Who Can Forgive Your Sins?

[BreezeWood]

.
the middle quote is your example ...

restitution would be peripheral to the internal admonition of responsibility and is applicable to the injured party your internal correction is not - like keeping the stolen car but saying you will not do it again.

But in the example the injured party has already said they want no further contact. In order to provide restitution (which I suppose would be an apology) would require going against their wishes. I can only take responsibility by further intruding on them?

.

But in the example the injured party has already said they want no further contact. In order to provide restitution (which I suppose would be an apology) would require going against their wishes. I can only take responsibility by further intruding on them?

that is a possible example for your conclusion were restitution still made available with or without the other parties acceptance especially in your example what the issue was for them to never see you again. for the purpose to alleviate a sin ... restitution is responsibility.

We are not going to agree on this. Restitution is not responsibility, it is simply a way to mitigate harm. You can do that while still taking no responsibility at all.

.

We are not going to agree on this. Restitution is not responsibility, it is simply a way to mitigate harm. You can do that while still taking no responsibility at all.

it is simply a way to mitigate harm .

one might inquire why that would not be required, not mitigation but a complete reversal of the harm created. or the responsibility becomes otherwise irrelevant. the victim not yourself is the focal point.

keeping the stolen car while feeling bad about stealing it is a bit of stretch.

your example is no different whether accepted or not the effort to undo the harm would be required over leaving it intact.

A lovely thought, but almost always not possible. If I trod on your toe, how do I undo the pain you experience?

.

A lovely thought, but almost always not possible. If I trod on your toe, how do I undo the pain you experience?

sure, ok ... use a hammer and do your own toe the metaphysical will balance the scale, to say almost never possible is categorically wrong but surly a pleasant thought. * for sinners.

it's not true but christians will tell you their messiah died for their sins - actually (they) remained silent while he was brutally killed - one can not bring back a life taken so that is an irredeemable sin that fits your scenario.

 

[james bond]

No. I would be punished for breaking a law - not for a sin. In fact, not breaking a law could well be a sin.

I'm not going to argue semantics with you. You do not understand how God works. He works through others such as witnesses, law enforcement, and the court system, so in effect you are punished for your sins.

 

[james bond]

I wouldn't say that. Have you been to jail?

you don't get punished for adultery/gluttony/etc etc

I'll take that as a yes haha. One could get punished if one gets caught for adultery; they end up divorced or worse killed or injured in the heat of passion. Gluttony leads to health problems. It's all natural.

Now, you said humans were "made" to sin which isn't exactly correct. Adam and Eve were created to not disobey God. Not go against him. That was the only rule because they had free will. Going against God isn't natural. A talking snake isn't natural. Everything else was at the time.

The other important part to remember is God had already created hell because of Lucifer going against him. In his infinite wisdom, this was all part of natural.

Afterward, we live in the fallen world. You and I and everyone here didn't have much choice for that. That's why in this life I agreed with you that to sin is natural. We can't help it even if we are Christians.

lot's of people commit adultery and don't get punished--plain and simple

Jeez, I disagree with that. Are you married or have been married? In a relationship? In law enforcement, it doesn't take long for one to get involved in a crime of passion or heated marital or man-woman argument. .

AND humans were MADE to eat/''interact'' with the opposite sex/etc
very ridiculous to ''punish'' humans for doing what they do naturally

I'm going to take your answer as a, "No." Never been married. Never been in a relationship. Thus, you do not understand how these things work.

 

[emilynghiem]

My understanding is that to the degree that someone, in this case Marione,
forgives trespasses, then her trespasses are forgiven.

I don't know what is going on "internally" with her and others
between them and God, how much they have forgiven between them.

We do get an idea of what's going on "internally" with Marion, but have to judge her by her actions if we are discussing cleansing of her sins. I thought Hitch was suggesting she did as she did not get a chance to fully repent by giving back the money. She was wearing white underneath when having another sexual tryst with her divorced lover. She was wearing black underneath after she stole the money. What happens to her before she gets to the motel is her dealing with guilt and the fear of being caught. We see that internalization. The highway patrolman becomes very suspicious of her by her behavior. She buys a newspaper to see if her crime has been reported. Then she ends up trading her car in a very suspicious manner. Even the car salesman says so to the patrolman. We also hear her talking to herself way before she gets to the motel.

This is all very important to understanding Marion before she gets to the motel.

What I don't get is how she is supposed to forgive trespasses against her? Have you seen the movie? If not, it's worth viewing even though it may not be your cup of tea. Why? We find that we can look at it from a sin view. You don't have to get way deep into the story as it is very shocking of what's behind the Bates family.

RE: "but have to judge her by her actions"
Not really james bond
We are to judge "righteous judgment"
NOT judge by APPEARANCE.

so unless we talk with someone directly (two way interaction or sometimes getting help
from 1-2 others to interpret and explain to facilitate) and get an understanding
of their understanding of things, we cannot always tell.
We can guess or go with what we think God is telling us.

As for how can she forgive trespasses against her,
we agree to forgive IN ADVANCE, by letting GOD through CHRIST
live and direct their love and grace through us which already
has forgiven in advance without condition.

It's not us doing the forgiving for we are not able.
It's AGREEING to receive God's grace and forgiveness
and to extend these to other by God/Jesus ability
where we are human and will fall short of perfect love and forgiveness.

This aligns with what it means that God alone can forgive.
Humans are so limited and designed to react based on the past
to PROTECT ourselves by instinct and learn by conscience. So
we are not able to let go and understand and love all people
with the DIVINE grace and love that God has that can not only
FORGIVE all things but CORRECT AND HEAL those things.
Humans cannot once we get so hurt or afraid, we end up
turning to a higher source when we can't do it even if we wanted to.
Our consciences are biased and limited to protect our own interests first.

This is what it means that all people are conditioned by sin or biases,
and are never perfect enough to be equally understanding and loving
toward ALL people. Only GOD can do that. So we must love one another
with GOD's love as Christ did, and not depend on human love that is
limited and conditional based on our material responses and biases.​

 

[james bond]

We are to judge "righteous judgment"
NOT judge by APPEARANCE.

I don't know how I could have made it more clear. Actions are not appearance. That's what we are judging Marion by. You should see the movie.

Those who have faith in Jesus are considered "righteous" and Jesus is the one who does the judging for that.

As for the rest, it's beyond the topic of this thread; it doesn't apply to Marion. We do not know if Marion is righteous, but if her sins are to be cleansed (not by punishment, but forgiveness) then she should be righteous. If Marion wasn't righteous, does it matter if her sins are cleansed?

Another poster brought up the two thieves who were crucified with Jesus. Were they righteous? Neither may have been, but one was saved. What do you think about that? How was that thief saved?

 

[SweetSue92]

To answer this look no further than posts 33 and 34--to me the differences could be no more stark. In post 33 The Irish Ram gives us a picture of an infinitely perfect and holy God who calls us--if we call on His name, we are written in His book of life. She doesn't say so explicitly but implicit in her post is that God is Holy beyond Holy--a holy we cannot imagine, so perfect a single blot of sin cannot be tolerated in His presence. No matter what we tried to do we cannot achieve that state on our own--we are powerless. That's why we must be covered in Jesus' blood when God "looks" at us....He must look at us and see His sinless Son. He exchanges His Righteousness for our sin--Propitiation.

In post 34 harmonica says we don't even need forgiveness at all....that we sin and it's not even a "big deal". This is a common enough view but it is spiritually deadly. Spiritually it is a very big deal.

So to your movie: The actions of the main character were okay if she put first things first: if she were called by God first, and were repenting via repaying the money, etc. If not, then she just had a guilty conscience and...from a Christian perspective, that's not going to save her. Sadly.

 

[diver52]

But in the example the injured party has already said they want no further contact. In order to provide restitution (which I suppose would be an apology) would require going against their wishes. I can only take responsibility by further intruding on them?

.

But in the example the injured party has already said they want no further contact. In order to provide restitution (which I suppose would be an apology) would require going against their wishes. I can only take responsibility by further intruding on them?

that is a possible example for your conclusion were restitution still made available with or without the other parties acceptance especially in your example what the issue was for them to never see you again. for the purpose to alleviate a sin ... restitution is responsibility.

We are not going to agree on this. Restitution is not responsibility, it is simply a way to mitigate harm. You can do that while still taking no responsibility at all.

.

We are not going to agree on this. Restitution is not responsibility, it is simply a way to mitigate harm. You can do that while still taking no responsibility at all.

it is simply a way to mitigate harm .

one might inquire why that would not be required, not mitigation but a complete reversal of the harm created. or the responsibility becomes otherwise irrelevant. the victim not yourself is the focal point.

keeping the stolen car while feeling bad about stealing it is a bit of stretch.

your example is no different whether accepted or not the effort to undo the harm would be required over leaving it intact.

A lovely thought, but almost always not possible. If I trod on your toe, how do I undo the pain you experience?

.

A lovely thought, but almost always not possible. If I trod on your toe, how do I undo the pain you experience?

sure, ok ... use a hammer and do your own toe the metaphysical will balance the scale, to say almost never possible is categorically wrong but surly a pleasant thought. * for sinners.

it's not true but christians will tell you their messiah died for their sins - actually (they) remained silent while he was brutally killed - one can not bring back a life taken so that is an irredeemable sin that fits your scenario.

Bashing my own toe only increases the amount of pain, it does not diminish your pain. What I said was it is almost always impossible to reverse a wrong. For that to happen, you would typically need a time machine. You cannot make a thing that happened to not have happened.

BTW, I'm not a Christian and I don't actually accept the concept of sin.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
that is a possible example for your conclusion were restitution still made available with or without the other parties acceptance especially in your example what the issue was for them to never see you again. for the purpose to alleviate a sin ... restitution is responsibility.

We are not going to agree on this. Restitution is not responsibility, it is simply a way to mitigate harm. You can do that while still taking no responsibility at all.

.

We are not going to agree on this. Restitution is not responsibility, it is simply a way to mitigate harm. You can do that while still taking no responsibility at all.

it is simply a way to mitigate harm .

one might inquire why that would not be required, not mitigation but a complete reversal of the harm created. or the responsibility becomes otherwise irrelevant. the victim not yourself is the focal point.

keeping the stolen car while feeling bad about stealing it is a bit of stretch.

your example is no different whether accepted or not the effort to undo the harm would be required over leaving it intact.

A lovely thought, but almost always not possible. If I trod on your toe, how do I undo the pain you experience?

.

A lovely thought, but almost always not possible. If I trod on your toe, how do I undo the pain you experience?

sure, ok ... use a hammer and do your own toe the metaphysical will balance the scale, to say almost never possible is categorically wrong but surly a pleasant thought. * for sinners.

it's not true but christians will tell you their messiah died for their sins - actually (they) remained silent while he was brutally killed - one can not bring back a life taken so that is an irredeemable sin that fits your scenario.

Bashing my own toe only increases the amount of pain, it does not diminish your pain. What I said was it is almost always impossible to reverse a wrong. For that to happen, you would typically need a time machine. You cannot make a thing that happened to not have happened.

BTW, I'm not a Christian and I don't actually accept the concept of sin.

.

What I said was it is almost always impossible to reverse a wrong.

wrong - is metaphysical, the opposite of "almost always impossible" is true metaphysically within one's self, they can atone for their mistakes unless where they haven't the capability to restore a taken life physically however there might be a metaphysical way to atone for even that but a tall order then in accomplishing remission to the Everlasting.

BTW, I'm not a Christian and I don't actually accept the concept of sin.

good, the 1st century events are not christianity but a reassurance of the religion of antiquity, the triumph of good vs evil - howabout the concept of evil.

marion seems to have turned away from evil -

 

[james bond]

To answer this look no further than posts 33 and 34--to me the differences could be no more stark. In post 33 The Irish Ram gives us a picture of an infinitely perfect and holy God who calls us--if we call on His name, we are written in His book of life. She doesn't say so explicitly but implicit in her post is that God is Holy beyond Holy--a holy we cannot imagine, so perfect a single blot of sin cannot be tolerated in His presence. No matter what we tried to do we cannot achieve that state on our own--we are powerless. That's why we must be covered in Jesus' blood when God "looks" at us....He must look at us and see His sinless Son. He exchanges His Righteousness for our sin--Propitiation.

In post 34 harmonica says we don't even need forgiveness at all....that we sin and it's not even a "big deal". This is a common enough view but it is spiritually deadly. Spiritually it is a very big deal.

So to your movie: The actions of the main character were okay if she put first things first: if she were called by God first, and were repenting via repaying the money, etc. If not, then she just had a guilty conscience and...from a Christian perspective, that's not going to save her. Sadly.

Thank you SweetSue92. I think you are right. The two things that struck me from the discussion was The Irish Ram's post of the two thieves crucified with Jesus (which I'm familiar with, but have not studied). Also, I thought what harmonica brought up was impactful, as well, with sin being natural posts..

I was about to wrap up this thread and summarize. I hope your post helps me to segue into it.

First, I don't think we think of our lives as being in sin or not. Even if we believe in the powers of Christ, we cannot function in a natural way if we thought things or events in our lives were sinful or not. It's just that a "liberal" director (I found this out through another person) interpreted the shower scene as cleansing of sins. To him, he thought that if a thief (a sinner) is killed by an act of God such as a meeting with a psychotic killer, then their sins are cleansed. I think the believers here would disagree and say this isn't true.

However, we have the story of the two thieves and Jesus at Calvary. The two thieves start mocking Christ. Yet, one is convinced that Jesus is the Lord and that he did nothing wrong. I think he was sincere and was moved. Forgive me, if I do not have this correct. Thus, he is cleansed of his sins. This would be the ultimate "death bed" confession and true cleansing of sin.

The other part that is true is that sin is natural. We cannot help, but sin in this fallen world. Contrary to what harmonica believes, sin is deadly because it is natural. It is the ultimate killer. Worse than cancer, heart attack, or stroke. Thus, we have to try and to follow Jesus to be saved. The Ten Commandments (summary of 613 commandments in the OT) are there to guide us to not be sinful, but we find it is impossible to follow because we aren't perfect. Only Jesus was able to follow. Thus, it helps tell us that we need to be saved by God's mercy and grace through Jesus. Through our faith and repenting for our sins, then we are forgiven like the thief on the cross and are able to reach God's kingdom.

 

[Taz]

To answer this look no further than posts 33 and 34--to me the differences could be no more stark. In post 33 The Irish Ram gives us a picture of an infinitely perfect and holy God who calls us--if we call on His name, we are written in His book of life. She doesn't say so explicitly but implicit in her post is that God is Holy beyond Holy--a holy we cannot imagine, so perfect a single blot of sin cannot be tolerated in His presence. No matter what we tried to do we cannot achieve that state on our own--we are powerless. That's why we must be covered in Jesus' blood when God "looks" at us....He must look at us and see His sinless Son. He exchanges His Righteousness for our sin--Propitiation.

In post 34 harmonica says we don't even need forgiveness at all....that we sin and it's not even a "big deal". This is a common enough view but it is spiritually deadly. Spiritually it is a very big deal.

So to your movie: The actions of the main character were okay if she put first things first: if she were called by God first, and were repenting via repaying the money, etc. If not, then she just had a guilty conscience and...from a Christian perspective, that's not going to save her. Sadly.

Thank you SweetSue92. I think you are right. The two things that struck me from the discussion was The Irish Ram's post of the two thieves crucified with Jesus (which I'm familiar with, but have not studied). Also, I thought what harmonica brought up was impactful, as well, with sin being natural posts..

I was about to wrap up this thread and summarize. I hope your post helps me to segue into it.

First, I don't think we think of our lives as being in sin or not. Even if we believe in the powers of Christ, we cannot function in a natural way if we thought things or events in our lives were sinful or not. It's just that a "liberal" director (I found this out through another person) interpreted the shower scene as cleansing of sins. To him, he thought that if a thief (a sinner) is killed by an act of God such as a meeting with a psychotic killer, then their sins are cleansed. I think the believers here would disagree and say this isn't true.

However, we have the story of the two thieves and Jesus at Calvary. The two thieves start mocking Christ. Yet, one is convinced that Jesus is the Lord and that he did nothing wrong. I think he was sincere and was moved. Forgive me, if I do not have this correct. Thus, he is cleansed of his sins. This would be the ultimate "death bed" confession and true cleansing of sin.

The other part that is true is that sin is natural. We cannot help, but sin in this fallen world. Contrary to what harmonica believes, sin is deadly because it is natural. It is the ultimate killer. Worse than cancer, heart attack, or stroke. Thus, we have to try and to follow Jesus to be saved. The Ten Commandments (summary of 613 commandments in the OT) are there to guide us to not be sinful, but we find it is impossible to follow because we aren't perfect. Only Jesus was able to follow. Thus, it helps tell us that we need to be saved by God's mercy and grace through Jesus. Through our faith and repenting for our sins, then we are forgiven like the thief on the cross and are able to reach God's kingdom.

^^^^^^^^^^^ ALERT! MAJOR FARTSMOKE!!! PIECES OF CABLE AS WELL!!!!!!

So where do I go if I don't repent?

 

[james bond]

Here is what is a sin. Albeit it's a different movie. Oh the ketchup!

 

[diver52]

We are not going to agree on this. Restitution is not responsibility, it is simply a way to mitigate harm. You can do that while still taking no responsibility at all.

.

We are not going to agree on this. Restitution is not responsibility, it is simply a way to mitigate harm. You can do that while still taking no responsibility at all.

it is simply a way to mitigate harm .

one might inquire why that would not be required, not mitigation but a complete reversal of the harm created. or the responsibility becomes otherwise irrelevant. the victim not yourself is the focal point.

keeping the stolen car while feeling bad about stealing it is a bit of stretch.

your example is no different whether accepted or not the effort to undo the harm would be required over leaving it intact.

A lovely thought, but almost always not possible. If I trod on your toe, how do I undo the pain you experience?

.

A lovely thought, but almost always not possible. If I trod on your toe, how do I undo the pain you experience?

sure, ok ... use a hammer and do your own toe the metaphysical will balance the scale, to say almost never possible is categorically wrong but surly a pleasant thought. * for sinners.

it's not true but christians will tell you their messiah died for their sins - actually (they) remained silent while he was brutally killed - one can not bring back a life taken so that is an irredeemable sin that fits your scenario.

Bashing my own toe only increases the amount of pain, it does not diminish your pain. What I said was it is almost always impossible to reverse a wrong. For that to happen, you would typically need a time machine. You cannot make a thing that happened to not have happened.

BTW, I'm not a Christian and I don't actually accept the concept of sin.

.

What I said was it is almost always impossible to reverse a wrong.

wrong - is metaphysical, the opposite of "almost always impossible" is true metaphysically within one's self, they can atone for their mistakes unless where they haven't the capability to restore a taken life physically however there might be a metaphysical way to atone for even that but a tall order then in accomplishing remission to the Everlasting.

I have no idea what you mean by "everlasting".

 

[emilynghiem]

We are to judge "righteous judgment"
NOT judge by APPEARANCE.

I don't know how I could have made it more clear. Actions are not appearance. That's what we are judging Marion by. You should see the movie.

Those who have faith in Jesus are considered "righteous" and Jesus is the one who does the judging for that.

As for the rest, it's beyond the topic of this thread; it doesn't apply to Marion. We do not know if Marion is righteous, but if her sins are to be cleansed (not by punishment, but forgiveness) then she should be righteous. If Marion wasn't righteous, does it matter if her sins are cleansed?

Another poster brought up the two thieves who were crucified with Jesus. Were they righteous? Neither may have been, but one was saved. What do you think about that? How was that thief saved?

Yes and no james bond

People misjudge actions (as well as words and intentions) all the time.
We are human and are going to project our biases when we perceive things.

Hasn't this happened to you?

I see it constantly.

To judge someone's judgment, you'd have to know the full context.
As humans, we aren't omniscient and we leave out information
or misperceive INTENT OR MEANING behind someone's words, thoughts or actions.

The hardest thing I've found about misjudging someone
is even if their words or actions betray them, it turns out the
person they really are DOESN'T MANIFEST UNTIL THE FUTURE, and by addressing who
that person is in the FUTURE, that is what motivates the person to change,
NOT ADDRESSING THEM by who they were in the past which isn't the
same as the true default person that God created them to be.

For example, I just spoke with a county judge who when handing out criminal
sentences, speaks to each person INDIVIDUALLY, explains to them how their
sentence is in keeping with the law, but ENCOURAGES them to stay right with
God, who has given them a purpose, and they can still do better, that everyone
makes mistakes and God gives them freedom to turn around and be better.

This judge does NOT JUDGE THE PERSON for their actions, but judges their
actions by the law. So that is different than trying to place judgment on the person.

She speaks to who they are APART from the faults in their actions, and even their
inability to repent or recognize that. By talking to their PURE selves, that is APART
from their actions, she distinguishes them with respect to appeal to their higher selves
that may NEVER HAVE MANIFESTED yet.

That's what I mean by not judging people by appearances and actions tied to the past
where it can inhibit and obstruct people from responding from their higher selves.

james bond since God created man in his image, I believe that perfection is
inherently available but suppressed and obstructed by sinful conditions and biases.

If we come in with respect for forgiveness, we can address that pure self that
God made originally perfect before it was suppressed and corrupted by the sinful conditions
that we are born into or run into in life. That pure self that is childlike and responds to
God's love is what we bring out when we connect through Christ Jesus. it's easier to
connect with people who haven't hardened their hearts and minds and covered this up.

So judging people by actions and appearances doesn't help
but makes these layers harder to unpeel to get to the real person
"underneath" that God intended and creates someone to be.

THAT'S THE PERSON that I want to discern, what is their TRUE SELF
that is made new in Christ Jesus when grace and forgiveness removes
the unforgiven conflicts and bad actions that separate us from that perfect purpose and will.

So YES we do judge the incorrect perceptions that are mostly self-projected.
The actions someone does can be colored by these FLAWED perceptions,
but james bond it's still the PERCEPTIONS or JUDGMENT that we
discern and judge, and not judge the "person for their actions" which is in the past
and not permanent. Their perception and judgment can change to be closer to
what they are really supposed to be. So that's the most effective approach I've
seen to dealing with such flaws, is to compare the past perception with their
future perception and self-image that they know is supposed to be better.

How can you even HAVE that conversation by looking at someone at a distance
by third person perspective?

The judge makes a point to come down from the bench, NOT act as a third party
judging, but talking to them respectfully person to person and confirming that
their past does NOT DEFINE who they are. The law applies to their actions,
but THEY are not being judged personally because they can change and
God will help them. This judge INSISTS that getting in this position was
ordained by God in order to tell them this message and turn them around.

I agree we do more to compel change by connecting with people
personally so they feel that spiritual connection by conscience,
and can rise above this whole business of being judged by appearances.

 

[james bond]

People misjudge actions (as well as words and intentions) all the time.
We are human and are going to project our biases when we perceive things.

Hasn't this happened to you?

I see it constantly.

Sure, it has happened in this thread. I misjudged what a liberal director meant when he said the shower scene was about "cleansing of sin."

How do you see misjudgment of actions as well as words and intentions on a daily basis? Is it part of your job?

Personally, my thinking is not to judge another person unless I am forced to. On a forum like this, it usually starts with a claim or statement based on one's worldview as better than another's worldview.

For example, I just spoke with a county judge who when handing out criminal
sentences, speaks to each person INDIVIDUALLY, explains to them how their
sentence is in keeping with the law, but ENCOURAGES them to stay right with
God, who has given them a purpose, and they can still do better, that everyone
makes mistakes and God gives them freedom to turn around and be better.

This judge does NOT JUDGE THE PERSON for their actions, but judges their
actions by the law. So that is different than trying to place judgment on the person.

She speaks to who they are APART from the faults in their actions, and even their
inability to repent or recognize that. By talking to their PURE selves, that is APART
from their actions, she distinguishes them with respect to appeal to their higher selves
that may NEVER HAVE MANIFESTED yet.

That's what I mean by not judging people by appearances and actions tied to the past
where it can inhibit and obstruct people from responding from their higher selves.

I would think being a judge is a difficult job. The power part is nice, but one has to know and apply the law and once outlining the parameters of the law, they have to sit back and listen to professional arguments. This kind of listening takes patience and being able to remember what was said. My memory isn't the greatest so I would not enjoy being a judge.

What you said about how they judge another's (both defendant and plaintiff) actions by the law is valid. They are listening to them in regards to gathering the facts in order to analyze the basis of their differing arguments.

In this forum, I wouldn't say the arguments are related to the criminal or civil law although it is related, but to God's objective moral law. In this context, one is in sin (wrong) or not (righteous).

It's not how we try grand theft which is what Marion is facing, but we're looking at what she did from a religious view. We do not know if she is Christian, but if she was, then it's my opinion that she repented for her sin of theft. This is different from what a different director meant by cleansing of Marion's sin by her death. She was punished for her sin in an act of God or running into a psycho killer.

I don't think you want to discuss this, but have something else in mind which I am having trouble understanding.

For example, you say:

'not judge the "person for their actions" which is in the past
and not permanent. Their perception and judgment can change to be closer to
what they are really supposed to be. So that's the most effective approach I've
seen to dealing with such flaws, is to compare the past perception with their
future perception and self-image that they know is supposed to be better.'

If I have to judge their "perception and judgment" or "closer to what they are really supposed to be," then how does one do that? How does that relate to God's objective moral laws? I'm going to assume you aren't referring to criminal or civil law anymore.

 

[emilynghiem]

PS Pre-Script
No I don't do this as part of any paid job.
Just in my volunteer outreach trying to correct problems affecting me and my community
and also political relations (so advocates trying to reform govt and solve problems can work
together more collaboratively and effectively instead of wasting time/resources fighting conflicts)
I ended up studying this whole process of conflict resolution
with a focus on religious and political language/perception differences.
I found out people have innate SPIRITUAL beliefs and biases, whether
these are expressed as religious or political beliefs, and some cannot change.
Thus, we may be better off finding ways to work AROUND our differences and conflicts
rather than this adversarial approach of trying to convert, coerce, or compel change by overruling or excluding.

If we can find ways to work around those conflicts, or resolve them either way,
then we can INCLUDE opposing views without forcing people to change beliefs.
That would be more Constitutionally inclusive and equally protective of all people,
rather than use majority or judicial rule to IMPOSE one side over another which doesn't
solve the root conflict or objection between the two sides. I think we require better
solutions than that, or else people keep fighting the same conflicts without resolution.

(Note: with politics, I look for solutions and reforms that satisfy what both left and right
are lobbying for and WITHOUT compromising their beliefs but avoiding the areas where
they run into objections. with religion, I look for ways to TRANSLATE the same religious
concepts and principles into SECULAR terms so that it doesn't matter if someone is
theist or nontheist, we can agree what the meaning is and work for common goals. again, this doen'st require changing people's beliefs, but perceptions of them as not conflicting.)

I wish I could find an internship and get paid to work on setting up more inclusive
mediation/conflict resolution support to help organizations and communities
to resolve differences so we can save resources and invest that directly into
better solutions that don't require anyone to change their beliefs. Just changing
our perception of how we don't have to compromise our beliefs to form and implement solutions.

I ended up working on this on my own, just trying to resolve my own personal relationships,
which ended up being connected to resolving similar conflicts around me including my district
that suffered ongoing destruction from political conflicts never resolved (because people have
their own personal issues that get projected and entangled in external issues).

I found by the time you solve your internal and personal conflicts, the same process
helps resolve external relations with groups, institutions and communities suffering the same,
and collectively this means solving political and global issues affecting whole populations.

In this process of resolving issues just between me and people around me,
I end up working on this constantly. Everyone who helps me understand where to take
steps toward resolving conflicts, this has a ripple effect and applies to resolve other issues related.

Every bit helps. So that's why I try to get on the same page with everyone around me,
identify where we are talking past each other or in conflict over issues, and whatever
we can do to straighten that out helps us communicate better in the future and with other people.

People misjudge actions (as well as words and intentions) all the time.
We are human and are going to project our biases when we perceive things.

Hasn't this happened to you?

I see it constantly.

Sure, it has happened in this thread. I misjudged what a liberal director meant when he said the shower scene was about "cleansing of sin."

How do you see misjudgment of actions as well as words and intentions on a daily basis? Is it part of your job?

Personally, my thinking is not to judge another person unless I am forced to. On a forum like this, it usually starts with a claim or statement based on one's worldview as better than another's worldview.

For example, I just spoke with a county judge who when handing out criminal
sentences, speaks to each person INDIVIDUALLY, explains to them how their
sentence is in keeping with the law, but ENCOURAGES them to stay right with
God, who has given them a purpose, and they can still do better, that everyone
makes mistakes and God gives them freedom to turn around and be better.

This judge does NOT JUDGE THE PERSON for their actions, but judges their
actions by the law. So that is different than trying to place judgment on the person.

She speaks to who they are APART from the faults in their actions, and even their
inability to repent or recognize that. By talking to their PURE selves, that is APART
from their actions, she distinguishes them with respect to appeal to their higher selves
that may NEVER HAVE MANIFESTED yet.

That's what I mean by not judging people by appearances and actions tied to the past
where it can inhibit and obstruct people from responding from their higher selves.

I would think being a judge is a difficult job. The power part is nice, but one has to know and apply the law and once outlining the parameters of the law, they have to sit back and listen to professional arguments. This kind of listening takes patience and being able to remember what was said. My memory isn't the greatest so I would not enjoy being a judge.

What you said about how they judge another's (both defendant and plaintiff) actions by the law is valid. They are listening to them in regards to gathering the facts in order to analyze the basis of their differing arguments.

In this forum, I wouldn't say the arguments are related to the criminal or civil law although it is related, but to God's objective moral law. In this context, one is in sin (wrong) or not (righteous).

It's not how we try grand theft which is what Marion is facing, but we're looking at what she did from a religious view. We do not know if she is Christian, but if she was, then it's my opinion that she repented for her sin of theft. This is different from what a different director meant by cleansing of Marion's sin by her death. She was punished for her sin in an act of God or running into a psycho killer.

I don't think you want to discuss this, but have something else in mind which I am having trouble understanding.

For example, you say:

'not judge the "person for their actions" which is in the past
and not permanent. Their perception and judgment can change to be closer to
what they are really supposed to be. So that's the most effective approach I've
seen to dealing with such flaws, is to compare the past perception with their
future perception and self-image that they know is supposed to be better.'

If I have to judge their "perception and judgment" or "closer to what they are really supposed to be," then how does one do that? How does that relate to God's objective moral laws? I'm going to assume you aren't referring to criminal or civil law anymore.

Dear james bond
I meant to add a personal note but you already
posted, and what you said here I think already covers it all. Very well stated!
Thank you, I think we are on the same page or close enough.

What I was going to add which isn't necessary now
is I don't mean to discourage anyone who feels a calling to
confront people on their own judgment IF that person is judging
others unfairly and you feel called to hold them to their OWN words.

NOT to discredit them, but to CORRECT them so they do their job better.

so (1) for people who play the role of judging if things are by standard or not,
yes, that may be the role they play; and all this judgment process should be
applied by such people on ONE ANOTHER (ie applied to just those who
play this role) to help correct each other.
(2) the comparison of judgments/perceptions should NOT be applied
to judge other people who don't play this role. And it should not be for
trying to change, condemn, exclude, dismiss or discredit such people
but should be "between peers for MUTUAL correction, understanding and edification"

Some people happen to play this role.
so I recommend they keep this among themselves as peer
who agree to compare judgments on standards and interpretations.
NOT project onto people who didn't agree to those standards
but focus on correcting those who do commit (especially others doing the same).

Thanks james bond

 

[james bond]

PS Pre-Script
No I don't do this as part of any paid job.
Just in my volunteer outreach trying to correct problems affecting me and my community
and also political relations (so advocates trying to reform govt and solve problems can work
together more collaboratively and effectively instead of wasting time/resources fighting conflicts)
I ended up studying this whole process of conflict resolution
with a focus on religious and political language/perception differences.
I found out people have innate SPIRITUAL beliefs and biases, whether
these are expressed as religious or political beliefs, and some cannot change.
Thus, we may be better off finding ways to work AROUND our differences and conflicts
rather than this adversarial approach of trying to convert, coerce, or compel change by overruling or excluding.

If we can find ways to work around those conflicts, or resolve them either way,
then we can INCLUDE opposing views without forcing people to change beliefs.
That would be more Constitutionally inclusive and equally protective of all people,
rather than use majority or judicial rule to IMPOSE one side over another which doesn't
solve the root conflict or objection between the two sides. I think we require better
solutions than that, or else people keep fighting the same conflicts without resolution.

(Note: with politics, I look for solutions and reforms that satisfy what both left and right
are lobbying for and WITHOUT compromising their beliefs but avoiding the areas where
they run into objections. with religion, I look for ways to TRANSLATE the same religious
concepts and principles into SECULAR terms so that it doesn't matter if someone is
theist or nontheist, we can agree what the meaning is and work for common goals. again, this doen'st require changing people's beliefs, but perceptions of them as not conflicting.)

I wish I could find an internship and get paid to work on setting up more inclusive
mediation/conflict resolution support to help organizations and communities
to resolve differences so we can save resources and invest that directly into
better solutions that don't require anyone to change their beliefs. Just changing
our perception of how we don't have to compromise our beliefs to form and implement solutions.

I ended up working on this on my own, just trying to resolve my own personal relationships,
which ended up being connected to resolving similar conflicts around me including my district
that suffered ongoing destruction from political conflicts never resolved (because people have
their own personal issues that get projected and entangled in external issues).

I found by the time you solve your internal and personal conflicts, the same process
helps resolve external relations with groups, institutions and communities suffering the same,
and collectively this means solving political and global issues affecting whole populations.

In this process of resolving issues just between me and people around me,
I end up working on this constantly. Everyone who helps me understand where to take
steps toward resolving conflicts, this has a ripple effect and applies to resolve other issues related.

Every bit helps. So that's why I try to get on the same page with everyone around me,
identify where we are talking past each other or in conflict over issues, and whatever
we can do to straighten that out helps us communicate better in the future and with other people.

People misjudge actions (as well as words and intentions) all the time.
We are human and are going to project our biases when we perceive things.

Hasn't this happened to you?

I see it constantly.

Sure, it has happened in this thread. I misjudged what a liberal director meant when he said the shower scene was about "cleansing of sin."

How do you see misjudgment of actions as well as words and intentions on a daily basis? Is it part of your job?

Personally, my thinking is not to judge another person unless I am forced to. On a forum like this, it usually starts with a claim or statement based on one's worldview as better than another's worldview.

For example, I just spoke with a county judge who when handing out criminal
sentences, speaks to each person INDIVIDUALLY, explains to them how their
sentence is in keeping with the law, but ENCOURAGES them to stay right with
God, who has given them a purpose, and they can still do better, that everyone
makes mistakes and God gives them freedom to turn around and be better.

This judge does NOT JUDGE THE PERSON for their actions, but judges their
actions by the law. So that is different than trying to place judgment on the person.

She speaks to who they are APART from the faults in their actions, and even their
inability to repent or recognize that. By talking to their PURE selves, that is APART
from their actions, she distinguishes them with respect to appeal to their higher selves
that may NEVER HAVE MANIFESTED yet.

That's what I mean by not judging people by appearances and actions tied to the past
where it can inhibit and obstruct people from responding from their higher selves.

I would think being a judge is a difficult job. The power part is nice, but one has to know and apply the law and once outlining the parameters of the law, they have to sit back and listen to professional arguments. This kind of listening takes patience and being able to remember what was said. My memory isn't the greatest so I would not enjoy being a judge.

What you said about how they judge another's (both defendant and plaintiff) actions by the law is valid. They are listening to them in regards to gathering the facts in order to analyze the basis of their differing arguments.

In this forum, I wouldn't say the arguments are related to the criminal or civil law although it is related, but to God's objective moral law. In this context, one is in sin (wrong) or not (righteous).

It's not how we try grand theft which is what Marion is facing, but we're looking at what she did from a religious view. We do not know if she is Christian, but if she was, then it's my opinion that she repented for her sin of theft. This is different from what a different director meant by cleansing of Marion's sin by her death. She was punished for her sin in an act of God or running into a psycho killer.

I don't think you want to discuss this, but have something else in mind which I am having trouble understanding.

For example, you say:

'not judge the "person for their actions" which is in the past
and not permanent. Their perception and judgment can change to be closer to
what they are really supposed to be. So that's the most effective approach I've
seen to dealing with such flaws, is to compare the past perception with their
future perception and self-image that they know is supposed to be better.'

If I have to judge their "perception and judgment" or "closer to what they are really supposed to be," then how does one do that? How does that relate to God's objective moral laws? I'm going to assume you aren't referring to criminal or civil law anymore.

Dear james bond
I meant to add a personal note but you already
posted, and what you said here I think already covers it all. Very well stated!
Thank you, I think we are on the same page or close enough.

What I was going to add which isn't necessary now
is I don't mean to discourage anyone who feels a calling to
confront people on their own judgment IF that person is judging
others unfairly and you feel called to hold them to their OWN words.

NOT to discredit them, but to CORRECT them so they do their job better.

so (1) for people who play the role of judging if things are by standard or not,
yes, that may be the role they play; and all this judgment process should be
applied by such people on ONE ANOTHER (ie applied to just those who
play this role) to help correct each other.
(2) the comparison of judgments/perceptions should NOT be applied
to judge other people who don't play this role. And it should not be for
trying to change, condemn, exclude, dismiss or discredit such people
but should be "between peers for MUTUAL correction, understanding and edification"

Some people happen to play this role.
so I recommend they keep this among themselves as peer
who agree to compare judgments on standards and interpretations.
NOT project onto people who didn't agree to those standards
but focus on correcting those who do commit (especially others doing the same).

Thanks james bond

You're welcome emilynghiem,

I would add that we're not going to reach resolution and I suppose this is why we have freedom of religion in the US. Even within our Christian churches, we have different congregations and even different practices. What we may be able to do is alleviate the conflict by trying to understand each other's positions and where they are coming from.