Total posts: 1,002
-->
@Savant
your vision is regressive. optimally, rich people should pay a higher percent of tax on their income than everyone else. what actually happens is they pay less. even if we didn't have a progressive system, and only had a flat tax, they even avoid that tax too... they pay less than everyone else. that shouldn't be allowed to happen. yes it is punishing to have consumption and wealth taxes, but so what. the rich want to live here, they enjoy the benefits of our system... there's no reason a consumption tax and meager wealth tax is a bad thing. the alternative is they pay nothing or next to nothing in taxes. that's just unfair. what i propose is a bare bottom request to help level the playing field. even with what i propose, they are still getting away with murder, and paying way less than everyone else.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
u r probably right, that the base wants culture wars, but if there's any hope in beating trump, everyone else needs to hope an optimistic alternative message might work. we'll call it a hail mary play, like the football play.
Created:
-->
@Savant
rich people take a lot of the earth's resources to become rich. it's like a farmer of a giant farm insisting it's all his and he doesn't owe anybody else any responsiblity. it's only the rules of man that says that whole farm is his. in the real world, people would go plant trees and crops on that farm, and would fight the farmer to survive. it's a basic social contract that we need to make sure the rich pay their fair share because of that abuse of wealth hoarding. rich people shouldn't pay less in taxes than their secretaries. a consumption tax is a good way to level the playing field, to avoid letting them use borrowing as a loop hole.
this is all also why i suppose a wealth tax. that two percent tax on the wealth of rich people that elizaebeth warren supports.... sounds like a good idea to me. but that's another debate.
Created:
instead of selling their investments to pay for their spending, rich people instead borrow money at super low rates. this causes them to not have to pay much in taxes. they dont have to pay capital gains taxes if they dont realize capital gains by selling. that's a big way the rich get by without paying much in taxes. we shouldn't be allowing that loop hole. they should have to pay a high tax bracket rate on the money that they borrow.
Created:
Posted in:
overall spending isn't going up much, proportional to what it's been in the past as a percent of GDP, if you dont count social security and medicare. the reason spending keeps going up so much, is because congress is trying to pay back social security and medicare. it's not that all other parts of the government have gone run amok. so what are the republicans trying to do? they are trying to cut spending to the poor, and miscellaneous spending, to pay for entitlements. they're trying to give less food to poor people, to give more money to seniors. they shouldn't be doing that. what should be done, is that taxes should go up. compared to the rest of the developed world, we dont have much of a welfare state, and just looking at what benefits poor people can get... we just dont have much of a welfare state. compared the rest of the developed world, our taxes are low. granted, our bloated healthcare system and defense spending causes our overall (if you count the private sector too) spending to be similar to other countries, albeit we dont spend as much on welfare while overall spending is similar to other countries. so congress should cut into defense spending and healthcare spending (lowering medical reimbursement rates for example) to help pay for increasaed spending. but most importantly, the rich should be paying more in taxes, too. it's not right that rich people pay less in taxes than their secretaries.
Created:
trump is the king of culture warriors. he's the ultimate bully, he's an alpha male. folks like ron desantis shouldn't be trying to focus so much on trying out do trump on that turf, cause they'll lose every time. desantis, for example, got a lotta legislation passed, that doesn't have to do with the culture wars. he should focus on that... all these guys should be focusing more on concrete ways that they have improved people's lives, and to focus on their proposals for how they will continue to improve people's lives.
the liberal in me thinks they dont focus on those kind of details, cause they are weak on the details that will improve people's lives. as is common these days, both sides of the political aisle wanna keep fighting culture wars instead of things that actually matter
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
he might just be playing by the rules as they are. kind of like when a rich person thinks taxes should go up on the rich, but they dont voluntarily donate to the government when taxes aren't increases as they'd like.
