Snort .. I don`t yet understand nor have I seen a good explanation or definition of forgiveness that would make it ok to not do it the way God operates it with us....
it`s like God says THIS is what you must do to recieve forgiveness...and then we say...ohhh but I want to do it this other way anyway because it makes me feel better.
I don`t have a problem with folks forgiving without repentance...but without some solid scriptural back up to explain why we aren`t going to do it how God does....I won`t be doing it.
Why doesn`t he forgive US without repentance...is HE being hard hearted? Wouldn`t HE need to do it for himself? It feels kind of arrogant to assume that we ought to do something that he is unwilling for some valid reason to do.
Have you guys noticed that he said clearly about our brother who sinned against us? It is when our brother REPENTS that we are to forgive him....ever wonder why that is in there if it isn`t vitally important to all parties?
I don`t feel I owe em a damned thing... matter of fact ... it feels like yet one more thing being required of me to be blythly taken by them ... that they don`t deserve and isn`t theirs anyway.
I'd like to clear one thing up here at least as far as I'm concerned. I don't at all think that
NOT forgiving someone of necessity implies that one is holding a grudge. There are people whom I've not forgiven and I seldom ,if ever, think about them nor harbor rage. At this moment they might float through my mind because of the topic under discussion but thats it. Of course there are people whom I've forgiven and those who have forgiven me so I'm not at all opposed to the concept. Its just that many times I see abusers who attempt to employ the concept of forgiveness to their benefit. They want it more than their victims wish to provide it and they (the abuser) frequently uses biblical refereneces to push the issue. Now is anyone who talks about the bible and forgiveness attempting to
manipulate others into forgiveness ? No. Of course not but there are those who do and this is abhorrent. Its even worse than the original abuse because the perpetrator just wants to rest easier about things.
As I mentioned in my previous post I acknowledge that God forgave mankind but he didn't do it immediately nor did he do it upon request. He did it when the time was right and not one moment before. Thats a precedent I think is useful. Give your forgiveness when the timing is right NOT when someone is pressuring you to give it. And again. don't
fall for the trick of "if you don't forgive someone then you will be full of rage". Thats not true at all. It can be but its not a given. I'm not God so I don't think its my place to go around and act like it - "you are forgiven my son" especially when I haven't worked it through yet. Each party must benefit from this else its unbalanced.
Snort .. I don`t yet understand nor have I seen a good explanation or definition of forgiveness that would make it ok to not do it the way God operates it with us....
it`s like God says THIS is what you must do to recieve forgiveness...and then we say...ohhh but I want to do it this other way anyway because it makes me feel better.
I don`t have a problem with folks forgiving without repentance...but without some solid scriptural back up to explain why we aren`t going to do it how God does....I won`t be doing it.
Why doesn`t he forgive US without repentance...is HE being hard hearted? Wouldn`t HE need to do it for himself? It feels kind of arrogant to assume that we ought to do something that he is unwilling for some valid reason to do.
Have you guys noticed that he said clearly about our brother who sinned against us? It is when our brother REPENTS that we are to forgive him....ever wonder why that is in there if it isn`t vitally important to all parties?
I don`t feel I owe em a damned thing... matter of fact ... it feels like yet one more thing being required of me to be blythly taken by them ... that they don`t deserve and isn`t theirs anyway.
Try this, Rascal.
Objectively, you are already forgiven before it happened. That was what the cross did for you.
Subjectively, you are forgiven when you repent.
What does that mean?
(trying to keep it as neutral as possible so this thread doesn't get moved to the Doctrinal forum)
Think about the parable of the prodigal son: The father's attitude toward the son after the son had blown his inheritance was one of concern and love. He rejoiced when the son came back home. That's the objective forgiveness. It took the son's initiative to repent (come back home) before he could benefit from it. The son's repentence enabled him to receive that forgiveness, subjectively. Did the father chase after the son? No. It took the son's initiative to repent of his actions.
The analogy with us is that the letting go is the objective forgiveness. Letting go. It doesn't mean that you do a blasted other thing until such time as the person who sinned against you repents. You just don't let that person have control over you anymore through resentment. If that person truly repents (and I mean truly), then that's when a) he can benefit from your forgiveness and B) the two of you can begin (begin) to be reconciled. But, that repentence on the part of the person who trespassed against you must be genuine.
We are all familiar with the Peter's question about forgiveness:
Mat 18:21 Then Peter came up and said to him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?"
Mat 18:22 Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.
But do we remember the story that immediately followed?
Mat 18:23 "Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants.
Mat 18:24 When he began the reckoning, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents;
Mat 18:25 and as he could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made.
Mat 18:26 So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, 'Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.'
Mat 18:27 And out of pity for him the lord of that servant released him and forgave him the debt.
Mat 18:28 But that same servant, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and seizing him by the throat he said, 'Pay what you owe.'
Mat 18:29 So his fellow servant fell down and besought him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you.'
Mat 18:30 He refused and went and put him in prison till he should pay the debt.
Mat 18:31 When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their lord all that had taken place.
Mat 18:32 Then his lord summoned him and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you besought me;
Mat 18:33 and should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?'
Mat 18:34 And in anger his lord delivered him to the jailers, till he should pay all his debt.
So it seems to me that the offended party doesn't hold a grudge. The offending party asks for forgiveness from the trespass and is granted it by the offended party. however, the offending party's repentence must be sincere!
Oh yeah, and here's the next verse:
Mat 18:35 So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."
So let it go...if IF the person who offended you shows repentence and asks for forgiveness, then you can deal with the next step. But move on...
Mr. Allen ran the first web sight that most of us started finding out about what happened in twi.
He brought charges against lcm and a good many others at hq for what happened to his wife... seems to me there were over 50 counts....most having to do with rape and coersion.
Look at the front page of greasespot...I think there are links to the lawsuit.
WRONG!
Rape and coersion are CRIMES, no one was ever arrested or even Charged with a crime.
It was a CIVIL lawsuit not a crimminal trial .
the allens sued LCM and the way because she had an affair or sex with him and felt she was wronged and sought compensation.
IT was a CIVIL lawsuit. money is the only restitution in lawsuits of this manner.
sometimes people can sue a person who is also involved in a criminal court , concerning the same matter this is NOT THE CASE in the allens lawsuit.
LCM was never charged by the state for anything , the district attorney never was involved, this case is about people wanting compensation (money) in a law suit only.
NO rape no crimes no prosecution of anything was involved.
keep it straight Rascal.
why do you lie? or play dumb when in your posts you scream to know all the facts with a vengence.
it is a lie to say LCM was prosecuted for a crime ,He was never even charged, it was a CIVIL lawsuit...keep it straight.
The way had money to be had at the time loads of it.. and it was ripe for the taking why not sue?
why settle? because a lawyer will keep the motion open forever as long as the money is coming in as HIS paycheck heck yeah he can find a reason to keep it going for years and years.
helps him it does.
or frankly they thought they would lose and guess who has to pay the lawyer when YOU LOSE?
that is right if you sue someone and lose YOU have to pay the lawyers fees... of both . could get a little dicey with something to lose in that case .. so you take the money and go.
the files are closed in this case and they are not allowed to discuss the outcome hmmmm.
Rape and coersion are CRIMES, no one was ever arrested or even Charged with a crime.
It was a CIVIL lawsuit not a crimminal trial .
[it was a TRIAL. That means the question was whether or not
a CRIME WAS COMMITTED.
See,
the Browns sued OJ Simpson in a civil lawsuit for the
"wrongful death" of Nicole Brown.
That means they sued him because they believed he committed
a CRIME. See, no crime, no lawsuit.
If there's insufficient grounds to proceed, the judge reviewing
the case can throw the case out, AND levy a FINE on the
person bringing it, for filing a frivilous suit.
(This has happened before.)
If I tried to sue lcm for causing me problems in high school
in NYC, there would be no MERIT in the suit, and the judge
would throw it out. That the case proceeded mean, in plain
English, that the judge viewed there was sufficient grounds to
proceed with the case.]
the allens sued LCM and the way because she had an affair or sex with him and felt she was wronged and sought compensation.
[Technically true-but so is saying that people object to the KKK
because they put forth uneducated ideas-it leaves out the important
stuff.
Technically speaking, someone coerced into having sex
"had sex". Technically speaking, they would "feel wronged."
It would be expected she'd "seek compensation."
Why a civil suit instead of a criminal suit?
A) MONEY.
A civil suit could proceed more cheaply for the complainant.
B) Standard.
See,
if a jury says "It MIGHT be possible she wasn't REALLY coerced",
then lcm walks. They must eliminate "a reasonable doubt."
In the case of a civil suit, the case rises or falls on
"the preponderance of the evidence."
So, it is more likely to result in a conviction in cases
where there is no ironclad evidence of something
(like a videotaped confession by lcm.)
In the same situation, any smart person-unless they were
wealthy-would proceed with a civil suit.]
IT was a CIVIL lawsuit. money is the only restitution in lawsuits of this manner.
[sadly, true.]
sometimes people can sue a person who is also involved in a criminal court , concerning the same matter this is NOT THE CASE in the allens lawsuit.
[Actually, they COULD have, they chose not to.
Since the entire trial is a draining, demeaning, raping experience
all over again for the victim,
this is also expected.
She would have to take the stand and endure accusations
from the defense, and sit thru lcm lying on and on.]
LCM was never charged by the state for anything , the district attorney never was involved, this case is about people wanting compensation (money) in a law suit only.
[He was never arrested.
However, twi settled out of court because they thought
they would lose, AND because otherwise, lcm would
have a criminal record.
Think that doesn't matter?
If not for the lawsuit, lcm would still run hq.
The ACCUSATIONS were enough to topple him-
since there was sufficient testimony to warrant
a trial.]
