I have no part of this world... You seem to have caught me there in a moment of pointless gloom, and even logical error.
For instance, in a world of intellectual property, when I was young, I worried that people might steal my ideas. Now that I am older, I worry more that no one will notice my ideas. I also worry that I'll only be remembered for my worst ideas.
If there is such a thing as a "meek" which is defined as "quiet, gentle, and easily imposed on; submissive." then it is quite possible that such people would rather like to be "taken advantage of" than to be ignored entirely.
I don't know where I rate in the meekness scale, but I believe that I am a beneficiary of ideas and work and effort that has come from "the meek" and I don't know how many of them have been "taken advantage of."
So yes, I do have a part in this world, regardless of who has taken advantage of who, of course. But here's my point... I don't think that I "wanted" to take advantage of anybody... despite the fact that my low-cost-purchases might seem otherwise. I don't think that the store that sold me low-cost-items "wanted" to take advantage of anybody. I don't think that the shipping company "wants" to take advantage of anybody. There are very few in the system that "want" to take advantage of anybody, yet the system still has winners and losers; some that get awarded unfairly. Some that are abused unfairly. Do people really "want" the kinds of injustices that arise?
Perhaps some of them do. But why? Is it because they have some kind of wish for "evil?" No. They will all justify their actions with "Mr. X is even worse than I am. I take care of my people. I take care of my family... I'm stealing from people that don't need it. I'm so desperate I don't have any choice." etc. They don't do evil for evil's sake, but because their perceptions are that what they are doing is justified. In every one of these cases though, if they ever changed their perceptions, and realized what harm they were doing, they would stop doing harm. Those people can hypothetically be forgiven because they aren't doing evil for evil's-sake.
On the other hand, if a person fully understands what harm they are doing, and goes on and does it without any rationale or justification whatsoever. except the thrill of evil-doing... probably isn't going to be stopped without being locked up and tied down. That person really can't be forgiven--just restrained.
For instance, in a world of intellectual property, when I was young, I worried that people might steal my ideas. Now that I am older, I worry more that no one will notice my ideas. I also worry that I'll only be remembered for my worst ideas.
If there is such a thing as a "meek" which is defined as "quiet, gentle, and easily imposed on; submissive." then it is quite possible that such people would rather like to be "taken advantage of" than to be ignored entirely.
I don't know where I rate in the meekness scale, but I believe that I am a beneficiary of ideas and work and effort that has come from "the meek" and I don't know how many of them have been "taken advantage of."
So yes, I do have a part in this world, regardless of who has taken advantage of who, of course. But here's my point... I don't think that I "wanted" to take advantage of anybody... despite the fact that my low-cost-purchases might seem otherwise. I don't think that the store that sold me low-cost-items "wanted" to take advantage of anybody. I don't think that the shipping company "wants" to take advantage of anybody. There are very few in the system that "want" to take advantage of anybody, yet the system still has winners and losers; some that get awarded unfairly. Some that are abused unfairly. Do people really "want" the kinds of injustices that arise?
Perhaps some of them do. But why? Is it because they have some kind of wish for "evil?" No. They will all justify their actions with "Mr. X is even worse than I am. I take care of my people. I take care of my family... I'm stealing from people that don't need it. I'm so desperate I don't have any choice." etc. They don't do evil for evil's sake, but because their perceptions are that what they are doing is justified. In every one of these cases though, if they ever changed their perceptions, and realized what harm they were doing, they would stop doing harm. Those people can hypothetically be forgiven because they aren't doing evil for evil's-sake.
On the other hand, if a person fully understands what harm they are doing, and goes on and does it without any rationale or justification whatsoever. except the thrill of evil-doing... probably isn't going to be stopped without being locked up and tied down. That person really can't be forgiven--just restrained.
Well, on the first question, there are two parts. (1) Does it matter whether the idea is acknowledged.
(2) Does it matter whether the idea is credited to me.
Well, I think it is important to make the distinction between what John's gospel requires (belief in the name of the only begotten son of god), and what the synoptic gospels require (forgiveness and kindness).
Once people see that distinction made clearly, I'm not really quite sure where it goes. My personal feeling is that John somehow betrayed Jesus... misrepresenting his teaching and purpose.
On the second question, does it matter if evil people are forgiven? Well, your question is based on the hypothesis that "evil people" exist. I would contend that "evil" is an adverb, describing actions... Not an adjective, describing persons. A person is capable of evil-doing, but is also capable of doing good.
