What is forgiveness?

[glorydaz]

Thank you. So does the Lord change only your heart, or your actions, too?

Simple common sense should tell you that. A person's actions reflect what is in his heart.

Philippians 2:13
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.​

 

[glorydaz]

Why haven't you actively worked at it, even while accepting God's help?

God doesn't just HELP.....He performs the doing of it.

1 Thessalonians 5:23-25
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.​

When I try to help Him, I just get in His way. I've learned to trust Him to do what I can never do through my own efforts. Too many people go before the Lord instead of simply following after Him....marveling at what He does and thanking Him for having done it.

 

[Spockrates]

What is forgiveness?

I wonder where you stand on the question of forgiveness, you have asked a lot of questions.

I don't have a stand. For I don't yet know what forgiveness is. PureX knows, so I'm asking questions to see if what he knows is true. I'm not sure what you or gloydaz know forgiveness is, so I can't really consider what you believe, yet. So if you had to define forgiveness in a sentence or two, what would you say it was?

 

[Spockrates]

What is forgiveness?

I don't think that saying "love is an emotion" is particularly accurate. I would say that love is a specific kind of spiritual paradigm, through which we experience and understand ourselves and the world around us.

Do you mean love is a framework containing the basic assumptions, ways of thinking, and methodology that are commonly accepted by most Christians? Or are you using a different definition of paradigm?

... But "they" are contradicting themselves, then. Because Paul didn't write that love is "being" patient.

Yes, I see. Paul seems to be using a kind of personification of love, as though love were a he or a she. Socrates often did the same when discussing virtues. Substituting the pronoun she for love does appear to make this clear:

4 [She] is patient, [she] is kind. [She] does not envy, [she] does not boast, [she] is not proud. 5 [She] does not dishonor others, [she] is not self-seeking, [she] is not easily angered, [she] keeps no record of wrongs. 6 [She] does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 [She] always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 [She] never fails.

(1 Corinthians 13)

Paul wrote that "love is patient". The "being" makes it an active expression on someone's part. The "is" that Paul used relates the patience directly back to the love, disregarding any 'actor'. And that's how it becomes inaccurate, because evil is also patient, and evil is not love. So there is an innate contradiction if we read the words with such proposed absolute literality.

Agreed.

Also, the act of reading is by it's nature an act of interpretation. There in no such thing as an absolutely objective literal interpretation, because interpreting text is by it's nature a subjective act. The words mean what we think they mean. While they mean nothing in and of themselves.
In this instance, though, I agree with John's leaving this statement somewhat vague. Because "God" IS inexplicable. We don't know exactly how God relates to the spirit of love being infested in ourselves, and in the universe. So I'm OK with John presenting us with this mystery in this vague way. How else could he have done it?

Reminds me of something Socrates said to a friend of his: "I cannot help feeling, Phaedrus, that writing is unfortunately like painting. For the creations of the painter have the attitude of life, and yet, if you ask them a question, they preserve a solemn silence. And the same may be said of written words: You would imagine that they had an intelligence of their own, but if you want to know anything and put a question to one of them, the speaker always gives one unvarying answer. And when they have been once written down, they are tumbled about anywhere among those who may or may not understand them, and they know not to whom they should reply and to whom they should not. And if they are slandered or abused, they have no parent to come to their defense. For written words cannot protect or defend themselves!"

(Phaedrus)

As a human being, we don't get to know anything with absolute certainty. Which is why I believe it's far more important that we humans pursue honesty than that we pursue some "absolute truth". The only truth we can know will be relative, and so generally vague and fleeting. True; only so long as the facts upon which it's truthfulness rests, don't change. But everything changes, eventually. And whatever truth we think we have nailed down will become untrue one way or another.

Through honesty, we can come to understand this, and to accept our limitations. And to accept the limitations of others. I find this to be the better path to pursue. ...

Well and wisely said!

So let me think for a moment about what you said about Paul's description of love. Let's say you are right, that Paul is using a metaphor. Let's try to use his symbolism of love to better understand what it actually is.

So I ask myself, "If Love is a lady, what is Paul saying about her? Is he describing the acts she does? Or is he describing the person she is?"

Now I think I know the answer, but I'd like to know what you think, my wise friend. Are the words, "She is..." used to describe her attributes or actions? What about the words, "She does not..."? Are they used to describe the attributes or actions of our lady Love?

 

[Spockrates]

What is forgiveness?

Simple common sense should tell you that. A person's actions reflect what is in his heart.

Philippians 2:13

For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.​

So love is both a change of the heart and a change of actions? Or is love only a change of the heart that causes a change of actions, which themselves are not love?

If you don't know for sure, that's OK. We can explore both ideas together to see what is more likely true. Once we have this wisdom about love, I think we'll be more wise about forgiveness, too--or at the very least we'll have a better idea of what we really do and don't know about love and forgiveness! [emoji4]

 

[PureX]

God doesn't just HELP.....He performs the doing of it.

1 Thessalonians 5:23-25
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.​

When I try to help Him, I just get in His way. I've learned to trust Him to do what I can never do through my own efforts. Too many people go before the Lord instead of simply following after Him....marveling at what He does and thanking Him for having done it.

But there are simple exercises that any of us can do that will help us to change the way we think and respond to things. If I wanted to be less selfish, for example, I could make a point to remind myself periodically throughout the day to look for instances in which I am reacting to the circumstances around me in a selfish way. And then when I catch myself doing it, I can stop for a moment to consider it. Why am I doing this? How would I prefer to react now that I've caught myself in time? And then I can thank God for that moment of awareness, and inspiration, and move on from there.

If I were to actually practice at this each day for a month, I am certain that I would become more aware of my own selfish thoughts and behaviors, and more informed about why I do it, and how I could do better. I'm not taking anything away from God, but I don't see any reason why I shouldn't put in what effort I can.

How do you see this as negative meddling?

 

[glorydaz]

But there are simple exercises that any of us can do that will help us to change the way we think and respond to things. If I wanted to be less selfish, for example, I could make a point to remind myself periodically throughout the day to look for instances in which I am reacting to the circumstances around me in a selfish way. And then when I catch myself doing it, I can stop for a moment to consider it. Why am I doing this? How would I prefer to react now that I've caught myself in time? And then I can thank God for that moment of awareness, and inspiration, and move on from there.

If I were to actually practice at this each day for a month, I am certain that I would become more aware of my own selfish thoughts and behaviors, and more informed about why I do it, and how I could do better. I'm not taking anything away from God, but I don't see any reason why I shouldn't put in what effort I can.

How do you see this as negative meddling?

I don't see that as negative meddling. If it works for you, that's great.

 

[PureX]

Do you mean love is a framework containing the basic assumptions, ways of thinking, and methodology that are commonly accepted by most Christians? Or are you using a different definition of paradigm?

I think love is a fairly universal experience, though it becomes unique to each of us according to the circumstances of our experience, and our individual make-up. It is a conceptual "framework" through which we come to recognize, understand, prioritize, and validate our experience of being us.

Paul seems to be using a kind of personification of love, as though love were a he or a she. Socrates often did the same when discussing virtues. Substituting the pronoun she for love does appear to make this clear:

4 [She] is patient, [she] is kind. [She] does not envy, [she] does not boast, [she] is not proud. 5 [She] does not dishonor others, [she] is not self-seeking, [she] is not easily angered, [she] keeps no record of wrongs. 6 [She] does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 [She] always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 [She] never fails.

(1 Corinthians 13)

My old Catholic Bible has Book in it called the Book of Wisdom, in which wisdom is referred to as a "she", just as you have done. And I think it resonates for those who tend to personify the idea of "spirit". I don't. I see "spirit" more in terms of a kind of internal force that inhabits our psyche. But some people prefer to think of "spirit" is a kind of disembodied personage. And this gives rise to the idea that spiritual phenomena can be labeled and thought of like a person (as in the "Holy Ghost", for example).

So let me think for a moment about what you said about Paul's description of love. Let's say you are right, that Paul is using a metaphor. Let's try to use his symbolism of love to better understand what it actually is.

So I ask myself, "If Love is a lady, what is Paul saying about her? Is he describing the acts she does? Or is he describing the person she is?"

Now I think I know the answer, but I'd like to know what you think, my wise friend. Are the words, "She is..." used to describe her attributes or actions? What about the words, "She does not..."? Are they used to describe the attributes or actions of our lady Love?

What we do is part of who we are. It's the part that effects the world beyond ourselves. The human mind, in it's endless "compare/contrast" function divides the phenomena of "me" up into motive and action. But in reality these are only the beginning and end of the same phenomena: love. Which itself is intertwined with every other aspect of our human existence. Just as my spirit and my body are really one and the same phenomena; only being understood separately by my brain, which has to divide-compare-contrast to understand.

 

[glorydaz]

So love is both a change of the heart and a change of actions? Or is love only a change of the heart that causes a change of actions, which themselves are not love?

If you don't know for sure, that's OK. We can explore both ideas together to see what is more likely true. Once we have this wisdom about love, I think we'll be more wise about forgiveness, too--or at the very least we'll have a better idea of what we really do and don't know about love and forgiveness! [emoji4]

I wish I knew what you were looking for.

For me....God is love and when the love of God is shed abroad on our hearts, it affects a change in us that results in that love being shed abroad, through us, to the world around us. I see forgiveness in the same way. When it becomes real to us how God has forgiven us, we become able to let that same forgiveness flow through us. I can't muster either of those things up on my own....it isn't in ME to have that kind of love. But because I am in Him and His Spirit is in me, I can become a conduit. That's the best I can do in explaining it.

I hope you find what you're looking for.

 

[Spockrates]

What is forgiveness?

I wish I knew what you were looking for.

I'm simply looking for an answer to one question: What is forgiveness?

For me....God is love and when the love of God is shed abroad on our hearts, it affects a change in us that results in that love being shed abroad, through us, to the world around us. I see forgiveness in the same way. When it becomes real to us how God has forgiven us, we become able to let that same forgiveness flow through us. I can't muster either of those things up on my own....it isn't in ME to have that kind of love. But because I am in Him and His Spirit is in me, I can become a conduit. That's the best I can do in explaining it.

I hope you find what you're looking for.

I hope I figure out what forgiveness is, too. Thanks you, Glorydaz. May God richly bless you! [emoji4]

 

[Spockrates]

What is forgiveness?

I think love is a fairly universal experience, though it becomes unique to each of us according to the circumstances of our experience, and our individual make-up. It is a conceptual "framework" through which we come to recognize, understand, prioritize, and validate our experience of being us.

Yes, thank you for clarifying your statement: Love is a conceptual framework, rather than an action that accomplishes some good work.

My old Catholic Bible has Book in it called the Book of Wisdom, in which wisdom is referred to as a "she", just as you have done.

Yes, Wisdom is personified in the book of Proverbs, too.

And I think it resonates for those who tend to personify the idea of "spirit". I don't. I see "spirit" more in terms of a kind of internal force that inhabits our psyche.

But some people prefer to think of "spirit" is a kind of disembodied personage. And this gives rise to the idea that spiritual phenomena can be labeled and thought of like a person (as in the "Holy Ghost", for example).

Fascinating. Are you saying the Holy Spirit is not a person?

What we do is part of who we are. It's the part that effects the world beyond ourselves. The human mind, in it's endless "compare/contrast" function divides the phenomena of "me" up into motive and action. But in reality these are only the beginning and end of the same phenomena: love. Which itself is intertwined with every other aspect of our human existence. Just as my spirit and my body are really one and the same phenomena; only being understood separately by my brain, which has to divide-compare-contrast to understand.

Yes, comparing and contrasting is a method I learned from Socrates. It helps me think more clearly.

So then, are you saying it's a mistake to compare love, by way of an analogy, to a person? Are you saying this because a person is what she does, but love never is what it does, since it is merely a conceptual framework?

If so, then please explain what other metaphor Paul must be using. I believe you said he was speaking figuratively rather than literally about love in 1 Corinthians 13. So what analogy is he making, since he's not comparing love to a person?

 

[PureX]

Fascinating. Are you saying the Holy Spirit is not a person?

Not to my way of thinking, no.

So then, are you saying it's a mistake to compare love, by way of an analogy, to a person?

I think it's unnecessarily confusing. If love is a "person". and we are a person, and we Love, then is there another person inside us?

It just gets silly.

Love is a spirit that inhabits our nature, creating a paradigm through which we understand and evaluate our experiences, of being. It's not a persona inside us. It is a spirit that infuses and becomes us.

… please explain what other metaphor Paul must be using. I believe you said he was speaking figuratively rather than literally about love in 1 Corinthians 13. So what analogy is he making, since he's not comparing love to a person?

A direct correlation is being made between the spirit of love within a person and the outward manifestations of it, so that we may presumably recognize those who are possessed by this spirit from those who are not.

He is, however, neglecting to point out that these manifestations can be employed by other spirit motives. And in those instances could mislead us into believing we are being loved, when we are being deliberately deceived.

 

[Spockrates]

What is forgiveness?

Not to my way of thinking, no.
I think it's unnecessarily confusing. If love is a "person". and we are a person, and we Love, then is there another person inside us?

It just gets silly.

Well, isn't silliness the point of an analogy? Consider the lyrics of the song "I am a Rock":

"I am a rock,
I am an island."

Did Simon believe his skin was made of stone and Garfunkel his hair a sandy beach with palm trees? Now that is silly! But the point of the analogy is not to say who the song writers actually are. The point is to say what they are like. The context of the song lyrics bear this out:

"A winter's day
In a deep and dark December;
I am alone,
Gazing from my window to the streets below
On a freshly fallen silent shroud of snow.
I am a rock,
I am an island.

I've built walls,
A fortress deep and mighty,
That none may penetrate.
I have no need of friendship; friendship causes pain.
It's laughter and it's loving I disdain.
I am a rock,
I am an island.

Don't talk of love,
But I've heard the words before;
It's sleeping in my memory.
I won't disturb the slumber of feelings that have died.
If I never loved I never would have cried.
I am a rock,
I am an island.

I have my books
And my poetry to protect me;
I am shielded in my armor,
Hiding in my room, safe within my womb.
I touch no one and no one touches me.
I am a rock,
I am an island.

And a rock feels no pain;
And an island never cries."

Simon and Garfunkel are saying they are like islands, because they too are alone, and they are like rocks, because they aren't emotionally shaken by their loneliness. For they don't shed tears over their lonely states.

* * *

And there are many examples of similar "silliness" in the words of Jesus. I'm sure you recall he says:

"I am the gate," but he doesn't have wood for skin and a door nob for a navel!

"I am the vine," but he doesn't sprout leaves for hair and grow grapes from his earlobes!

He is saying he is like a gate and has something in common with a vine, I'm sure you agree.

Love is a spirit that inhabits our nature, creating a paradigm through which we understand and evaluate our experiences, of being. It's not a persona inside us. It is a spirit that infuses and becomes us.
A direct correlation is being made between the spirit of love within a person and the outward manifestations of it, so that we may presumably recognize those who are possessed by this spirit from those who are not.

He is, however, neglecting to point out that these manifestations can be employed by other spirit motives. And in those instances could mislead us into believing we are being loved, when we are being deliberately deceived.

Acknowledged. But the question still remains: What analogy is Paul making about love in 1 Corinthuans 13, and how does his metaphor support your view of what love is? In short, how is Paul completing this sentence? "Love is like ..."

Or am I misunderstanding you, and you really aren't thinking Paul is using an analogy? Are you instead saying, he is saying what love actually is rather than what love is like?

 

[PureX]

Well, isn't silliness the point of an analogy? Consider the lyrics of the song "I am a Rock"

It's poetic language, as I stated before. And I have no problem with that … until people start trying to take it literally. When that happens, they begin proposing absurdities as reality, and they completely misunderstand the poetic message.

Acknowledged. But the question still remains: What analogy is Paul making about love in 1 Corinthuans 13, and how does his metaphor support your view of what love is? In short, how is Paul completing this sentence? "Love is like …"

He isn't completing that sentence. He is completing the sentence "love reveals itself to us as …", and "love does not reveal itself to us as …". But by not saying that explicitly, he is charactering love as if it were a being, as many people do relative to "spiritual" phenomena.

Or am I misunderstanding you, and you really aren't thinking Paul is using an analogy? Are you instead saying, he is saying what love actually is rather than what love is like?

The analogy I was referring to is the analogy of 'a being' with 'a spirit'. He is personifying love as if it were a being. And from my perspective, that may be poetical, but can also be misleading to those people who read the text too literally.

 

[Spockrates]

What is forgiveness?

It's poetic language, as I stated before. And I have no problem with that … until people start trying to take it literally. When that happens, they begin proposing absurdities as reality, and they completely misunderstand the poetic message.

Yes, glad I didn't misunderstand. So I concur. For It appears to me that people who take the love chapter literally don't take Paul at his word. For if you ask them what the words, "Love is patient," mean, they say with confidence, "Love is patience". But this is not what the text says!

So as you said, there is a figure of speech being used here, and I agree, since it seems to me only a sentient and self-aware being can possibly be patient.

...The analogy I was referring to is the analogy of 'a being' with 'a spirit'. He is personifying love as if it were a being. And from my perspective, that may be poetical, but can also be misleading to those people who read the text too literally.

Yes, likely true, that! It's a new concept of the passage you've helped me see. I have to say I'm grateful for being give eyes to see it, and I'm glad I've met you! For if we never had this dialogue, I'd still be of the mistaken opinion that love might be patience.

[emoji4][emoji106]

 

[Spockrates]

What is forgiveness?

He isn't completing that sentence. He is completing the sentence "love reveals itself to us as …", and "love does not reveal itself to us as …". But by not saying that explicitly, he is charactering love as if it were a being, as many people do relative to "spiritual" phenomena.

Not sure I understand. What is the difference between saying, "Love is patient," and "Love is revealed to us as patient"?

Please let me use the same metaphor as before: If love is a lady, then when I say, "She is patient," you will understand me to be saying (albeit in fewer words), "She is revealed to us as being patient." So don't the two phrases carry the same meaning?

[emoji848]

 

[PureX]

Not sure I understand. What is the difference between saying, "Love is patient," and "Love is revealed to us as patient"?

Please let me use the same metaphor as before: If love is a lady, then when I say, "She is patient," you will understand me to be saying (albeit in fewer words), "She is revealed to us as being patient." So don't the two phrases carry the same meaning?

No, I don't think they do. The latter is more specific, and implies a difference between "she" and what we experience of "she". It implies that love is a mystery that can be revealed to us via it's characteristic effects. I think this is far more accurate than saying that "love is (list of effects)" and that "love is not (another list of effects)". Paul apparently was unable or unwilling to say what love really is, so instead he tried to define it by saying how love effects us, and how it doesn't. But unfortunately, this leads us to some misapprehension, because love is NOT those characteristics, but is an impetus for them. So that there is the possibility of another impetus for them, as well. Such as deceit.

 

[Spockrates]

What is forgiveness?

No, I don't think they do. The latter is more specific, and implies a difference between "she" and what we experience of "she". It implies that love is a mystery that can be revealed to us via it's characteristic effects. I think this is far more accurate than saying that "love is (list of effects)" and that "love is not (another list of effects)". Paul apparently was unable or unwilling to say what love really is, so instead he tried to define it by saying how love effects us, and how it doesn't. But unfortunately, this leads us to some misapprehension, because love is NOT those characteristics, but is an impetus for them. So that there is the possibility of another impetus for them, as well. Such as deceit.

So I think you said this before, but let me be sure. What you also previously said is this: Since the words, "Love is patient," et al. are not really correct, we should assume either (1) Paul misunderstood the truth about love, or (2) Paul made a poor choice of words in his first letter to the Corinthians, or (3) the translators of our English translations of the bible did not accurately translate 1 Corinthians 13. Do I have a good understanding this one premise of yours?

 

[PureX]

So I think you said this before, but let me be sure. What you are saying is this: Since the words, "Love is patient," et al. are not really correct, we should assume either (1) Paul misunderstood the truth about love, or (2) Paul made a poor choice of words in his first letter to the Corinthians, or (3) the translators of our English translations of the bible did not accurately translate 1 Corinthians 13. Do I have a good understanding this one premise of yours?

Or a combination of those.

But honestly, I don't see how this matters. I can't know what was in Paul's mind, and I don't really care. What matters to me is what the words say, to me. What do they teach me about love? Perhaps Paul's vagueness was intended to make us take the time to consider the phenomena of love more carefully, as we have been doing. I don't know.

What I do know is that love, like most spiritual phenomena, is a bit of a mystery to me, and to us all. And I learn a little more about it as I go along in life, so long as I remain inquisitive and open-minded about it. But I don't think there is ever going to be a solid answer that can be written down and remain true forever. Because existence is not static, it's dynamic. And we humans are events taking place, not objects in space. So that the truth of things is always changing from our perspective and understanding.

And I'm good with that.

 

[Spockrates]

Or a combination of those.

But honestly, I don't see how this matters. I can't know what was in Paul's mind, and I don't really care.

What matters to me is what the words say, to me. What do they teach me about love?

Would you say I also cannot know what's in your mind regarding your opinions about love and forgiveness?

Perhaps Paul's vagueness was intended to make us take the time to consider the phenomena of love more carefully, as we have been doing. I don't know.

What I do know is that love, like most spiritual phenomena, is a bit of a mystery to me, and to us all. And I learn a little more about it as I go along in life, so long as I remain inquisitive and open-minded about it. But I don't think there is ever going to be a solid answer that can be written down and remain true forever. Because existence is not static, it's dynamic. And we humans are events taking place, not objects in space. So that the truth of things is always changing from our perspective and understanding.

And I'm good with that.

Are you familiar with the concept of Ockham's razor?