NO rape no crimes no prosecution of anything was involved.
[if there is no crime, there is no lawsuit.
By settling out-of-court, twi de facto-if not de jure-
admitted to wrongdoing. That wrongdoing constituted
a crime-but one that was not pursued in criminal court.
Saying that means there WAS no crime is like saying
vpw was innocent when he drugged and raped women
because he was never prosecuted for it.]
keep it straight Rascal.
[Keep it straight, pond.]
why do you lie? or play dumb when in your posts you scream to know all the facts with a vengence.
[Why do you accuse people exposing the truth?
Or expose your own ignorance of the law while claiming others
know less about it than you?]
it is a lie to say LCM was prosecuted for a crime
[He was prosecuted.
It is impossible to be prosecuted for anything OTHER than a crime.
Therefore, he was prosecuted for a crime.
It is a lie to say lcm was NOT prosecuted for a crime.
He was prosecuted in a CIVIL court, however,
which makes a difference in the outcome.]
,He was never even charged,
[if he was not charged, there was no suit.
Technically, the defendant was twi itself-
with lcm the chief defendant of the corporation,
because he was the one who committed the crime.
Everyone else "aided and abetted."]
it was a CIVIL lawsuit...keep it straight.
[it was a court of law. Keep it straight.]
The way had money to be had at the time loads of it.. and it was ripe for the taking why not sue?
[Well,
if there's no grounds for a suit, you only set yourself
up for a fall.
If there ARE grounds, THEN you sue.
You can't just file ANY suit and expect twi to automatically
dispense cash. They are control freaks who only part with
money when FORCED to.]
why settle?
[because-if the other party is willing to settle-
it keeps the victim from enduring an emotionally draining
ordeal in the courtroom.
If there is no victim, then this motivation is not in play.
because a lawyer will keep the motion open forever as long as the money is coming in as HIS paycheck heck yeah he can find a reason to keep it going for years and years.
helps him it does.
[supposing you have the money to keep paying him.
If he's taking it on a contingency,
he will recommend settling out-of-court.
(Yes, I've spoken to a civil attorney on this, and that's what he said.]
or frankly they thought they would lose and guess who has to pay the lawyer when YOU LOSE?
[if the lawyer is not taking this on a contingency,
you pay him whether or NOT you lose.
That you're clueless about this shows how little experience
and "book-learning" you have on attorneys and the legal
system. No one should trust your posts on this subject
on that basis.]
that is right if you sue someone and lose YOU have to pay the lawyers fees... of both .
[That is ONE POSSIBILITY, and that is NOT guaranteed.
That this is news to you indicates you are uninformed-
or that you DID know and chose to LIE.
I suspect you're just under-informed.]
could get a little dicey with something to lose in that case .. so you take the money and go.
[Could be dicey in ANY case.
Even in a case where you are LIKELY to win,
it is advisable to settle out-of-court.
As a real attorney would tell you,
and as one DID tell ME.
I'd explain why, but I think we already are
stretching the limits of understanding here.]
the files are closed in this case and they are not allowed to discuss the outcome hmmmm.
two sides to the story. keep it straight.
[There ARE facts which are publicly known,
and should not be rewritten by those unfamiliar with law
If the judge in the case thought that a legitimate rape had been committed, he could have easily notified the district attorney, and had LCM arrested.
The judge didn't do that because the judge didn't believe a rape had been committed.
That's one reason why I don't believe LCM committed a rape.
From the facts I have of the circumstances, it sounds more like sexual harassment to me.
By settling out-of-court, twi de facto-if not de jure-
admitted to wrongdoing.
I don't think so.
The settlement means, from TWI's perspective, they settled because of what they were afraid of losing, not because they admit a crime had been committed.
And as I said, had a legitimate crime been committed, something punishable by the authorities, the judge could have easily arranged an arrest.
This kind of thing happens all the time, you know, settlements; which is why had the Allen's not taken the money, there would have been a trial where all facts would have been exposed, and all testimony under the scrutiny of cross-examination.
I can`t figure out why anyone would think that the Allens owed them a trial or their settlement to charity??
in the court systems that they were wronged according to the laws of this country by lcm by the top leaders in twi....twi paid dearly for this....
Craig is gone.... 20,000 people are freed.... we get way dale and then greasespot...twi has to be kinder and gentle......it is a victory all the way around!
Sounds like the hand of God at work to me :)
It has to be some kind of record to be the catalyst that has freed so many people from a dangerous cult :)
Well damn em for not taking onto account that they ought to have satisfied the interests of a curious observer for the salacious little details anyway
How DARE they not open themselves to the derision and accusations of twi`s bottom feeding attornies...endured the shame and humiliation of a public trial so that folks could be more *informed*....
How very rude and inconsiderate for them not to take into account your interests and their responsibility to convince you personally of their veracity.
Some how I got the idea that the lawsuit was about how they personally had been betrayed and wronged and getting lcm out of the position of power so he could no longer continue hurting people.
Dunno in spite of your unrequitted interest.....the incredible shrinking twi gives mute testimoney to the effective and Godliness of their actions ....Seems like a victory to me.
Wonder how many people have been spared grief with him gone.
I agree with you Ex10. I appreciate Mark's insight and understanding of Scripture. I'm also grateful for his willingness to share it. Mark, you also have an exceptional ability to present your ideas in a way that make sense - it's easy to understand your point of view.
I don't say damn them, but neither do I view them as heroes.
Oldies,
I see your point. Its a good one. I agree. They aren't "heros". However, it is my beleif that IF they had not taken LCM to court LCM would STILL be in charge.
I am thankfull for what they did because we (twi followers past and/or present) would have never known about it.
I don't know the allens. I don' know their motives for the lawuites. But i know that the result of them taking LCM and company to court benefited my life.
Do you see my point?
They aren't my "heros" but im thankfull that they did what they did.
One thing that this discussion has brought up for me, is the inextricable link between love and forgiveness.
For anybody who is Christian, we are commanded to love God and one another. True, bold, courageous, biblical, God fearing love is not possible without forgiveness.
That's why it is such an important topic. And like Mark stated, I think there are many misconceptions about what true forgiveness really is, and how it differs from reconciliation.
So, my opinion, but if I as a Christian say that I love God and my neighbor, but then turn around and refuse to forgive those who have wronged me, then I am a hypocrite. And it takes work, dangit, to forgive. I wish this business of love and forgiveness was a little easier. <_<
When Jesus was on the cross, after having been whipped, beaten, mocked, slandered, falsely accused, spat upon, jeered, with nails through his hands and feet (big spikes through his hands and feet! ( Think of it! Your hands, your feet!) ), a crown of nasty thorns pounded into his head, with no other human standing with him, and then he said; "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do".
They didn't ask Jesus for his forgiveness, but Jesus Christ our Lord implored the Heavenly Father to forgive those who had violated a fellow human (himself) more than anyone had been violated before or since, and he was innocent! Are you innocent? Are any of us innocent? No. Yet Jesus uttered those words to our God, our Heavenly Father. Many of us here have experienced grievous injuries and physical pain. And we know that it is hell. And yet, when you were in pain due to an injury, an operation (surgery), were you not surrounded by people who loved you and tried to comfort you? But maybe you were wounded in battle or taken prisoner by the Viet Cong and tortured and not surrounded by loved ones during that time. But the Word of God says that what Jesus went through was worse. That Jesus was "marred more than any man", and that he was not even recognizeable as a man. And, he was mocked and spit upon until his moment of death. And the Word Of God even says that Jesus "despised the shame". No, he didn't like it. He was/is human. He despised it. And yet he forgave his tormenters.
And so, regardless of what anyone here may say, and no matter how offended you may be by what I am saying, and no matter how hurt you were, what you and I went through was nothing compared to what our Lord went through. I think that if I follow our Lord Jesus Christ and his example, I know that I will not err if I do as he did and does
And, if you are not a believer in the Bible as the Word of God, then this will mean nothing to you, and that's fine. Your life. But if you are a believer in the Bible as God's Word, then I hope you will consider these words, for I believe it will make you a happier person. Selah.
Those people who beat Jesus and spat in his face hurt HIM!!! (Good point Jonny)
There are many here who were not personally hurt by lcm - but are in the discussion fo forgiving him. WHY? In Modern legal terms you it would be said that "you have no standing" or as others have put it, "you don't have a dog in this fight."
Be angry, be upset, be disgusted - be totally appalled and sick to your stomach that these your brothers and sisters were hurt be lcm (as am I) - but you have nothing to forgive him for - THEY DO - if they want to.
And the point still stands that God issued forgiveness before we ever asked for it as did Jesus on the cross.
Okay. Jesus's tormetors hurt him. And he forgave them !
If LCM hurt you, or them, then all involved parties should forgive him. And, by the way, LCM did hurt my heart tremendously. He used to be a friend of both me and my wife. And he betrayed us both. But I forgive him, regardless of the fact that he may still be a seething maniac and never asked me to forgive him. Shoot, this is basic "Christianity 101". We are to "forgive those who tresspass against us". Tailor made for Ex Ways like us. All of us. Geez, now who said those words?
OK, I understand why the Greek semantics from the early part of the first millenium are important to many of you. You can also understand why they are not so much for me. I prefer to speak in modern English. I think for christians (and everyone really) etymology should be important but so is speaking in a modern, contemporary way at least to avoid confusion.
From today's Merriam-Webster:
1 a : to give up resentment of or claim to requital for
b : to grant relief from payment of <forgive a debt>
2 : to cease to feel resentment against (an offender) : PARDON
So yes, I will move on and have. (Not speaking of just LCM, but of those who did directly cause pain and strife in my life.) BTW, even though he did not directly hurt me, he did indirectly and those are the "legs I stand on."
Plus, I do feel resentment and indignation towards the man. He did and taught things that hurt many people including me and many teachings continue to hurt or hinder people I know. So I will not give up requital or cease to feel resentment. BUT I will move on and I have.
That is where I am coming from...a modern perspective. If there is a god and this god is happy that I have moved on, then fantastic. I still hope people like LCM get what is coming to them.
From legal perspective TWI settled because as a "minister" LCM would be held accountable for having sex with a member of his congregation in the same manner a college professor would be if it were his student, or a boss with an employee, or a doctor with a patient. The law regards each of these instances as wrong because one party has power over another separate from the sex act.
There was no way they could have won on this point in a court of law
Lindy, first of all, this is sort of a hypothetical exercise, since you and I are coming from completely different perspectives.
You said,
OK, I understand why the Greek semantics from the early part of the first millenium are important to many of you. You can also understand why they are not so much for me. I prefer to speak in modern English. I think for christians (and everyone really) etymology should be important but so is speaking in a modern, contemporary way at least to avoid confusion.
I said, after pasting the Greek definition for the word rendered 'forgive' in KJV English,
That's all the Bible asks for you to do. Let it go. That's what 'forgive' means. Let it go. No more, no less.
Anything else is reconcilliation. I don't know anywhere in the Bible where there is a mandate to reconcile with he who sinned against you. Just a mandate to not let the sin eat you alive.
(I know most folk treat the two as one concept, but that's not what is written in the Bible. It also makes little sense in modern life)
If TWI's depiction of God and TWI's depiction of eternity are correct, there is no justice, because, in the long run, he'll get away with it, provided at one point in his miserable life he confessed the Lord Jesus and believed God raised him from the dead. It matters not how many women he raped, how many lives he ruined, how many suicides he caused, how much money he embezzled, etc. He would not need to express any kind of remorse (before God or before men), he would need to pay no kind of penalty whatsoever. He succeeded completely in scamming God. The verses I've quoted out of the gospel writings and out of the "Catholic" epistles are totally irrelevant, as they are not, according to the ultradispensationalist view taught by VPW, not addressed "to" the "Church of God." If I still subscribed to TWI's sotierology, I'd be *%^#*ed. I think those who subscribe to TWI theology should ask some serious questions of their God: first of all, how could God allow such an injustice to occur, that a man who blasphemed God's Holy Name and never expressed the first sign of remorse would be able to have the vision of God and an eternity with Him? Frankly, if I was personally hurt by LCM and still subscribed to the TWI theology, I would be severely tempted to take Justice into my own hands and provide LCM the punishment he deserves, as it would be apparent that he would not receive eternal justice of any kind.
I don't subscribe, however, to TWI's theology anymore. As such, I can let it go. And I can encourage others to do so, as well. The reason for this is that I have confidence that LCM will either repent of his past sins or he will eventually have to answer for them. Therefore, I can confidently leave it in God's hands. That's not to say that I will forget what he's done to others, including you. Yes, warn people so that they don't make the same mistakes we did. Yes, try to help people see they aren't alone in what they experienced. Yes, support people so that they can get some mental closure in their lives.
The bottom line, Lindy, is that I'm saying the Bible instructs us to "let it go." The fact that the word "forgive" is used in the KJV translation is of minimal relevence, particularly considering the modern definition of the word. The instruction is to "let it go." If you subscribe to the Bible, you'd do well to do so. If you don't, you'd still do well to consider that course, as there is no healthy outcome to doing otherwise.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
20
15
17
14
Popular Days
Mar 7
36
Feb 28
31
Mar 6
25
Mar 3
19
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 20 posts
oldiesman 15 posts
ex10 17 posts
J0nny Ling0 14 posts
Popular Days
Mar 7 2006
36 posts
Feb 28 2006
31 posts
Mar 6 2006
25 posts
Mar 3 2006
19 posts
rascal
Snort .. I don`t yet understand nor have I seen a good explanation or definition of forgiveness that would make it ok to not do it the way God operates it with us....
it`s like God says THIS is what you must do to recieve forgiveness...and then we say...ohhh but I want to do it this other way anyway because it makes me feel better.
I don`t have a problem with folks forgiving without repentance...but without some solid scriptural back up to explain why we aren`t going to do it how God does....I won`t be doing it.
Why doesn`t he forgive US without repentance...is HE being hard hearted? Wouldn`t HE need to do it for himself? It feels kind of arrogant to assume that we ought to do something that he is unwilling for some valid reason to do.
Have you guys noticed that he said clearly about our brother who sinned against us? It is when our brother REPENTS that we are to forgive him....ever wonder why that is in there if it isn`t vitally important to all parties?
I don`t feel I owe em a damned thing... matter of fact ... it feels like yet one more thing being required of me to be blythly taken by them ... that they don`t deserve and isn`t theirs anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
I'd like to clear one thing up here at least as far as I'm concerned. I don't at all think that
NOT forgiving someone of necessity implies that one is holding a grudge. There are people whom I've not forgiven and I seldom ,if ever, think about them nor harbor rage. At this moment they might float through my mind because of the topic under discussion but thats it. Of course there are people whom I've forgiven and those who have forgiven me so I'm not at all opposed to the concept. Its just that many times I see abusers who attempt to employ the concept of forgiveness to their benefit. They want it more than their victims wish to provide it and they (the abuser) frequently uses biblical refereneces to push the issue. Now is anyone who talks about the bible and forgiveness attempting to
manipulate others into forgiveness ? No. Of course not but there are those who do and this is abhorrent. Its even worse than the original abuse because the perpetrator just wants to rest easier about things.
As I mentioned in my previous post I acknowledge that God forgave mankind but he didn't do it immediately nor did he do it upon request. He did it when the time was right and not one moment before. Thats a precedent I think is useful. Give your forgiveness when the timing is right NOT when someone is pressuring you to give it. And again. don't
fall for the trick of "if you don't forgive someone then you will be full of rage". Thats not true at all. It can be but its not a given. I'm not God so I don't think its my place to go around and act like it - "you are forgiven my son" especially when I haven't worked it through yet. Each party must benefit from this else its unbalanced.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Try this, Rascal.
Objectively, you are already forgiven before it happened. That was what the cross did for you.
Subjectively, you are forgiven when you repent.
What does that mean?
(trying to keep it as neutral as possible so this thread doesn't get moved to the Doctrinal forum)
Think about the parable of the prodigal son: The father's attitude toward the son after the son had blown his inheritance was one of concern and love. He rejoiced when the son came back home. That's the objective forgiveness. It took the son's initiative to repent (come back home) before he could benefit from it. The son's repentence enabled him to receive that forgiveness, subjectively. Did the father chase after the son? No. It took the son's initiative to repent of his actions.
The analogy with us is that the letting go is the objective forgiveness. Letting go. It doesn't mean that you do a blasted other thing until such time as the person who sinned against you repents. You just don't let that person have control over you anymore through resentment. If that person truly repents (and I mean truly), then that's when a) he can benefit from your forgiveness and B) the two of you can begin (begin) to be reconciled. But, that repentence on the part of the person who trespassed against you must be genuine.
We are all familiar with the Peter's question about forgiveness:
But do we remember the story that immediately followed?
So it seems to me that the offended party doesn't hold a grudge. The offending party asks for forgiveness from the trespass and is granted it by the offended party. however, the offending party's repentence must be sincere!
Oh yeah, and here's the next verse:
So let it go...if IF the person who offended you shows repentence and asks for forgiveness, then you can deal with the next step. But move on...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
WRONG!
Rape and coersion are CRIMES, no one was ever arrested or even Charged with a crime.
It was a CIVIL lawsuit not a crimminal trial .
the allens sued LCM and the way because she had an affair or sex with him and felt she was wronged and sought compensation.
IT was a CIVIL lawsuit. money is the only restitution in lawsuits of this manner.
sometimes people can sue a person who is also involved in a criminal court , concerning the same matter this is NOT THE CASE in the allens lawsuit.
LCM was never charged by the state for anything , the district attorney never was involved, this case is about people wanting compensation (money) in a law suit only.
NO rape no crimes no prosecution of anything was involved.
keep it straight Rascal.
why do you lie? or play dumb when in your posts you scream to know all the facts with a vengence.
it is a lie to say LCM was prosecuted for a crime ,He was never even charged, it was a CIVIL lawsuit...keep it straight.
The way had money to be had at the time loads of it.. and it was ripe for the taking why not sue?
why settle? because a lawyer will keep the motion open forever as long as the money is coming in as HIS paycheck heck yeah he can find a reason to keep it going for years and years.
helps him it does.
or frankly they thought they would lose and guess who has to pay the lawyer when YOU LOSE?
that is right if you sue someone and lose YOU have to pay the lawyers fees... of both . could get a little dicey with something to lose in that case .. so you take the money and go.
the files are closed in this case and they are not allowed to discuss the outcome hmmmm.
two sides to the story. keep it straight.
Edited by pondLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I should probably let this slide, but I won't.
For those of you who have no need of medication,
(and don't see "shielding lcm" as a requirement),
this should be a piece of cake.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
If the judge in the case thought that a legitimate rape had been committed, he could have easily notified the district attorney, and had LCM arrested.
The judge didn't do that because the judge didn't believe a rape had been committed.
That's one reason why I don't believe LCM committed a rape.
From the facts I have of the circumstances, it sounds more like sexual harassment to me.
I don't think so.
The settlement means, from TWI's perspective, they settled because of what they were afraid of losing, not because they admit a crime had been committed.
And as I said, had a legitimate crime been committed, something punishable by the authorities, the judge could have easily arranged an arrest.
This kind of thing happens all the time, you know, settlements; which is why had the Allen's not taken the money, there would have been a trial where all facts would have been exposed, and all testimony under the scrutiny of cross-examination.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I think this is inaccurate.
Yes God asks us to confess our sin in order to be in fellowship with Him.
But God may grant forgiveness of sin, and indeed has, whether or not people confess or ask, or do anything.
We may do the same.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I can`t figure out why anyone would think that the Allens owed them a trial or their settlement to charity??
in the court systems that they were wronged according to the laws of this country by lcm by the top leaders in twi....twi paid dearly for this....
Craig is gone.... 20,000 people are freed.... we get way dale and then greasespot...twi has to be kinder and gentle......it is a victory all the way around!
Sounds like the hand of God at work to me :)
It has to be some kind of record to be the catalyst that has freed so many people from a dangerous cult :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
A trial reveals all the facts under oath and allows the interested observer to have a knowledgable opinion, knowing all the testimony.
That would have been much more substantial than internet hearsay.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Well damn em for not taking onto account that they ought to have satisfied the interests of a curious observer for the salacious little details anyway
How DARE they not open themselves to the derision and accusations of twi`s bottom feeding attornies...endured the shame and humiliation of a public trial so that folks could be more *informed*....
How very rude and inconsiderate for them not to take into account your interests and their responsibility to convince you personally of their veracity.
Some how I got the idea that the lawsuit was about how they personally had been betrayed and wronged and getting lcm out of the position of power so he could no longer continue hurting people.
Dunno in spite of your unrequitted interest.....the incredible shrinking twi gives mute testimoney to the effective and Godliness of their actions ....Seems like a victory to me.
Wonder how many people have been spared grief with him gone.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I don't say damn them, but neither do I view them as heroes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I suppose that is determined by ones perspective.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
mark
That was an excellent synopsis of Matt. 18:21ff. Thanks for that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
I agree with you Ex10. I appreciate Mark's insight and understanding of Scripture. I'm also grateful for his willingness to share it. Mark, you also have an exceptional ability to present your ideas in a way that make sense - it's easy to understand your point of view.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nandon
Oldies,
I see your point. Its a good one. I agree. They aren't "heros". However, it is my beleif that IF they had not taken LCM to court LCM would STILL be in charge.
I am thankfull for what they did because we (twi followers past and/or present) would have never known about it.
I don't know the allens. I don' know their motives for the lawuites. But i know that the result of them taking LCM and company to court benefited my life.
Do you see my point?
They aren't my "heros" but im thankfull that they did what they did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
One thing that this discussion has brought up for me, is the inextricable link between love and forgiveness.
For anybody who is Christian, we are commanded to love God and one another. True, bold, courageous, biblical, God fearing love is not possible without forgiveness.
That's why it is such an important topic. And like Mark stated, I think there are many misconceptions about what true forgiveness really is, and how it differs from reconciliation.
So, my opinion, but if I as a Christian say that I love God and my neighbor, but then turn around and refuse to forgive those who have wronged me, then I am a hypocrite. And it takes work, dangit, to forgive. I wish this business of love and forgiveness was a little easier. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
ex10/krys:
Thanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
When Jesus was on the cross, after having been whipped, beaten, mocked, slandered, falsely accused, spat upon, jeered, with nails through his hands and feet (big spikes through his hands and feet! ( Think of it! Your hands, your feet!) ), a crown of nasty thorns pounded into his head, with no other human standing with him, and then he said; "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do".
They didn't ask Jesus for his forgiveness, but Jesus Christ our Lord implored the Heavenly Father to forgive those who had violated a fellow human (himself) more than anyone had been violated before or since, and he was innocent! Are you innocent? Are any of us innocent? No. Yet Jesus uttered those words to our God, our Heavenly Father. Many of us here have experienced grievous injuries and physical pain. And we know that it is hell. And yet, when you were in pain due to an injury, an operation (surgery), were you not surrounded by people who loved you and tried to comfort you? But maybe you were wounded in battle or taken prisoner by the Viet Cong and tortured and not surrounded by loved ones during that time. But the Word of God says that what Jesus went through was worse. That Jesus was "marred more than any man", and that he was not even recognizeable as a man. And, he was mocked and spit upon until his moment of death. And the Word Of God even says that Jesus "despised the shame". No, he didn't like it. He was/is human. He despised it. And yet he forgave his tormenters.
And so, regardless of what anyone here may say, and no matter how offended you may be by what I am saying, and no matter how hurt you were, what you and I went through was nothing compared to what our Lord went through. I think that if I follow our Lord Jesus Christ and his example, I know that I will not err if I do as he did and does
And, if you are not a believer in the Bible as the Word of God, then this will mean nothing to you, and that's fine. Your life. But if you are a believer in the Bible as God's Word, then I hope you will consider these words, for I believe it will make you a happier person. Selah.
JL
Edited by Jonny LingoLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Those people who beat Jesus and spat in his face hurt HIM!!! (Good point Jonny)
There are many here who were not personally hurt by lcm - but are in the discussion fo forgiving him. WHY? In Modern legal terms you it would be said that "you have no standing" or as others have put it, "you don't have a dog in this fight."
Be angry, be upset, be disgusted - be totally appalled and sick to your stomach that these your brothers and sisters were hurt be lcm (as am I) - but you have nothing to forgive him for - THEY DO - if they want to.
And the point still stands that God issued forgiveness before we ever asked for it as did Jesus on the cross.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Okay. Jesus's tormetors hurt him. And he forgave them !
If LCM hurt you, or them, then all involved parties should forgive him. And, by the way, LCM did hurt my heart tremendously. He used to be a friend of both me and my wife. And he betrayed us both. But I forgive him, regardless of the fact that he may still be a seething maniac and never asked me to forgive him. Shoot, this is basic "Christianity 101". We are to "forgive those who tresspass against us". Tailor made for Ex Ways like us. All of us. Geez, now who said those words?
JESUS. Bow to him, you'll like it...
Edited by Jonny LingoLink to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Mark said:
etc.I said:
OK, I understand why the Greek semantics from the early part of the first millenium are important to many of you. You can also understand why they are not so much for me. I prefer to speak in modern English. I think for christians (and everyone really) etymology should be important but so is speaking in a modern, contemporary way at least to avoid confusion.
From today's Merriam-Webster:
1 a : to give up resentment of or claim to requital for
b : to grant relief from payment of <forgive a debt>
2 : to cease to feel resentment against (an offender) : PARDON
So yes, I will move on and have. (Not speaking of just LCM, but of those who did directly cause pain and strife in my life.) BTW, even though he did not directly hurt me, he did indirectly and those are the "legs I stand on."
Plus, I do feel resentment and indignation towards the man. He did and taught things that hurt many people including me and many teachings continue to hurt or hinder people I know. So I will not give up requital or cease to feel resentment. BUT I will move on and I have.
That is where I am coming from...a modern perspective. If there is a god and this god is happy that I have moved on, then fantastic. I still hope people like LCM get what is coming to them.
Pardon? I don't think so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
From legal perspective TWI settled because as a "minister" LCM would be held accountable for having sex with a member of his congregation in the same manner a college professor would be if it were his student, or a boss with an employee, or a doctor with a patient. The law regards each of these instances as wrong because one party has power over another separate from the sex act.
There was no way they could have won on this point in a court of law
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Lindy, first of all, this is sort of a hypothetical exercise, since you and I are coming from completely different perspectives.
You said,
I said, after pasting the Greek definition for the word rendered 'forgive' in KJV English,
Under normal circumstances, I'd agree with your statement, but the argument I am forwarding is based upon writings originally penned using those Ancient Greek Semantics©, therefore, the meanings of the words used then are critical. Keep in mind that this is a hypothetical exercise. Since there is no God and the writings of the Canon of Scripture are simply old legends penned by superstituous dead white guys&tm;, it has no bearing on reality, right?
If TWI's depiction of God and TWI's depiction of eternity are correct, there is no justice, because, in the long run, he'll get away with it, provided at one point in his miserable life he confessed the Lord Jesus and believed God raised him from the dead. It matters not how many women he raped, how many lives he ruined, how many suicides he caused, how much money he embezzled, etc. He would not need to express any kind of remorse (before God or before men), he would need to pay no kind of penalty whatsoever. He succeeded completely in scamming God. The verses I've quoted out of the gospel writings and out of the "Catholic" epistles are totally irrelevant, as they are not, according to the ultradispensationalist view taught by VPW, not addressed "to" the "Church of God." If I still subscribed to TWI's sotierology, I'd be *%^#*ed. I think those who subscribe to TWI theology should ask some serious questions of their God: first of all, how could God allow such an injustice to occur, that a man who blasphemed God's Holy Name and never expressed the first sign of remorse would be able to have the vision of God and an eternity with Him? Frankly, if I was personally hurt by LCM and still subscribed to the TWI theology, I would be severely tempted to take Justice into my own hands and provide LCM the punishment he deserves, as it would be apparent that he would not receive eternal justice of any kind.
I don't subscribe, however, to TWI's theology anymore. As such, I can let it go. And I can encourage others to do so, as well. The reason for this is that I have confidence that LCM will either repent of his past sins or he will eventually have to answer for them. Therefore, I can confidently leave it in God's hands. That's not to say that I will forget what he's done to others, including you. Yes, warn people so that they don't make the same mistakes we did. Yes, try to help people see they aren't alone in what they experienced. Yes, support people so that they can get some mental closure in their lives.
The bottom line, Lindy, is that I'm saying the Bible instructs us to "let it go." The fact that the word "forgive" is used in the KJV translation is of minimal relevence, particularly considering the modern definition of the word. The instruction is to "let it go." If you subscribe to the Bible, you'd do well to do so. If you don't, you'd still do well to consider that course, as there is no healthy outcome to doing otherwise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.