Created:
balanced budget. congress should set every item in the budget, except social security and health care, to be the same percent of GDP every year. like defense spending might be twenty percent of GDP, and it will stay that way every year even as our GDP rises.
the exception, is that congress can always pass legislation on a case by case basis that deviates from this norm. by having this overall balanced budget approach, we will avoid the yearly debt ceiling fights that we see every year. those are risky, and they're not sustainable.
of course, someone will complain that GDP shrinks during recessions. historically and practically, though, that's not a big deal. as was said, congress can always pass legislation on a case by case basis to deficit spend even more so. but just as importantly, though, is the fact that GDP doesn't shrink much during recessions, usually just a few percent. even during the great recession, GDP only shrunk 5 percent.... so, a 5 percent spending cut isn't that big of a deal. of course, during the great depression GDP shrunk 30 percent... so congress would need to use its case by case power to deal with that sorta situation, cause there are no good options during those times other than to deficit spend to stimulate the economy but maybe not too much, it's their judgment call.
the reason social security and health care are exempted, are because those are expected to change over time, given the government has been borrowing against medicare and SS and currently is trying to pay them back and demographics change over time. the thing is, with these debt ceiling fights, republicans are trying to cut say spending on say food stamps, in order to have enough money to pay social security back. that's the way our accounting is structured. that choice shouldnt exist... social security should just do its own thing and rise and fall on its own merit. it shouldn't come at the cost of other programs, such as food stamps. forcing a choice between paying seniors more and paying poor people less (or giving less food to hungry people) shouldn't be a thing that politicians do. social security can be figured out on its own and congressmen will be forced to reckon given by 2033 the trust fund is going to run out of money and can only pay 80 percent of benefits. maybe taxes on the rich can go up on their payroll tax, benefits for the rich can be cut, retirement age can go up, maybe everyone can chip in a little more on their pay roll taxes. point, solutions are out there, but it shouldn't be intermixed with other governemnt spending. one of the biggest mistakes ever congress made was borrowing against social security and medicare. and on that point, healthcare spending needs to be tackled on its own just like social security, for many of the same reasons.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
good point. maybe i should have focused on the dems being more likely to help those who are struggling.
Created:
Posted in:
maybe making politician pay dependant on them getting debt manageable is a good solution. i dont know how it'd work, but it's also a good starting point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
i dont know how you mean that half a bridge would be paid for. agencies spend what they are budgeted for. if they have the money to build a bridge, they will, but if they dont, then they won't.
i do realize that politicians would game the quiz, but again nothing on the quiz is radical, so whatever they decide is viable, and given the final result is averaged, and given everyone has to face their electorate, the final result should be pretty moderate.
i do acknowledge that spending and budgets would be a lot more volatile. maybe doing the quiz should only be done once per presidential term to provide a little more stability. or maybe even every eight years. of course, they can always pass other bills on a case by case basis... which i think would be ok, though i'm not sure how effective it'd be.
the real politics is deciding how to create the quiz... the quiz as it is is sensible, but everyone will want to game that decision, cause that decision would decide how the cards will fall, politically. a lotta times its not the specifics the public responds to, it's just 'food stamps were cut, therefore that's good', instead of any details. but i think this general framework could work.
Created:
Posted in:
committee for a responsible budget has a quiz that lets average joe's like us to address taxes and spending decisions
what congress should do is make each congressman to fill out that quiz to a point that achieves the goal purpose, getting debt to a manageable level within thirty years. and then they will have to average out everyone's response. by doing that, debt will get to a manageable level within thirty years.
a key point, is that every congressman's decision should be open to the public. the great thing about this quiz, is that nothing on it is radical, so even if they were completely liberal or conservative, no one would be radically hurt. also, most congressmen will be forced by public pressure not to be too radical. if they attack social security, they will get attacked at the voting booth, perhaps. some congressman can escape consequnces cause their electorate doesn't care about the issues, but again, nothing on that quiz is a radical choice.
Created:
-->
@rosends
even dreams arent so consistent in seeing dead family members and telepathy.
you do see how ridiculous your argument is right? 'sometimes i dream about my dead family members, and sometime i dream about telepathy... therefore, when people die they will almost always hallucinate dead family members and telepathy'. such a leap of logic.
it's like when someone argues the tunnels in NDEs could be explained by a dying brain and light in the eyes... therefore, apparatenly, it all makes sense that people would hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when they die too, i guess? makes perfect sense.
i assume skeptic know that they are making stupid arguments like this, yet just choose to throw out any flimsy argument they can. it's not a rational thought process.
Created:
-->
@rosends
1. so do skeptics acknowledge that their position is that out of body experiences and 'blind seeing' are simply inaccurate in what these sources report? do the skeptics admit that if these were not inaccurate, there must be something to these NDEs? if people are actually seeing things out of their body and the blind are seeing, there must be something to these experiences.
