FORGIVING RESTS ON THE FOUNDATION OF JUDGEMENT
Forgiveness is a new beginning. For that to happen, it is necessary for the person to admit what they did to you and ask for a new beginning. Anything else is about you trying to feel good about the bad instead of trying to help heal the wrong done. If all you care about is how you feel that says something about how you feel about others who may be hurt by the person. The Bible says (First Letter of John) that God only forgives IF you admit you are a sinner which means you have to admit you can be blind and he knows best. God presents this as a good example for us to follow too in our daily lives so the Bible often tells us to confess our sins against each other to each other.
We will learn that forgiveness may not be real in the sense that it is a mask
for separating the sin from the sinner. No wonder you seem to forgive and even
think you forgive.
Love the sinner and hate the sin can be rephrased as bless the sinner and judge
the sin. Interestingly few are interested in reading it that way which may prove
significant. It shows they judge the sinner and the sin together and want others
do but they want to hide their spite.
The Christian teaching that we must judge sins and not sinners needs
translation. The translation is, "Sins are perfectly bad and sinners are
perfectly good." Merely to state such a doctrine is to prove it is hypocritical
nonsense. It is obvious that an "evil" deed is a mixture of good and bad
motives. At least some of the motives whether good or bad will be influenced by
mistakes or be mistakes. You cannot condemn making mistakes for they are not
meant. Plus there will be motives we are not even aware of.
"Love the maths student but hate his mistake" is definitely personal for why are
we saying hate? Why not just correct?
All agree that nobody can say x has sinned in doing something and really love
that person if there is any unfairness in x's assessment of that person.
The argument that unjustly saying somebody sinned means you cannot hide behind
love the sinner and hate the sin and you hate them with the sin is interesting.
Being fair in your assessment of somebody's action being sinful does not in
itself mean you really do judge the action not them. People often use justice as
a weapon. It is not the justice they care about though they take a lot of effort
to be right in their assessment of what the person has done.
Judging and condemning mean that a person's worth has been judged and it is less
than that of those who are assessed as better than her or him. It is based on
the view that your actions show what you are. If we believed they didn't show
what you are, there would be no problem in worshipping Attila the Hun as a
saint.
A paraphrase would be, "Actions may be evil but the people that do them are not
evil at all." Or, "We have no right to judge anybody evil even if we can prove
they are totally dangerous."
This is based on the popular notion, "You are not defined by my judgement of
you. But I am defined by my judgement of you."
Such ideas try to create a disconnect between the doer of the evil and the
action. It is a good way of seeming moral while in fact you are programming
people to divorce themselves from their immoralities and to divorce others from
theirs, thus eventually nobody feels bad about letting people be evil or
becoming evil. The most common manifestation of this problem is sectarianism.
Because a disconnect is created between two denominations, the members of one do
not feel bad enough about hurting the members of another to refrain from
persecuting them. People like hurting other communities better than they do
their own.
You cannot hate a sin unless you judge the person as a sinner first so the idea
that the love sinner hate sin principle goes with the ban on judgement is
totally wrong. Nearly everybody bases their allegiance to morality on their
feelings and not on morality itself. Real ethical behaviour would be based on
what reason decrees to be wrong. So it is an appearance of morality that they
follow. So when you condemn something just because you want it to be wrong you
cannot say you love the sinner and hate the sin for when you are being unfair
you must hate both.
Christian forgiveness is passive aggressive hypocrisy
There is no forgiving where there is no judging and no thinking, "This person
does not deserve anything from me." If forgiving is a response to judging then
it follows that I have to judge and forgive actions that are nothing to do with
me. It is not just that I will judge if somebody harms another. It is that I
have to judge. I am obligated to for that is about recognising morality. The
command of Jesus to love neighbour as yourself tells you to feel the same way
when another is hurt as you would if they hurt you. The Golden Rule says the
same thing. These heart warming commands, moral "principles" or rules are
deceptive. They only work in a society where everybody is good nearly all the
time. They are okay if it is only nature not somebody’s personal choice that
hurts you. But we live in a society where everybody is deserving of morality
rooted suspicion most of the time.
If it is morally good and right to put yourself first then it follows you should
avoid any upset about what happens to a person not connected with you.
Some argue that self-forgiveness is the most important forgiveness of all and it
is important to do that if nothing else. They treat it as therapy.
If so then Jesus' teaching is damaging. And he knew it for there is a reason why
nobody heeds his teaching demanding that you treat another as another you.
What is harmful and what harm means differs from person to person. All agree
though that the most important danger to you is yourself and your unconscious
impulses and actions. Wrongs done to others are wrongs done ultimately to
yourself. So it follows that sin and harm can overlap but are not the same
thing. So you shouldn't even be thinking of the sin. It is about the harm that the
person is doing to themselves.
If forgiveness is about ending judgement it can still amount to a judgement on the vulnerable who may be hurt by the one you glorify yourself by pardoning.
The Christian ethos of mercy and over-confidence in redemption was the reason Hitler got off too light in 1923 when he was found guilty of an attempted coup. Catholic Germany forgave. Protestant Germany forgave. Atheist Germany was too small to count. Germany decided to move on. Liberal Christianity was rife in Germany. Its role was huge so Germany forgave. Germany decided to move on. Traditional Christianity was just as complicit. A decade later their forgiveness had created this monster. Failure to hold him responsible properly put him on the path to becoming this this dictator who engineered the worst evil of all time. Not only that but the anti-Jew seeds are still sprouting since Hitler watered them. Weedkiller does little.