|
Post by fretslider on May 25, 2011 15:53:54 GMT -5
Having feelings is part and parcel of being a human being. Not having them - well, ask a psychologist about what lacking emotions means. So what happened to morality?
|
|
|
Post by biglin on May 25, 2011 15:56:43 GMT -5
Having feelings is part and parcel of being a human being. Not having them - well, ask a psychologist about what lacking emotions means. So what happened to morality? Showing forgiveness IS acting in a morally good way IMO. As for the rest of the question, I'm not sure what you mean. Seriously.
|
|
|
Post by beth on May 25, 2011 16:11:17 GMT -5
I think there are normal emotions that leave plenty of room for objectivity and otoh, there are extreme emotions (histrionics, bleeding hearts and at the far edge .. hysteria) that control the perceptions and actions in an inappropriate way. Now, if we who have diverse opinions pause a moment and realize they *are* opinions ... the discussion will benefit for it. jmo
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on May 25, 2011 16:42:52 GMT -5
In any case, how ANYONE can make out that forgiveness is somehow something we should be ASHAMED of just boggles my tiny mind! Funny you should say that because before I did the obvious thing and went looking online for what the original Greek probably was, I checked some dictionaries. The New Testament words do not appear under forgiveness in mine, probably because it is intended for classical school use, not the common language of 400 years later. However, one word that does appear there, on cross-referencing did in fact originate as feeling ashamed or afraid, then developed a more general sense of respect or reverence and was finally used as legal jargon meaning pity or pardon. The English word and all its relatives probably came from the Latin bible since they are a part-by-part translation of the Latin Perdonare (whence by a direct route Pardon) meaning literally to give through or thoroughly. That's in keeping with ancient Teutons being very much a compensation culture where any giving was going to be strictly on the offender's side.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on May 26, 2011 4:57:48 GMT -5
Maybe we are talking at cross purposes. Maybe there is more than one type of forgiveness. When I (and perhaps Mike and Lin?) talk about forgiveness, I think of it as a state of being rather than something to be bestowed upon someone else. ----------------------- Re the Jesus example, I think that when Jesus said ''forgive them father, they know not what they do" it was a personal plea to his father - he must have known his father would see the killing as a sin, a transgression, and he asked his father to make a personal forgiveness. It says nothing about Jesus saying 'forgive them on my behalf', or of Jesus thinking he was unable to forgive his killers himself, merely that he asked his father to (also) forgive them. But, trubs ... isn't this presuming to know what other people think and mean? Isn't that all part of the forgiveness game? Not meant personally, just as a point of discussion. jmo No worries, I don't take these things personally. That's partly because I don't really know what you mean, mind. ;D
|
|
|
Post by trubble on May 26, 2011 5:00:11 GMT -5
In any case, how ANYONE can make out that forgiveness is somehow something we should be ASHAMED of just boggles my tiny mind! Funny you should say that because before I did the obvious thing and went looking online for what the original Greek probably was, I checked some dictionaries. The New Testament words do not appear under forgiveness in mine, probably because it is intended for classical school use, not the common language of 400 years later. However, one word that does appear there, on cross-referencing did in fact originate as feeling ashamed or afraid, then developed a more general sense of respect or reverence and was finally used as legal jargon meaning pity or pardon. The English word and all its relatives probably came from the Latin bible since they are a part-by-part translation of the Latin Perdonare (whence by a direct route Pardon) meaning literally to give through or thoroughly. That's in keeping with ancient Teutons being very much a compensation culture where any giving was going to be strictly on the offender's side. www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=forgiveforgive O.E. forgiefan "give, grant, allow; forgive," also "to give up" and "to give in marriage;" from for- "completely" + giefan "give" The modern sense of "to give up desire or power to punish" is from use of the compound as a Germanic loan-translation of L. perdonare (cf. O.S. fargeban, Du. vergeven, Ger. vergeben, Goth. fragiban; see pardon). Related: Forgave; forgiven; forgiving. Forgiveness is to give up, completely. Maybe I could push that and suggest it includes 'surrender'. No arrogance, but utter humility in surrendering.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on May 26, 2011 5:02:24 GMT -5
So what happened to morality? Showing forgiveness IS acting in a morally good way IMO. As for the rest of the question, I'm not sure what you mean. Seriously. I'm not following Fret's point either. I think it's something to do with arguing against religion and as such is a little irrelevant??
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on May 26, 2011 6:58:06 GMT -5
I think he means that letting people off amounts to condoning immorality.
|
|
|
Post by biglin on May 26, 2011 8:17:48 GMT -5
If he means that then I certainly DON'T agree with him.