2. do skeptics admit that people should be hallucinating living people and non family members? your explantion is possible, but it isn't what should be happening... there's no good reason people would just hallucinate dead family members. i dont even know how skeptics would explain why people would always hallucinate telepathic communication in their experiences. there's no plausible alternative explanations than these are real afterlife experiences. do skeptics just assume this is another inaccurate finding? or, what alternative theory would they posit? something about human nature is such that humans would only hallucinate telepathy and never what the humans do in real life, verbal communication?
Created:
it seems pretty clear that it's the democrats who are more likely to do so. minimum wage, housing assistance, child care, student loans, health care... everything. i admit that a lot of it goes to far and is stupid on the policy details, but it still seems clear dems are better. republicans are more obscure in helping the average person economically... what are your ideas? even immigration is more about poor americans, not average americans. what are the points that republicans have? it's more obscure, like making life good for your boss and hoping it trickles down to you, even though it probably won't.
most of politics is about the horse race and stupid cultural issues that aren't very relevant. that's the kind of stuff most of ya'll argue about.... you care cause you are told you are suppose to care.
when it comes to which party is more likely to help the average person, even if they have their problems,,, it's the dems. that's why i usually vote blue.
Created:
So, the author of reality (God) chose to make these people suffer substantial more than other people, because why? He's omnipotent and omniscient, but still chooses to make these people suffer more? God could choose to have a perfectly level playing field, but doesn't choose that. What an asshole lol.
there can be purpose in struggle. there is a wise video circulating about a priest saying how God answers prayers. he asked for strength and God gave him difficult people to deal with... that develops strength. the priest asked for courage, and God gave him scary siutations that required him to develop courage.
life is about creating our reality as a species. we're co creators. the higher purposes require us to find meaning in doubt, to live in faith... to create based on faith. we use our free will, without having all the answers, to embrace a higher possible purpose.
ultimately, i admit that you have formidable philosphical arguements. but it really comes down to optimism v pessimism. your arguments dont necessarily describe existence the best. it's just a way of looking at it. pessimistic, instead of optimistic. you see the glass half empty. it might not be the right way to look at it. you are being like an ingrateful teenager who doesnt get things their way, so they assume the world is unfair, instead of just figuring out that there's something to gain in not always getting things the way you would like. our desires of our flesh, v our desires of our spirit.
bottom line, you are simply just choosing to be a pessimist, when it's possible to be an optimist, and there's good reason to think the optimists have it right.
Created:
-->
@rosends
it lacks common sense, even if, again, i were to admit that a rational person could argue there's no evidence for the afterlife. when i concede that it's possible to say it's not evidence, or to entertain the idea... i'm being generous. you can find a fool to think anything. i mean, i suppose if it makes the skeptics feel better, i'll grant that it's possible to do a bunch of mental gymnastics and arrive at the conclusion that there's no evidence for the afterlife. but it's all platitude. this stuff indicates something, without question. to say it indicates something but isn't evidence, is just stupid. just because it's possible to argue there's no evidence for the afterlife doesn't mean it makes sense. it's like someone arguing that our lives are hallucinations... if we accept basic logic and what our eyes tell us, then our lives are not mere hallucinations. i admit there's a degree of difference between saying our lives are hallucinations and that NDEs are hallucinations, but it's not much different. it's still a good analogy to show how 'ostrich with its head in the sand' skeptics are on this.
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
there's instability for the average person on the globe, i'll give you that. but, the average person has evolved to have decent health until they die or get close to death, and the ones who don't have decent health are the exception. they might not live lavishly, but they have enough to survive. life is about more than lavish living. it's about gratitude, and making the best of not having everything one wants.
our dispute the way i see it, is whether the average person on the globe has a decent life or not. it's at least gotta be good enough to think existing is better than not existing. the way you describe it, most people would be better off not being born, but the irony is that almost none of them agrees with that. life can be a struggle and still worth living, and still worth being grateful for, for the average person.
Created:
-->
@rosends
the thesis that i am arguing is that at the very least evidence for the afterlife exists. if your thesis is that the afterlife can't be proven as true, then i am open to healthy skepticism.
as far as i see it, the skeptics on the evidence usually just ignore it. i assume they think the out of body evidence and 'the blind seeing' evidence is simply inaccurate. they have to believe that for the evidence to be untrue, but it looks like the evidence isn't simply inaccurate. this is a case of skeptics simply ignoring evidence.
then there's just the stuff they dont give reasons for. why are people met on the other side almost always dead family members, why is communication almost always telepathic? if this was hallucations neither of those things would be so consistent. this is plain evidence, and skeptics almost never even try to deal with it.
what if the afterlife is as these experiences indicate them to be? how stupid would a person have to be to have it plainly in front of their face, whether you want to call it evidence or not, and still pretend they had no clue as to the truth? people are experiencing elaborate afterlife stories when they die, yet skeptics pretend there's nothing that might indicate an afterlife. at best, it's skepticism for the sake of skepticism. hallucinations are a possible explanation, so they assume that's what it is, despite the philosophy and science that indicates they are mistaken. they are right that their interpretation is possible... but it's not probable, or in any case, it's not like there's nothing that might indicate an afterlife exists.
even if it's not evidence, it's still a plain 'indicator', whatever you want to call it. it has meaning. to have to quibble if something might indicate something v if it's evidence is just stupid. it's right in front of our faces and skeptics just choose to ignore it.
Created:
it looks like there's been an outbreak of atheism lately on the forum. i thought i'd bump this thread to remind atheists how stupid they are.
Created:
life is a struggle for almost everyone. but i would still say overall the good outweighs the bad. even the poorest among us have a lot to be thankful for. it's about perspective. there's a lot of people born with disease, or people who come into massive problems, but those are the exception, not the rule. as jesus said about those who are born diseased, they were allowed to be made that way... allowed, not created... so that one day, even if it's in the afterlife, when their poor condition is changed for the better.... God will be glorified.
trying to make a virtual reality or otherwise escape reality is just avoiding the truth as it is. i mean i guess it's okay to have a way to escape, if it's done in a healthy way, but the truth needs accepted as the truth, otherwise a person is living a lie. i suppose the details would need to be determined on a case by case basis.
Created:
Allowing guns on campus would not prevent mass shootings and would actually increase the risk of gun violence. Research indicates that this policy would likely lead to more gun homicides and suicides, more nonfatal shootings, and more threats with a firearm on college campuses.9
In fact, colleges and universities, which have traditionally prohibited guns on campus, are already relatively safe from gun violence. Among all violent crime against college students from 1995 through 2002, 93 percent of incidents took place off campus.10 According to Everytown for Gun Safety’s tracking of incidents of gunfire on school grounds, an average of 10 gun homicides occur on college campuses each year, while almost 20 million students attend colleges or universities.11
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
i dont think there's too many people who are against armed security. only a small segment of stupid people think that. you shouldn't try to pigeon hole everyone else or straw man everyone else who doesn't think that.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
i mean i admit that gun free zones are sometimes a gray area... but the idea that guns dont sometimes cause murder when it otherwise wouldn't wouldn't occur, is an idiotic idea.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
u r arguing for armed security and not allowing guns at some places... why not having armed security and allowing guns at all these gun free zones? i mean we can't have metal detectors everywhere. why dont you guys have courage to your convictions and argue that everywhere without metal detectors should allow everyone to have guns?
Created:
shouldn't the fact that disney has a lot of armed security mean that they should allow people to have guns? there's the idea that armed security can keep it safe even if guns aren't allowed... but there's also the supposed argument that citizens with guns make the place safer and those with guns are less likely to use them if their armed guards there. it's almost like gun nuts dont want to stick to courage to their convictions and say guns should be allowed at disney.
Created:
should sporting events lift their use of gun free zones?
should college campuses?
should walmart allow open carry?
should government buildings?
should military bases?
should national parks allow open carry?
i dont see it as obvious that self defense will trump people impulsively killing others when they otherwise wouldn't
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
dont you think this lesson about disney is applicable to many other areas too? that maybe having gun free zones is often, if not usually, a better situation to be in?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
what do armed guards have to do with whether disney is a gun free zone? there can be armed guards and still not be a gun free zone.
Created:
disney is a gun free zone. i assume there aren't a lot of murders there. yes, if it was no longer a gun free zone, maybe there would occasionally be successful self defense when attacks do occur. there's a far out chance someone will happen to have a gun to attack a mass shooter, if that ever happened.
but what seems most likely? it seems most likely that impulsive people will occasionally murder others, when they otherwise wouldn't. the ability to just push a button and people die, makes a difference in whether or not people die sometimes, considering how impulsive people are.
the bottom line. maybe letting teachers pack heat might have a good benefit, given teachers are generally morally upstanding. but in general, changing gun free zones to not gun free zones doesn't automatically sound like a slam dunk idea. i mean, often, like this disney example... it's a terrible idea.
ive been debating a lot of you guys on impulsivity and gun use, and ya'll always whimper away and dont finish the debate, or follow your own thoughts to their logical conclusions. maybe those debating me, will stick around this time, and admit their ideas dont make sense, or be so far off base that it's obvious to everyone else that that's the case.
Created:
they should just set national spending as a percent of our GDP, so that we're always spending relatively the same.
Created:
Trump urges GOP to let catastrophic debt default happen if Dems don’t accept cutsFormer President Donald Trump on Wednesday urged Republican lawmakers to let the United States default on its debt if Democrats don’t agree to spending cuts.“I say to the Republicans out there — congressmen, senators — if they don’t give you massive cuts, you’re going to have to do a default,” said Trump, who is again running for president. “And I don’t believe they’re going to do a default because I think the Democrats will absolutely cave, will absolutely cave because you don’t want to have that happen. But it’s better than what we’re doing right now because we’re spending money like drunken sailors.”When pushed by CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins to clarify his remarks, Trump said: “Well, you might as well do it now, because you’ll do it later. Because we have to save this country. Our country is dying. Our country is being destroyed by stupid people, by very stupid people.”Trump made the remarks during a CNN town hall during which he defended his supporters who staged a violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol in January 2021 and mocked the writer E. Jean Carroll a day after a jury found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming her.Trump is the leading contender for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. He would likely look to use a default to his political advantage were he to face President Joe Biden in a rematch next year.His comments came weeks before the U.S. is projected to run out of cash to pay its bills unless Congress addresses the debt limit. Since January, the U.S. government has taken extraordinary measures to avoid default.A default would trigger chaos in markets and result in millions of job losses, according to analysts and economists. Republicans voted to raise the debt ceiling three times during Trump’s presidency.Trump’s words could encourage his many GOP supporters in the House to harden their stance against raising the debt limit without corresponding spending cuts. Biden has said he won’t negotiate over raising the debt limit, although he said he is open to discussing ways to reduce spending in a separate context.Biden and the top four congressional leaders, including Trump supporter House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., will meet again to discuss the debt ceiling on Friday. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has said the U.S. government could hit the debt limit as soon as June 1.
Created:
-->
@hey-yo
so if you agree that the presence of a gun can make a difference on whether someone dies or not... then why are we debating? and are you sure you even disagree with me?
i'm pretty sure you said someone could have a knife and not be as likely to kill than if they had a gun, so i still think you are contradicting yourself.
Created:
-->
@hey-yo
so do you, or do you not think that the the presence of a gun can determine whether someone ultimatley dies or not? you keep saying it things like it makes no difference, and then you go and agree with everything i say.
"the thing is, i've shown that if a gun isn't present, they won't kill, sometimes, and then could change their mind before using premeditation.
Thats fine. I never disagreed with that because people choose weapons to kill. Pretty rare for someone to be charged with premeditated murder because they punched the person to death.
Now you gotta continue to show that all other weapons being present or available while a gun is not will still result in the same conclusion. No killing.
botttom line, the presence of a gun makes a difference, sometimes, in whether someone ultimately dies.
I agree. Just probably differ on reason why "
how can you say you agree with me and differ in the reason why? you keep changing your position. the whole premise for us debating is that your position is that the presence of a gun makes no difference in whether someone ultimately dies. you can't negate your own position and then pretend we're disagreeing.
Created:
-->
@hey-yo
"Can you elaborate on this and how a person isnt necessarily bound to later use premeditation to follow their impulse?
I agree with this. "
a person can change their mind. they might have a murderous impulse with a decision to kill, but lack the means to do so. if they change their mind before acquiring the means to do so, then the murder won't occur.
you keep weaving in and out of agreeing with me and not, because i think you are contradicting yourself. you can't agree with me and then not agree with me at the same time. here is what you are doing: you are agreeing that a person can change their mind, but then also you are saying the presence of a gun makes no difference if someone dies or not. you are one of those chumps that say people kill people and the gun is just a tool. the thing is, i've shown that if a gun isn't present, they won't kill, sometimes, and then could change their mind before using premeditation. botttom line, the presence of a gun makes a difference, sometimes, in whether someone ultimately dies.
Created:
-->
@hey-yo
"Im saying having any weapon around will not change course for an impulsive murder because for that person, the desire and means are all there. Yes maybe for some they will not try to kill if they see a weapon they can not yield, but that is the start of a concious decision instead of impulsive act. Now we get into premeditated because the person is now thinking about how to kill, unless they stop their desire and do not kill. "
this is where your theory falls apart. you acknowledge that if someone has a weopon but it's not good enough to go on a rampage, they won't do it even if they would have with a gun. *a person isn't necessarily bound to later use premeditation to follow up on their impulse.* - this is the key that you miss. the other key point that you are messing up, is that just because someone has a weopon doesn't mean they will go on an impulsive rampage if the weopon is inadequate for the job. they can in fact change their mind... which is why all ya'll's acting like the presence of a gun makes no difference is so stupid. if they had a gun, they would of killed, but since they didn't have a gun, they didn't kill and have the possibility to change their mind, which would necessarily happen sometimes.
Created:
some christians might say that's not possible... if they are saved, they can't be unsaved. but what about free will? i think as long as you are trying to be good and have complete faith that Jesus will save you, then you will be saved. but i think if we respect free will and all the bible passages about falling away, it's possible to become unsaved. afterall, jesus said some seeds will start growing, only to wither and die due to worldly concern. and, Hebrews 10:26. ESV says 'For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins', to say they can't lose their salvation is like saying they can't choose to sin.
Created:
some christians might say that's not possible... if they are saved, they can't be unsaved. but what about free will? i think as long as you are trying to be good and have complete faith that Jesus will save you, then you will be saved. but i think if we respect free will and all the bible passages about falling away, it's possible to become unsaved. afterall, jesus said some seeds will start growing, only to wither and die due to worldly concern. and, Hebrews 10:26. ESV says 'For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins', to say they can't lose their salvation is like saying they can't choose to sin.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
how do you view the doctrine of 'once saved always saved"? i think you might be getting at the idea that it's possible to lose one's salvation. at least, you on one way say people must work out their salvation but then say they only need to work out the fruit of their salvation. maybe you mean working out their salvation is such that they are working through while being saved the whole time? or maybe you just mean it's possible to fall away and they must work through that? cause it's a theological possiblity that a person can be clearly in a state of salvation, but later with free will decide not to be saved.
Created:
-->
@hey-yo
then it looks like you are contradicting yourself. you say it's possible for someone to change their mind about murder. sometimes murders are impulsive. it's possible someone only had a knife when they wanted to kill a bunch of people, and would have killed them had they had a gun... but couldn't kill at that time due to the circumstance. if they later change their mind, then whether a gun was present made a difference. yet, you say whether a gun is present makes no difference, or that having more guns around makes no difference.
obviously it can make a big difference, and given how impulsive people are, there are probably a lot of murders that wouldn't have happened if the person simply didn't have a gun.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
what r ur thoughts?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
you say there is sanctification in protestantism, which is a life long event. but the thing is, protestants dont usually say that sanctication is tied to one's salvation other than to say that someone who is saved becomes sanctified. is it your stance that most protestants view salvation as a one time event and a process? if that were true, then catholics and protestants dont really think differently on this view even though they're always said to be different.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
is your stance both that a sin before God needs repented of, and also that another person shouldn't be forgiven by a victimized person if the other person doesn't repent?
Created:
well, there's repentance of each sin, but there's also repentance of all one's sins generally. and there's also being sorry for sins you refuse to stop doing, which is a kind of repentance. i guess it depends on your context.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
i mean, i can see arguing that we are saved by faith and not faith and works, but i think by far even most reputable protestant theologians would say repentance is necessary. jesus is always talking about the need to do good, and to repent. in the letter james, he says we are justified with faith and works. of course, you can interpret these things to mean that doing good isn't what saves you, but you have to at least acknowledge that doing good or having a propensity to do good is required. as martin luther said in the reformation.... we are saved by faith alone, but faith is never alone.
how can you possibly think repentance isn't necessary to be saved?
Created:
-->
@Savant
excellent post
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
are you the only person on planet earth who is a TRUE christian? how many TRUE christians are there?
Created:
The Limits of ForgivenessEvery year of mankind’s fallen history witnesses countless sins, large and small. When they are committed against us, it raises the question of forgiveness, since Jesus made it clear that we must be willing to forgive.The prior two years witnessed particularly heinous crimes. The year 2001 saw the terrorist attacks, and 2002 saw the priestly sexual abuse scandal. In the wake of both of them, people were pondering the subject of forgiveness.I remember, in the days immediately following 9/11, people calling Catholic Answers Live confused because their priests had told them that the U.S. must not strike back against the terrorists because of the Christian duty of forgiveness.After the sex scandal broke, there were many—even those who had not themselves been abused—vociferously declaring that they “could never forgive” the priestly abusers for what they had done.There’s something wrong with both of these views of forgiveness. The latter reflects the all-too-human tendency to not forgive no matter what the circumstances. It’s the attitude toward which Christ’s teachings regarding forgiveness are directed.The former attitude reflects the opposite extreme, insisting on all forms of forgiveness regardless of the circumstances. Though this attitude of hyper-forgiveness seeks to cloak itself in the teachings of Christ, in reality it goes far beyond what Christ asks us to do and even what God himself does.Christ’s most famous injunction regarding forgiveness is found in the Our Father: “Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matt. 6:12—and it is debts in Greek though the common English translation uses the word trespasses).Just to make sure we get the point, Jesus singles this petition out for special commentary: “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matt. 6:14–15).So that’s it. You have to forgive if you want to be forgiven.Forgiveness and FeelingsThis creates the urgent question: What does it mean to forgive someone? This is a sticky issue because there are certain things that commonly go under the name of forgiveness that are difficult or impossible for us to do.For example, we often think of forgiving people in terms of not being angry with them anymore, of having warm, positive feelings toward them. When we tell people that we forgive them for what they did, we often smile and try to convey the impression that we have warm feelings even though we still may feel angry.Since our forgiveness before God is conditional on our willingness to forgive others, a person with a feelings-based understanding of forgiveness could conclude that he isn’t forgiven by God until he has rosy feelings about everyone in the world. This would lead him to try to manufacture positive feelings for others. When these feelings are not forthcoming, it can make him scared for his salvation, emotionally dry, frustrated, or even angry with God for making his salvation contingent on what kind of feelings he has when he doesn’t have full control of them. That way lies despair.But the feelings-based view of forgiveness is wrong for precisely the reason that the previous two scenarios turn on: We don’t have full control of our feelings.Sure, we can influence them. If a particular subject makes us angry, we can try to think about something else. We can ask ourselves questions like “Was it really that bad?” or “What good can come from this?” or “What can I learn from this?” to put the subject in perspective.But these efforts dance around the anger itself. They attempt to influence it from the outside. There is no way for us to reach into ourselves and flip a switch that causes the anger to vanish and be replaced by rosy feelings.What we can’t control we are not responsible for. Since we have only indirect influence on our feelings, we can be responsible for how we strive to manage thembut not for having them.
What Forgiveness Is NotOf course, what we would really like in getting someone’s forgiveness is for things to be just as if we had never offended him. We’d like things to go back to exactly the way they were.That may not happen. Even if someone’s ill feelings for us go away, prudence may dictate that he will not treat us in exactly the same way. This is particularly the case if we have broken trust with him.Consider the extremes we mentioned earlier: If someone is a terrorist or a child molester then—no matter how penitent he may be—he simply cannot be treated as if he had never committed his crimes.Most of us have committed offenses nowhere near that bad, but the principle still holds. We sense it in our interactions with others. If someone has violated our trust, we may be able to let go of our anger, but that doesn’t mean that we’re going to put our trust in him again. Our trust will have to be earned.Forgiveness thus does not mean treating someone as if they had never sinned. That would require us to let go of our reason as well as our anger.The Church acknowledges this principle. In his encyclical Dives in Misericordia, John Paul II notes that the “requirement of forgiveness does not cancel out the objective requirements of justice. . . . In no passage of the gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence toward evil, toward scandals, toward injury or insult. In any case, reparation for evil and scandal, compensation for injury, and satisfaction for insult are conditions for forgiveness” (DM 14).Preemptive Forgiveness?We aren’t obligated to forgive people who do not want us to. This is one of the biggest stumbling blocks that people have regarding the topic. People have seen “unconditional” forgiveness and love hammered so often that they feel obligated to forgive someone even before that person has repented. Sometimes they even tell the unrepentant that they have preemptively forgiven him (much to the impenitent’s annoyance).This is not what is required of us.Consider Luke 17:3–4, where Jesus tells us, “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him; and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”Notice that Jesus says to forgive him if he repents, not regardless of whether he does so. Jesus also envisions the person coming back to you and admitting his wrong.The upshot? If someone isn’t repentant, you don’t have to forgive him.If you do forgive him anyway, that can be meritorious, provided it doesn’t otherwise have bad effects (e.g., encouraging future bad behavior). But it isn’t required of us that we forgive the person.This may strike some people as odd. They may have heard unconditional love and forgiveness preached so often that the idea of not indiscriminately forgiving everybody sounds unspiritual to them. They might even ask, “But wouldn’t it be more spiritual to forgive everyone?”I sympathize with this argument, but there is a two-word rejoinder to it: God doesn’t.Not everybody is forgiven. Otherwise, we’d all be walking around in a state of grace all the time and have no need of repentance to attain salvation. God doesn’t like people being unforgiven, and he is willing to grant forgiveness to all, but he isn’t willing to force it on people who don’t want it. If people are unrepentant of what they know to be sinful, they are not forgiven.Jesus died once and for all to pay a price sufficient to cover all the sins of our lives, but God doesn’t apply his forgiveness to us in a once-and-for-all manner. He forgives us as we repent. That’s why we continue to pray “Forgive us our trespasses,” because we regularly have new sins that we have repented of—some venial and some mortal, but all needing forgiveness.If God doesn’t forgive the unrepentant, and it is not correct to tell people that they need to do so, what is required of us?What Forgiveness IsJesus calls us to be like God in the showing of mercy “that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:45). So how does God forgive?Scripture tells us that he “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4) and the he is “not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9).We should have the same attitude. We should will the good of every soul, even the most evil ones. No matter who they are or what they’ve done, we need to will their ultimate good, which is salvation through repentance.What if they don’t repent?One may hope that they were not culpable for their actions and so can be saved, that they were affected by mental disorder, intense pressure, ignorance, indoctrination, or something that affected their judgment so that they weren’t responsible for their actions at the time they committed them.But what if they were?We may hope that they are brought around to repentance. In fact, we ought to hope this even for those who weren’t responsible for their actions. But to be brought to repentance often requires suffering the consequences of one’s sins.This is where righteous anger comes in. It is often said that anger is a desire for vengeance (cf. ST II-II:158:1). This puts it a little more harshly than many today would want to say it, but anger does involve a desire that the offending person experience the consequences of his sins. Without this desire, the feeling would be something less than anger, such as simple frustration.Anger is righteous—in keeping with justice—if it is still fundamentally directed toward the good. Thus one may wish that a person experience the consequences of his offenses to sufficiently understand how he has hurt others, and teach him to not commit them in the future.However, “if he desires the punishment of one who has not deserved it, or beyond his deserts, or again contrary to the order prescribed by law, or not for the due end—namely the maintaining of justice and the correction of faults—then the desire of anger will be sinful” (ibid., 2).It is so easy for us in our fallen state to slip into sinful anger that Scripture repeatedly warns us against it, but anger serves a fundamental purpose.If a person with whom we are angry repents, then the obligation to forgive kicks in. This means that we must be willing to set aside our anger because he no longer deserves it. We may still feel it for a time, and it can even be advisable to let him know this in order to underscore the lesson he needs to have learned. But we do need to manage our emotions so that we let the anger go and, to the best of our ability, encourage it to fade.And what if a person doesn’t repent when all is said and done?At some point we need to let our feeling of anger fade, not for his sake but for ours. It isn’t good for us to stay angry, and it poses temptations to sin. Ultimately, we have to let go of the feeling of anger and move on with life. Frequently we have to do so even when a person has not repented.But for the person himself, what should we hope? With regret, we recognize that it is appropriate that he gets what he chose, even if that was hell. This is, after all, the attitude taken by God toward those who choose death rather than life.
here is a good article i was thinking of. it says a person could be virtuous in doing so but doesn't need to forgive the unrepentant just the same as God doesn't forgive the unrepentant. it's written from a catholic perspective, but it is still christian and bible based.
i think the best bet is to look at the issue through legality v reconciliation lenses of forgiveness, as i said.
Created: