Comments on: Existentialism: Death and Isolation

By: dB

dB — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:46:20 +0000

Oh, sorry … Hi again! I did have one question that I was kinda playing with. <–preposition at end, (OH NO! See I'm really not that smart, and I'm sure that preposition ending sentence will damage my credibility, but this isn't meant as an accusation. It really is just a question, Ok?)
So here goes, I've really been in the desert for sometime now, and this messiah thing is much more fun than it looks and probably worth the "horrible death" I'll have to suffer, and it occured to me that there seems to be this big misunderstanding about why Yes-hua came here, and I thought if maybe a few of you asked yourselves this question I have and took it with you to the desert as well, it might help. To wit: If a messiah came to earth and actually conquered death, why would he need to come back? And don't say lost luggage.

By: dB

dB — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:08:53 +0000

HI. Seems like you’ve all got it pretty well worked out or are at least on a good path, so I just wanted to say “Have a Happy!” and I’ll see ya on the other side, well those who don’t have to come back here again. Good luck and sleep loose! I’m Audi.

By: Helltime for June 22 « I Built His Cage

Helltime for June 22 « I Built His Cage — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:57:57 +0000

[...] the stress, but at its root, there is a fundamental divide between us and the users, just like the existential divide between the individual and other [...]

By: Brandon

Brandon — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:16:08 +0000

This thread had me confused. But all I know is if Ubi, Snugg, and Apostate were on the same side then they are probably right……….when I was a Christian I was never taught that someone has to repent to me and I forgive them for their crimes against me. I always perceived forgiveness as an unconditional gift on a human level but conditional on a Human to Divine level (repentance). Correct me if I am wrong………

By: John Morales

John Morales — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 08:51:13 +0000

Grant, yeah, but he has a theology.

What’s your excuse?

By: Grant Dexter

Grant Dexter — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 07:18:33 +0000

Joe. I’m sorry, but your theology is a mess

By: Grant Dexter

Grant Dexter — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 06:29:34 +0000

No worries, The Apostate. The website doesn’t say what you said either, though.

I believe for the value of a healthy reconciliation between two parties, this is certainly the case. Forgiveness and repentance, however, may be connected but they are exclusive. Repentance does not imply forgiveness and forgiveness does not imply repentance – although it is nice to hope that this would always be the case.

Sure! There are obviously cases where repentance is impossible and it might be of benefit to forgive just as one might be repentant without forgiveness.

I think we agreed on this. We can play games with language, but forgiveness is the act of forgiving, whether the person repented or not.

I believe that to forgive without first looking for repentance destroys the value of true forgiveness. Sure there might be special situations where repentance is impossible, but we should not use those cases to justify lesser standards elsewhere.

Reconciliation, on the other hand, requires both repentance by the guilty party and forgiveness by he/she who was wronged.

Sure thing! Perhaps we should talk about the true end of forgiveness in order to avoid further conflict

By: The Apostate

The Apostate — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 07:03:24 +0000

Grant,

Uh .. no. I don’t.

Okay, I apologize. That was an assumption I made from your connection to the website you link your name to. The website does directly state that.

Forgiveness only has value as forgiveness if there are two parties that agree to the process. One repents, one forgives.

I believe for the value of a healthy reconciliation between two parties, this is certainly the case. Forgiveness and repentance, however, may be connected but they are exclusive. Repentance does not imply forgiveness and forgiveness does not imply repentance – although it is nice to hope that this would always be the case.

Forgiveness without repentance might be called forgiveness, and it is of use in some situations, but the best situation is where a person who has done wrong recognises their mistake and asks for forgiveness which is then granted.

I think we agreed on this. We can play games with language, but forgiveness is the act of forgiving, whether the person repented or not. Reconciliation, on the other hand, requires both repentance by the guilty party and forgiveness by he/she who was wronged.

By: ubi dubium

ubi dubium — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:02:02 +0000

Joe:

Does that make sense, or am I going to get jumped on all over for this??

It makes some level of sense. But I think that Jesus was quite specific about “bless those who persecute you.” He did not say “but only if they are sorry for it” I was responding to Grant initially, who says that he is preaching christianity, but his arguments are not sounding very christian. If he comes here proclaiming that he is a true christian, I think that the de-cons are entitled to hold him to it.

By: John Morales

John Morales — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:59:14 +0000

Joe, yes, we get the gist of your inchoate concept despite your tortured adumbration.

Forgiveness is a visceral impulse as much as a rational one, and when one’s belief is that forgiveness is required and not optional, cognitive dissonance can strike.

Like it has you, and which you attempt to rationalise.