Your hypothesis may also be based on the premise that "forgiving" is an action. Is it? Forgiveness could simply be a decision not to punish, or take vengeance, or dwell on the insult or injury.
But forgiveness could also be an alleviation of the misery and misperceptions that sometimes cause people to do evil. Sometimes, information can be shared, and procedures, rules, communication, and technology can be improved so as to make it so no one is tempted to repeat the evils of generations before.
Evil should not be forgiven... It should be prevented or stopped. But when people do evil, what is important is trying to "understand with the heart" so-to-speak, of what caused them to do evil, and if at all possible, provide them with the opportunity to turn, and be healed.
There's a thin line, I suppose, between "prevention of crime" and "vengeance", People who are interested in punishing evil people seek vengeance. People who are interested in forgiveness would seek the prevention of crime.
(2) Does it matter whether the idea is credited to me.
Well, I think it is important to make the distinction between what John's gospel requires (belief in the name of the only begotten son of god), and what the synoptic gospels require (forgiveness and kindness).
Once people see that distinction made clearly, I'm not really quite sure where it goes. My personal feeling is that John somehow betrayed Jesus... misrepresenting his teaching and purpose.
On the second question, does it matter if evil people are forgiven? Well, your question is based on the hypothesis that "evil people" exist. I would contend that "evil" is an adverb, describing actions... Not an adjective, describing persons. A person is capable of evil-doing, but is also capable of doing good.
Your hypothesis may also be based on the premise that "forgiving" is an action. Is it? Forgiveness could simply be a decision not to punish, or take vengeance, or dwell on the insult or injury.
But forgiveness could also be an alleviation of the misery and misperceptions that sometimes cause people to do evil. Sometimes, information can be shared, and procedures, rules, communication, and technology can be improved so as to make it so no one is tempted to repeat the evils of generations before.
Evil should not be forgiven... It should be prevented or stopped. But when people do evil, what is important is trying to "understand with the heart" so-to-speak, of what caused them to do evil, and if at all possible, provide them with the opportunity to turn, and be healed.
There's a thin line, I suppose, between "prevention of crime" and "vengeance", People who are interested in punishing evil people seek vengeance. People who are interested in forgiveness would seek the prevention of crime.
Which side told the truth, and which side is just doing marketing?
To me--Matthew, Mark, and Luke give us a product... the teachings of Jesus; clear guidelines on what is right, and what is wrong. John gives us a brand-name: (John 3:16-18) you need to "believe in the Name of the Only Begotten Son"
John doesn't provide the teaching:(Typical -- See John 4:40-41) John does not giving us anything of substance. He is giving us a brand name, or a package in which any teaching or any philosophy can be put.
Furthermore, he's not telling us what the correct brand-name is. Some say it is "Emmanuel." Some say the name is "Jesus" Some say "Christ" etc. Some say "any of the above."
Finally, what does it mean to believe in a brand-name? Does it mean understanding the underlying meaning of the word? Does it mean pronouncing it correctly, or spelling it correctly? Does it mean believing in the person that held that name? And if so, does it mean following his teaching, or just believing he existed, or believing that he performed some specific action or fulfilled some specific purpose. Or does "believing in the name" just mean that whatever you put in that package, people will buy it?
Matthew 7:22-23 is a strongly worded disagreement with John 3:16-18. What matters to Jesus in Matthew, Mark, and Luke is not whether people are preaching and doing miracles in his name... But whether they are following the Law of God.
To me--Matthew, Mark, and Luke give us a product... the teachings of Jesus; clear guidelines on what is right, and what is wrong. John gives us a brand-name: (John 3:16-18) you need to "believe in the Name of the Only Begotten Son"
John doesn't provide the teaching:(Typical -- See John 4:40-41) John does not giving us anything of substance. He is giving us a brand name, or a package in which any teaching or any philosophy can be put.
Furthermore, he's not telling us what the correct brand-name is. Some say it is "Emmanuel." Some say the name is "Jesus" Some say "Christ" etc. Some say "any of the above."
Finally, what does it mean to believe in a brand-name? Does it mean understanding the underlying meaning of the word? Does it mean pronouncing it correctly, or spelling it correctly? Does it mean believing in the person that held that name? And if so, does it mean following his teaching, or just believing he existed, or believing that he performed some specific action or fulfilled some specific purpose. Or does "believing in the name" just mean that whatever you put in that package, people will buy it?
Matthew 7:22-23 is a strongly worded disagreement with John 3:16-18. What matters to Jesus in Matthew, Mark, and Luke is not whether people are preaching and doing miracles in his name... But whether they are following the Law of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment