December 11, 2007

No She Didn't! Oh Yes She Did.

Hatched by Dafydd

First we heard that Jeanne Assam -- a private, female security guard in Colorado Springs, Colorado and former Minneapolis police officer -- had shot and killed a Christian-hating gunman, who himself had already shot nine people at the Youth With a Mission missionary training center and the New Life Church, killing four of them.

(His name is known but will not be mentioned on this blog, as he does not deserve to be remembered. But his murdered victims do: They are Tiffany Johnson, 26, and Philip Crouse, 24, both slain at the Youth With a Mission center; and sisters Stephanie Works, 18, and Rachael Works, 16, who were shot at the New Life Church.)



Jeanne Assam

Jeanne Assam (© Associated Press 2007)

Then came the stunning news that in fact the Christian-hater was not slain by Ms. Assam; he killed himself:

[The Christian hater], the man who police say shot and killed four people at two separate locations in Colorado on Sunday, died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound, the coroner's office said Tuesday.

"The death of [the Christian hater] has been ruled a suicide," the El Paso County Coroner's Office said in a statement.

I'm sure that Democrats, always anxious to deny hero-hood to (a) believing Christians and (b) chicks who carry guns, will now crow that the "gun nuts" jumped the -- oh, all right, I won't -- leapt to a conclusion, and that in fact she didn't stop the killer after all. (I also anticipate an attack on the fact that she was fired from the Minneapolis Police Department in 1997 for lying during an investigation of her conduct during an incident in that city; more about that anon.)

But wait; before throwing Ms. Assam under the bus, let's read the next sentence in that same CNN story above:

"It should be noted that he was struck multiple times by the security officer, which put him down. He then fired a single round killing himself," the statement said.

Back when I was actively debating gun prohibitionists, I encountered this odd argument all the time: Whenever I presented evidence of a private citizen who used a gun to stop a crime without killing the perpetrator, the prohibitionists refused to accept it; it was as if anything less than justifiable homicide were "inconclusive;" it was cheating, somehow, to use such cases in debate.

(I guess the nutty, liberal idea was that the only purpose of a gun is to kill; so if it didn't kill, then it must have done nothing!)

But that's paralogical. In the vast majority of cases where armed police use their service weapons to stop a crime or arrest a criminal, no shots are fired. And in the majority of cases where shots are fired, the suspect is not killed. If we nevertheless believe that cops should be armed -- and I've yet to meet a gun prohibitionist who was willing to argue that guns don't help trained police officers -- then it's no argument against concealed-carry permits for private civilians that most of the time, even when they use their gun, even when they shoot the bad guy, they don't kill him.

And in this case, I think two points are now crystal clear from the autopsy of the perpetrator of this homicidal hate crime:

  • Jeanne Assam is clearly a big fan of "gun control": She hit the killer with multiple shots yet didn't hit a single innocent person.
  • The murderer didn't kill himself because he felt remorse; he knew the spree was over... because Assam had already taken him down. Were it not for Ms. Assam, a parishoner at the New Life Church, many more people would have been killed.

I have never heard of a case where a spree killer simply stopped killing and went home; in every case I've read about, they keep shooting or stabbing until somebody stops them. Well... Ms. Assam stopped him; she stopped him cold, knocking him to the ground with multiple gunshot wounds. In fact, although he died by shooting himself in the head, it's entirely possible that had he not done so, he might still have bled out from the wounds that Ms. Assam inflicted.

Either way, it's clear Jeanne Assam deserves to get both ears and the tail:

Assam said she found cover in the lobby after [the Christian hater] opened fire in the church parking lot and walked into the building. She said she waited for him to approach, identified herself as a security guard, and shot him -- "and that's pretty much it."

"I'm telling you right now, she's the hero, not me. It was the bravest thing I have ever seen," [Larry] Bourbonnais said. "She had no cover. He fired -- I heard him fire three. I heard her fire three. And she just began -- she kept yelling 'Surrender!' the whole time. And she just walked forward, like she's walking to her car in the parking lot, firing the whole time."

Bourbonnais said when he and Assam reached [the Christian hater], "he had slumped backwards, slid down on the floor, and expired."

Larry Bourbonnais is a Vietnam combat veteran who was slightly wounded by a bullet fragment in the New Life Church shooting.

And by the way... let's deal with the charge that Jeanne Assam was fired from the MPD a decade ago for lying during an investigation of her conduct: It appears to be true. But so far as I can tell, the conduct that was under investigation was that she evidently swore at a bus driver while trying to handle an "incident" that occurred on the bus. Pardon me if I don't gasp and faint at the possibility that a cop used an obscenity and then claimed she hadn't:

Also Tuesday, Minneapolis police Sgt. Jesse Garcia said Assam was fired from the Minneapolis force in 1997 for lying during an internal investigation. Sgt. John Delmonico, president of the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis, said police were investigating a complaint that Assam swore at a bus driver while she was handling an incident on a city bus.

Returning to the CNN article, I do have one suggestion for Ms. Assam: I recommend that she rethink her association with the New Life Church... at least until it gets itself a new pastor who actually understands what "forgiveness" means -- and what it requires:

Brady Boyd, senior pastor of New Life Church, told reporters Tuesday he and his church had already forgiven [the Christian hater], even though he is still angry about what happened.

"But being angry and being unforgiving are two different things," Boyd said.

"I forgave him immediately. I can't imagine what caused him to do that. I'm sad for his parents, who are having to bury a young son. But forgiving him was an immediate response of our heart," the pastor said.

I can only assume he was also sad for the parents of Johnson, Crouse, and Stephanie and Rachael Works; I have to assume it, because he's not quoted as saying so. Evidently, he considers all five deaths -- four innocent people and a murder -- to have the same moral value. So did he also "forgive" Jeanne Assam on behalf of the killer?

There are two insurmountable obstacles to this "instant karma" granting of earthly absolution:

  1. How can anyone be forgiven who has never showed the slightest bit of remorse or repentence for the horrible, horrible thing he did?

Even Catholic priests cannot grant absolution to a person who has not truly repented of his sin, shown honest remorse, stopped committing the sin, and attempted to make restitution if possible. There is no evidence that this Christian-hating killer did any of the above, at least not by his own free will: He only stopped committing the sin because Jeanne Assam brought him down.

His suicide proves nothing; most spree killers, even before they begin their crimes, expect either to be killed by the cops or die by their own hands. They don't want to go to prison... they would rather enter eternal nothingness.

  1. But second and more disturbing to me -- who the hell gave Reverend Boyd the right to forgive the killer for what he did to somebody else?

The only mortal person who ever has jurisdiction to forgive a crime is the victim himself. No one else. To think otherwise is to accept the most pernicious doctrine of liberalism: That all personal accountability must be jettisoned in favor of collective guilt -- and collective forgiveness.

Let's put it in a context that even liberals should be able to understand: Imagine that a man forcibly rapes his next-door neighbor's daughter...and then the next day, the local minister announces to the world that he forgives the rapist. What do you think would be the reaction of the rape victim and her family?

Such "instant forgiveness" by a third party is grossly offensive to the victim, her family, her friends, and indeed the entire body of that church; and I would hope that most of them would have the guts to tell the minister that it was time for him to hit the road... the congregation needs a spiritual leader who was not morally befuddled.

This moral dynamic does not change when, instead of rape, the criminal commits the even more horrific crime of murder. In fact, murder is literally unforgiveable in this world: Because only the victim can forgive, and because the victim is no longer around, there is no human left who can grant such extraordinary dispensation. If there is a God, forgiveness must be left to Him... if He chooses.

How dare Boyd offer forgiveness on behalf of four people who are no longer capable of deciding for themselves whether the killer deserves it? This is worse than Bill Clinton apologizing for slavery: At least the president didn't presume to forgive the slavers on behalf of the slaves!

So hats off to Jeanne Assam; she did good, even great. But honestly, she deserves a better religious guide than the mealy mouthed, liberal, PC-worshipping Brady Boyd.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, December 11, 2007, at the time of 5:38 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2641

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference No She Didn't! Oh Yes She Did.:

» Yeah, I think Huck Crossed Way Over the Line from Big Lizards
Michael Medved is frantically trying to spin another stupid thing that Gov. Mike Huckabee said. Again. Medved seems to spend a lot of time on this; if I believed in campaign-finance reform, I'd suggest he be investigated for giving corporate... [Read More]

Tracked on December 12, 2007 1:31 PM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: john.cunningham

A great skewering of the minister Boyd. Dennis Prager, a most wise lizard, often makes the point that forgiveness can only be done by the injured party, and that in traditional theology, either Christian or Jewish, remorse by the transgressor must precede forgiveness.

The above hissed in response by: john.cunningham [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 12, 2007 4:28 AM

The following hissed in response by: HoyDoy

I do not know what the shooter's state of mind was before he died.
The pastor was certainly wronged as the head of the church that was attacked.

The above hissed in response by: HoyDoy [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 12, 2007 11:27 AM

The following hissed in response by: Chris Hunt

It is not only common but expected that Christian pastors encourage forgiveness. Boyd is probably not speaking for the victims when he says that he has forgiven the killer, he is speaking for himself, as HoyDoy said above.

Forgiveness is one thing. Forgetting is another, as is punishment. Forgiving one their sins does not preclude retribution. I have forgiven my ex-wife for leaving me, but I have not forgotten, nor have I absolved her of responsibility for her actions.

I suspect that the minister in this case is setting an example that he hopes his congregation follows. Harboring anger is a pernicious thing.

The above hissed in response by: Chris Hunt [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 12, 2007 11:46 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Chris Hunt:

I suspect that the minister in this case is setting an example that he hopes his congregation follows. Harboring anger is a pernicious thing.

"Forgiving" people instantly, on behalf of others unable to participate, and without the forgiven having shown the slightest sign of remorse, is a far more pernicious thing.

Sometimes, the right thing to do is hold onto righteous anger. We're talking about basic good and evil, not anger-management therapy.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 12, 2007 12:47 PM

The following hissed in response by: FredTownWard

You are off base with the criticism of Pastor Boyd's forgiveness of the killer, Dafydd. According to the most basic Christian doctrine, based on New Testament scriptures quoting
Jesus Christ Himself, which I can look up if anyone doubts me, Christians are REQUIRED to forgive others, whether they deserve it or not, whether they've asked for it or not.

From a human point of view, it would be perfectly understandable for the victims' loved ones not to be in a forgiving mood towards this Hell-bound monster,...

but according to their own religious beliefs, it would also be sinful.

The above hissed in response by: FredTownWard [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 12, 2007 1:00 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

FredTownWard:

According to the most basic Christian doctrine, based on New Testament scriptures quoting Jesus Christ Himself, which I can look up if anyone doubts me, Christians are REQUIRED to forgive others, whether they deserve it or not, whether they've asked for it or not.

Whether they want it or not?

Yes, please do look them up, because it sounds grotesque. You're saying that Christians are required to forgive a person over and over while he commits his horrific sins, even if he revels in his evil. That they're required to forgive Musab Zarqawi after every one of his bombing attacks, even while he laughs at the death and pain he causes.

I will not for one second believe that is "the most basic Christian doctrine."

For one thing, you're saying that the Catholic Church has gotten it all wrong for 2,000 years, since it has always required confession, remorse, repentence, cessation of the sin, and an honest attempt at restitution before granting forgiveness (absolution) from a sin.

You're saying that Smith is required to forgive Jones for what Jones did to Watson.

And you're saying that humans are required to forgive those whom God condemns... that they're required to contradict the Allmighty.

I'd like to see those passages to see exactly what they say... and read the preceding and succeeding passages to see the context.

(I can just picture a Christian standing next to a Nazi SS guard in a concentration camp... and after every Jew the guard murders, the Christian turns with a beatific smile and says, "I forgive you for that." Is that the image you want for Christianity?)

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 12, 2007 1:57 PM

The following hissed in response by: FredTownWard

Mark 11:25-26

25And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses26But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

There are others along the same line.

And with your comment about the Catholic Church doctrine, I believe I see where you are making your error. You are conflating two separate teachings about forgiveness. Receiving forgiveness for your OWN sins requires "confession, remorse, repentence, cessation of the sin, and an honest attempt at restitution" if it is to be recognized by the church (God can just read your mind.), plus one thing more, the UNCODITIONAL forgiveness of those who have wronged you. This is NOT the same thing as God forgiving them; for THAT to happen THEY must go through the process you noted.

As for your astonishment at the idea that Christians in Nazi concentration camps could be expected to forgive the monstrous sins done there to them and to others, see Corrie ten Boom, history of and religious beliefs of.

Parts of Christianity are very easy; parts of it are very hard; but it is always dangerous to take the position that, "Jesus, you got it wrong, right here, in this verse."

The above hissed in response by: FredTownWard [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 12, 2007 2:27 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

FredTownWard:

Mark 11:25-26

Mark is the condensed version. What about Matthew 18:15-17? And consider the parable from 18:21-34; note especially that the debtors fell down (remorse) and worshipped (repentence and cessation of sin), confessed their debts, and begged forgiveness so they could pay it all back (restitution); that's what Jesus says in response to Paul's question about how many times to forgive his "brother."

Even the Mark verse is generally interpreted as when one is praying for forgiveness for one's own sins, one must also forgive others who have trespassed against oneself, as the Lord's Prayer puts it... not against other people. That's not up to you; you cannot forgive Jones for what Jones has done to Watson.

Brady Boyd wasn't killed, he wasn't shot, nobody in his family was injured. What did he forgive the Christian-hater for... inconveniencing him? Frightening him? It ain't up to Boyd to forgive the killer on behalf of the silent dead.

Parts of Christianity are very easy; parts of it are very hard; but it is always dangerous to take the position that, "Jesus, you got it wrong, right here, in this verse."

I ain't talking to Jesus, I'm talking to you and Brady Boyd. I'm not telling Jesus He got it wrong; I'm suggesting that you, as well as some other thoroughly mortal Christians, have misunderstood the point of the forgiveness doctrine. I presume that's not forbidden by gospel.

Jesus was a Jew and considered Himself a Jew. Jewish teaching requires all the elements above for forgiveness. If Jesis had meant to overturn that law (and He said He did not), He would have made it explicit: "I say unto you, forgive even those sinners who revel in their sin and have no remorse, and forgive them for their sins on behalf of other victims, no matter what those others may think; so sayeth the Lord."

You haven't shown me a single verse where Jesus tells his followers to forgive a person for what that person did to a third party, nor that they should explicitly forgive people who have no remorse, continue in their sin, don't ask for forgiveness, laugh in your face as they shoot you, and don't even accept the sacrifice of Jesus.

Oh, and that Nazi concentration-camp guard that Corrie ten Boom forgave? He approached her in 1947 after a lecture, declared he had become a Christian, and begged for her forgiveness. He clearly felt remorse, sincerely repented, and (obviously) was no longer killing people.

To forgive people during the very act of their sin, without a hint of repentence and without even demanding they stop sinning first, simply encourages and enables them to commit more and worse sin. I should think this was obvious... and I should think that the rest of the New Testament (particularly the sections in Matthew I noted) makes clear that's not what Jesus taught.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 12, 2007 4:22 PM

The following hissed in response by: FredTownWard

In some of the verses commanding Christians to forgive, the person to be forgiven has repented; in others he has not. Thus, Christians are required to forgive REGARDLESS of the person to be forgiven's actions. The commandment to Christians to forgive is CLEARLY unconditional.

Daffyd wrote: It ain't up to Boyd to forgive the killer on behalf of the silent dead.

Correct; it is up to Boyd to forgive the killer on behalf of HIMSELF, which after all is the easier task. Boyd must forgive the killer of a couple of his parishioners of his, possibly friends of his.

The HARDEST forgiveness must come from the parents of those murdered girls, but it IS required of them.

What after all did Jesus Himself say about His at that point entirely UNREPENTANT killers on the cross?

Luke 23:34

44Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

Did that mean that everyone involved in the conspiracy to murder Jesus was now going to get into heaven Scott free? No, their forgiveness and salvation by God the Father depended upon them sincerely requesting forgiveness THEMSELVES and accepting Jesus, Yada Yada....

But Jesus the Man, dying, forgave His unrepentant murderers with almost His final words.

Can any Christian really argue, "Yeah, but I have suffered so much worse than Jesus that God doesn't really expect ME to forgive."

The above hissed in response by: FredTownWard [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 12, 2007 5:06 PM

The following hissed in response by: qrstuv

I am not a Christian, but it seems to me that to forgive someone who has expressed no remorse or shame is ultimately an action purely of self. You're saying to the world (or to God), I'm a good enough person to forgive this .

Well, that's fine for you, but I don't see how that makes the world a better place. It certainly doesn't put any pressure on the s.

What, they're gonna follow your good example? I don't think so.

The above hissed in response by: qrstuv [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 12, 2007 5:24 PM

The following hissed in response by: qrstuv

Typepad removed parts of my post, probably because I had 'em in angle brackets. Second try:

I am not a Christian, but it seems to me that to forgive someone who has expressed no remorse or shame is ultimately an action purely of self. You're saying to the world (or to God), I'm a good enough person to forgive this [expletive deleted].

Well, that's fine for you, but I don't see how that makes the world a better place. It certainly doesn't put any pressure on the [expletive deleted]s.

What, they're gonna follow your good example? I don't think so.

The above hissed in response by: qrstuv [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 12, 2007 5:26 PM

The following hissed in response by: FredTownWard

qrstuv, I'd suggest sitting down and reading the New Testament some time so as to better understand Christian beliefs.

For a Christian, the primary reason "to forgive someone who has expressed no remorse or shame" is because Jesus TOLD us to, and He added the kicker that if we refuse to, God the Father refuses to forgive us.

You are also conflating a couple of separate points about forgiveness. First, it is of course true that the only one "good enough" to forgive sin is God Himself. However, we poor sinful creatures, recipients of an entirely UNDESERVED forgiveness for OUR sins, are required to forgive the sins of others from our point of view.

The above hissed in response by: FredTownWard [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 12, 2007 5:39 PM

The following hissed in response by: FredTownWard

Here is about as good an exposition on the concept of the Christian requirement for unconditional forgiveness I've found in a quick search; I think his differentiation between "heart" forgiveness and "verbal" forgiveness clears up the confusion rather well:

http://www.agapeindia.com/steve/forgiveheart.htm

The above hissed in response by: FredTownWard [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 12, 2007 7:04 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

FredTownWard:

I am unpersuaded... mostly because not a single biblical verse cited by Greg Wright flatly says "forgive even those who refuse to repent."

Rather, Wright notes that some verses say forgive after a person repents, while others don't mention this... and he interprets the absence of evidence as evidence of absence: In other words, he argues there are two kinds of forgiveness, which he calls verbal forgiveness and heart forgiveness: The former requires prior repentence by the sinner, the latter is "unconditional."

To me, this sounds like the "epicycles" that were to have fixed the problem that planetary orbits were not circular, and to explain retrograde motion. Epicycles are tiny circles inserted at various points on a larger circle -- little curlicues -- that would (astronomers hoped) explain the refusal of observed planetary motion to correspond to their theological idea that planets, being in the heavens and therefore perfect, must of course move along the perfect path... a circle.

But Johannes Kepler finally proved, using the incredibly detailed, 30-year history of his boss, Tycho Brahe's, observations, that the planets moved in elipses -- not circles.

Circles require no explanation; they're perfect, like God, and like God's heaven. But elipses? Those require explanation... and that is what forced mathematicians like Isaac Newton and Jacob Leibnitz to invent what we today call calculus, the mathematics of motion.

Back to Wright. His "heart forgiveness" versus the (obviously lesser, in his view) "verbal forgiveness" is an epicycle in theology designed to explain away slight differences in biblical verses. Since the Bible is perfect, the word of God, therefore so must be all its translations into English. And therefore, if Luke says forgiveness requires prior repentence, but Mark doesn't -- they must be speaking about two different kinds of forgiveness!

Of course, an easier explanation is that Mark simply didn't mention it because he assumed it was obvious... just as none of the gospels mention that Jesus must have belched and farted and gone to the bathroom, since he was fully human (so Christians believe) as well as divine. They didn't mention it because it was unnecessary.

If you can find a verse where Jesus explicitly says you must forgive people who persist in sin, refuse to recognize it as sin, and refuse to repent, that would be far more persuasive.

The closest you come is what He says on the cross; but even there, He is not practicing personal forgiveness, as you implied... He is asking God to forgive them, because they don't know that he is really innocent.

He appears to be asking God to bear in mind that to the Roman soldiers, He is just another prisoner lawfully condemned to death. Just as God would forgive (I believe) an executioner for putting to death someone he thinks is a serial killer, but who was actually framed by some third party... Jesus asks God to forgive these soldiers, who "know not what they do."

You're not there yet. You haven't posted any verse that explicitly says what you want to believe. And I believe you haven't because... there is none to post.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 12, 2007 7:36 PM

The following hissed in response by: FredTownWard

I keep forgetting that the primary difficulty in discussing what the Bible says between Christians and Jews is that while any knowledgeable Christian is going to be familiar with the Old Testament, very few Jews know ANYTHING about the New Testament. Thus the Christian is eventually reduced to helping the Jew "cram" the results of 2,000 years of Christianity in the course of the debate, an impossible task, so it breaks down in futility.

Dafydd is demanding a New Testament Bible verse that says EXACTLY what he wants it to say, or it doesn't count, and because he knows little to nothing about the New Testament, he wants ME to do his research for him. I present him with a very thoughtful examination of the problem, including the arguments of dissenters which must of necessity be countered, and Dafydd simply ignores it, demanding it all be summed up in a single verse. I REALLY shouldn't have to be pointing out in the 21st Century that the Bible is a somewhat difficult book, with teachings on particular topics scattered throughout requiring considerable study to piece it all together. Even the Gospels covering the very same events include certain events and teachings and leave out certain events and teachings so that for the most complete picture of Jesus' life and personal teachings, one almost needs to assemble a flow chart.

Suffice it to say that my view is the more common one, particulary from the beginnings of Christianity while the "No, they have to repent first" is a more recent interpretation.

I will simply point out his simpler errors.

Daffyd wrote: "Since the Bible is perfect, the word of God, therefore so must be all its translations into English."

Absolute nonsense if you think about it for even a moment; it has ALWAYS been possible to deliberately or carelessly screw up a translation. The doctrine of Inerrant Inspiration only applies to the ORIGINAL manuscript, not to copies and not to translations. What do you think this is? Harry Potter's Mistake-Free Translation Scroll?

Dafydd wrote: "The closest you come is what He says on the cross; but even there, He is not practicing personal forgiveness, as you implied... He is asking God to forgive them, because they don't know that he is really innocent."

Not true. Pontius Pilate is quoted as ADMITTING knowing that Jesus was innocent, yet he ordered His crucification anyway, probably out of fears of provoking a riot if he didn't. There is no possible way to call knowingly executing an innocent man "innocent".

Your problem basically is that you are trying to impose conditions on God's commandments that He does not, rarely a good idea. As Wright says, given the stated and severe consequences to the Christian for disobedience in the area of failing to forgive, it is downright foolhardy to be behaving as W. C. Fields, looking for loopholes.

Furthermore, interpreting it YOUR way, besides introducing contradictions doing it my way does not (because forgiving the repentant is a subset of forgiving all), actually makes it harder for the Christian. Your interpretation forces him to carefully evaluate the sincerity of a given sinner's alleged repentance, while leaving him with the heavy burden of no forgiveness for HIS sins if he screws it up.

Forgive them all, and let God sort them out is at least a course of action that can be completed by ANY Christian, any time, anywhere.

The above hissed in response by: FredTownWard [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 12, 2007 9:37 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

FredTownWard:

I suppose you didn't intend your last post to come across as offensive as it did; but if you reread it, you'll probably wish you had written a bit more temperately.

In the first place, I already told you I have read the entire New Testament through, from Matthew through Revelations. And I don't mean just skimming, either; I mean actually read. That is more than an awful lot of Christians have done.

Second, there is this:

Dafydd is demanding a New Testament Bible verse that says EXACTLY what he wants it to say, or it doesn't count, and because he knows little to nothing about the New Testament, he wants ME to do his research for him.

Let's review the bidding:

FTW, you have turned this entire discussion on its head. I suspect that most Americans would find the idea preposterous that some minister can "forgive," say, the Columbine killers, even though he has nothing whatsoever to do with Harris or Klebold, or Columbine High School, or even the entire state of Colorado.

Yet you argue that every Christian is "REQUIRED" to do so. You seem to argue that if a Christian opens up his newspaper and reads about a suicide bombing in Afghanistan, his first words should be "I forgive the killers."

Reverend Boyd said, "I forgave him immediately." For what? What did he do to Reverend Boyd? He shot and killed four people and wounded five others... none of whom was Reverend Boyd.

The only thing Boyd could be forgiving the killer for -- is killing other people. To most folks I know, including many who consider themselves Christians, this sounds just like a liberal running around apologizing for what other people did to other people, then saying, "Oh what a good boy am I!"

But you forcefully argued that Christians are obliged to forgive people who commit monstrous sins, even if the person never repented or even claimed to have done, and even if the "forgiver" has virtually no relation to the perpetrator or the victims. As evidence, you offered some biblical verses that didn't really seem on-point to me, since none mentioned either of the things I find bizarre and unlikely.

I asked for some verses that actually said what you -- not I -- wanted them to say; instead, you referred me to a couple of people -- Corrie ten Boom, who forgave a concentration-camp guard who repented, became a Christian, and asked for her forgiveness; and a guy, Greg Wright, whose son died in a bicycle accident, who subsequent wrote a treatise on forgiveness.

I read Wright's piece. You claimed that I "simply ignore[d] it;" but in fact you know I read it, because I spent most of my last post responding to its specific claims! Why would you accuse me of ignoring it?

Wright likewise failed to cite a single biblical verse that makes plain the extraordinary claim that Jesus ordered Christians to forgive those still committing monstrous crimes, unrepentent for those crimes, without remorse or even pity, and even if the Christian in question isn't even a victim of that sinner (forgiveness by proxy).

Instead, he cited several verses that appeared to condition forgiveness on repentence, and several that didn't mention the issue. He concluded therefrom that there must be two distinct types of forgiveness: heart and verbal. His reasoning included several unexamined assumptions, a couple of which I elucidated:

  1. Wright must assume that his translation of the Bible is accurate and complete, unless he is working from the original Aramaic, Latin, and Greek manuscrupts (he says all verses are from the New American Standard Bible, not the original);
  2. Wright must assume that, e.g., if Mark believed forgiveness required repentence, he would say so every time; ergo, if he neglects to say so in even a single verse, that means there is a new type of forgiveness, never before seen by anyone, that mandates forgiveness even in the bizarre circumstances above.
  3. Wright quotes the cross prayer as an example of this second type of forgiveness, unconditional heart-forgiveness.

    But Wright explicitly says that what he calls "heart forgiveness" is interpersonal forgiveness -- Man forgiving Man -- as opposed to God forgiving man.

This creates a problem, I noted, because Jesus's prayer on the cross sure doesn't sound like "interpersonal forgiveness" to me. From Wright's treatise:

Consider the way He prayed for His tormentors: "But Jesus was saying, 'Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.' And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves." Luke 23:34 (NASB)

Who did Jesus forgive from the cross? Much ink has been spilt on this subject, some arguing that He forgave the Romans only, others arguing that the focus of the prayer was more extensive. Some would say that He forgave no one, that all He did was pray. Carson in his book Love in Hard Places redirects this focus to the very heart of Jesus. He wrote, "The most important thing about this prayer is not the precise way in which it was answered or the precise degree of guilt that the men incurred and for which they needed forgiveness, but the way it discloses Jesus' heart."

If the actual text means anything -- then those who say all Jesus did was pray are correct; and those who say Jesus forgave "them" (whoever that pronoun covers) are simply wrong on the merits. His exact words were "Father, forgive them."

He is clearly praying, not for "interpersonal forgiveness" -- which Jesus could grant immediately himself, as could any man, without God's intercession -- but for godly forgiveness... and even Wright agrees that godly forgiveness is conditional, not unconditional.

(In your newest post, you say that Jesus forgave Pontius Pilate; you used this to make a point about forgiveness even without repentence. I can't find such a passage; perhaps you could point me to it.)

I noted these salient points... and your only response was to yell at me for being an ignoramus who never read the New Testament and for demanding you do my homework... by which you meant to insist that I disprove your particular take on forgiveness -- which even Wright admits has many dissenters among Christian theologians -- rather than you, yourself essaying to prove your own point.

So I really think your last post was unseemly; and more to the instance, you still haven't produced a single biblical verse that says that "interpersonal forgiveness" must be utterly unconditional. And neither has Greg Wright.

You have your interpretation, which is fine; but you insist your interpretation is the only possible one. I say that's spinach.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 13, 2007 2:08 AM

The following hissed in response by: Chris Hunt

I'm bored by this whole thing now. I believe that FredTownWard correctly established that forgiving someone for their actions is different from them receiving divine forgiveness, or absolution, for them. Forgiving does not mean that the perpetrators are not responsible for their actions. Their sins are not washed away by human forgiveness. Forgiving simply means that you will do your level best, aided by divine help, to not hold a grudge against the perpetrator. You will not allow hate for that person's actions to become hate for that person. Just because you pledge not to hate someone does not mean that you waive their responsibility for their actions, or waive the desire to see human justice done.

If you have trouble digesting this, then I'm not interested in further exploration of the topic.

The above hissed in response by: Chris Hunt [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 13, 2007 4:12 AM

The following hissed in response by: Doc-obiwan

"God's job is forgiveness. Our job is to arrange the meeting." --various attributions, including Norman Schwartzkopf, the USMC and others.

Thanks, Ms. Assam, for arranging the meeting.

The above hissed in response by: Doc-obiwan [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 13, 2007 8:18 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Chris Hunt:

Forgiving simply means that you will do your level best, aided by divine help, to not hold a grudge against the perpetrator.

Forgive me, Chris, but I think most of us believe it's a good thing to "hold a grudge" against a spree killer!

I know I do...

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 13, 2007 12:46 PM

The following hissed in response by: Chris Hunt

I think you're being obtuse at this point, but what the hell. Holding a grudge means bearing a personal animus against someone, doesn't it? How many grudges can you hold at any given time? Does it make sense to keep the anger necessary to hold the grudge stoked indefinitely? Constant anger has a way of warping a person in ways that are not pleasant. Do we really need this? In this case, the perpetrator is dead. How long must we remain angry at him?

I abhor spree killers myself. I wish that every single one of them had killed himself rather than wreak havoc on innocent victims. Holding a personal animus against them makes no sense. Even if someone had killed one of my loved ones, holding onto that anger is detrimental to me. Jesus recognized this, and counseled against it.

The above hissed in response by: Chris Hunt [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 14, 2007 7:30 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved