of missionaries they had brought back to North America and quietly 'released" back into communities here because they were accused of sexual assault. And still they preach forgiveness to victims.

I would like to see The Peacemaker re-written to incorporate forgiveness in the context of justice and civil law.

This is sickening. Accountability is needed.

Amen Raz!

OK, at the risk of digging my hole deeper...

RAZ said "Your initial and final points seem to be that even when someone who has hurt someone else has been forgiven by their victim, they should still receive consequences."

Perhaps the misunderstanding occurs in that I am looking at the broad scope of "consequences" not just the potential legal ramifications. Consequences exist -- the survivors are living the reality of emotional/physical consequences, and some abusers end up living the reality of legal consequences. Please consider again the phrasing that I used, "when sin occurs the sinner incurs a debt toward the victim." If I can follow that line of thought, I believe we end up with four potential situations at this point:

1) Nothing happens to resolve the issue; the abuser lives without consequences and the victim continues to suffer. The debt remains outstanding, both emotionally and legally.
2) The legal system is engaged and the abuser gets prison time (or other legal consequences), but the victim continues to live in anger and bitterness. The debt is paid legally,but is still left unpaid emotionally.
3) The victim unilaterally chooses "forgiveness." They have chosen to write "paid in full" across the emotional cost of the debt themselves and move on with their life, but the legal debt is left unpaid.
4) The victim chooses both "forgiveness" and legal action. They realize the value of legal consequences, and also realize the value of moving on personally.

As has been posted many times, the concept of forgiveness that is taught or implied in fundamental Christianity is that "true" forgiveness means just walking away. I am not trying to say what someone should or shouldn't do in their particular situation. I am not trying to tell someone else what their journey should look like. The point I was trying to make was that Biblical forgiveness neither dismisses nor requires legal action.

The parallel between God's actions and Human Law breaks down in that God didn't suffer emotional consequences from my sin, and he actually chose to fulfill the legal consequences of my sin (i.e. death).

How deep am I now? (sigh)