Nor, of course, is there any NECESSARY connection between religion and morality.
Plenty of religious people act in an immoral way and plenty of non-believers do as well.
Equally, plenty of both DO act morally.
(Although he seems to excuse terrorists as long as they're murdering in a cause he agrees with which IMO is hypocrisy!)
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on May 26, 2011 13:49:36 GMT -5
Presumably, it's in the sense that failure to pursue rigid justice amounts to condoning the offence. I can't say that I agree there either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2011 14:37:52 GMT -5
I wonder if perhaps the concept of forgiveness is being confused with the idea of being able to in some sense "get away" with bad behaviour.
That is not at all the case.
Victims of crime, for instance, may forgive the perpetrator but that does not impact on the question of any punishment for the offence.
I remember being profoundly moved when one of the victims of the Greek colonel's regime who had been viciously tortured - so much so that he was crippled for life - came face to face in a court of law with the man who had tortured him.
His torturer wept and begged for forgiveness.
His victim forgave him.
That made no difference to the fact that the perpetrator had to be punished with imprisonment for his appalling crimes.
It did however mean that a new and IMO more ethical dimension entered the equation.
Rather than the trial being simply an exercise in revenge it became an occasion where empathy and compassion were displayed.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on May 26, 2011 15:21:05 GMT -5
I think he means that letting people off amounts to condoning immorality. it doesn't necessarily mean condoning the act, but by definition, it means not desiring the individual to suffer any consequence for committing the act. forgiving is granting absolution. that is what makes the chick mike is talking about, or anyone who forgives a murderer or anything else, so ridiculous. it is an impossibility to forgive if you think the person should be punished in any way
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on May 26, 2011 15:24:49 GMT -5
I wonder if perhaps the concept of forgiveness is being confused with the idea of being able to in some sense "get away" with bad behaviour. That is not at all the case. Victims of crime, for instance, may forgive the perpetrator but that does not impact on the question of any punishment for the offence. I remember being profoundly moved when one of the victims of the Greek colonel's regime who had been viciously tortured - so much so that he was crippled for life - came face to face in a court of law with the man who had tortured him. His torturer wept and begged for forgiveness. His victim forgave him. That made no difference to the fact that the perpetrator had to be punished with imprisonment for his appalling crimes. It did however mean that a new and IMO more ethical dimension entered the equation. Rather than the trial being simply an exercise in revenge it became an occasion where empathy and compassion were displayed. if the guy who was tortured thought that the criminal should suffer ANY consequence for his acts, by definition, he could not forgive him. it is simple black and white, and you can't have both colors present in the same space. totally aside from the fact that there is NOTHING is justice that is remotely revenge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2011 15:46:53 GMT -5
I wonder if perhaps the concept of forgiveness is being confused with the idea of being able to in some sense "get away" with bad behaviour. That is not at all the case. Victims of crime, for instance, may forgive the perpetrator but that does not impact on the question of any punishment for the offence. I remember being profoundly moved when one of the victims of the Greek colonel's regime who had been viciously tortured - so much so that he was crippled for life - came face to face in a court of law with the man who had tortured him. His torturer wept and begged for forgiveness. His victim forgave him. That made no difference to the fact that the perpetrator had to be punished with imprisonment for his appalling crimes. It did however mean that a new and IMO more ethical dimension entered the equation. Rather than the trial being simply an exercise in revenge it became an occasion where empathy and compassion were displayed. if the guy who was tortured thought that the criminal should suffer ANY consequence for his acts, by definition, he could not forgive him. it is simple black and white, and you can't have both colors present in the same space. totally aside from the fact that there is NOTHING is justice that is remotely revenge. In the first place, Jim, I would like to express my sympathy at the sad loss of your mother. I know you were a good son and that you will miss her deeply. On the issue of punishment and forgiveness, I respectfully beg to differ from you. If you believe that justice involves punishment then that necessarily entails an element of revenge. If you prefer a word like retribution I am happy to substitute it Forgiveness however does not entail any absence of punishment. Do you remember the Biblical story of the Prodigal Son, Jim? The father welcomed his prodigal son back home but reminded both him and the thrifty brother that all he had belonged to the thrifty brother. So the father forgave his errant son but he was still punished by the consequences of his actions.
|
|
|
Post by beth on May 26, 2011 19:56:47 GMT -5
Having feelings is part and parcel of being a human being. Not having them - well, ask a psychologist about what lacking emotions means. Lin, you're mixing terms. Not *being* emotional isn't the same as not *having* emotions.
|
|