• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is it possible to truely forgive someone and press charges at the same time?

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
I wonder if a woman who is raped, decides not to press charges against her rapist, and then the rapist goes and rapes several other people will feel.
Are you worrying more about God forgiving you than you are of future victims of a crime? Do you think God would be happy about that- since some of those future victims may also be following God? You can still forgive the person and still make sure that there isn't any future victims. I think God has understanding and will know that you forgave the person yet had to make sure he or she didn't harm anyone else. (But I am repeating myself)
As I already said, I am not talking about someone who you lent $5,000 (or whatever) to and decided not to pay back and you forgive him. If you feel moved to do that, then it is fine. I may do the same thing if the person can't pay me back and I wouldn't take the small claims court or anything. I am only speaking of forgiving someone of violent crimes that he or she probably do to someone else.

This is the last I am saying on this subject. :)
 
Last edited:

Freedomelf

Active Member
Since I am a Bible reader but not a Bible believer, it is difficult to correlate my views to specific Bible passages. The people who wrote the Bible were often some of the most unforgiving people on the planet. They forgave THEIR people but slew their enemies without remorse. They were harsh in their sentences toward those who didn't believe as they did. Therefore, there is a double standard when quoting Bible passages. Jesus said to forgive everyone, Jew and Gentile alike. I support that view. Most of the passages quoted, however, were written by those who believed that only Jews deserved the kind of forgiveness you mention. Naturally, I think that there has to be a uniform standard for all, whether they are Christian, Pagan, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.
 

Freedomelf

Active Member
Absolutely, Christine, pressing charges against rapists and violent criminals is not only right, it is a person's duty as a member of society. If one doesn't wish to press charges against bad people, one should not live in an organized society where civic responsibility is paramount.
 

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
FreedomElf said:
... The people who wrote the Bible were often some of the most unforgiving people on the planet. They forgave THEIR people but slew their enemies without remorse. They were harsh in their sentences toward those who didn't believe as they did.
Well, that is very sad. Fortunately the stories are purposely bloody, harsh and demeaning to make points, not to recount history in a modern factual manner. Its historical in the way that Remus and Romulus were historical for Romans.

Therefore, there is a double standard when quoting Bible passages. Jesus said to forgive everyone, Jew and Gentile alike. I support that view. Most of the passages quoted, however, were written by those who believed that only Jews deserved the kind of forgiveness you mention.
I'm fairly sure that everything Jesus says is an uncloaking of the stories you mention, which are written in a style that modern authors don't use. The killing is there to teach you not to kill. We tend to divide things into fiction and non-fiction nowadays, but that division is a modern one. When Jesus says 'Forgive' he is revealing what those 'Bloody' stories are teaching. Ask yourself why anyone would revere for thousands of years a book about killing? No one would, nor would Jesus. Consider that Jesus 'Fights' and wages 'War' in the NT, but it is more clearly a war of peace. In the book Revelation a sword comes out of Jesus mouth. This concept of 'Waging peace not war' is not a new usage but an old one. Jesus didn't invent it. I think its a reveal of the way Moses fought his wars.
 
Last edited:

Freedomelf

Active Member
Well, that is very sad. Fortunately the stories are purposely bloody, harsh and demeaning to make points, not to recount history in a modern factual manner. Its historical in the way that Remus and Romulus were historical for Romans. . . .

Ask yourself why anyone would revere for thousands of years a book about killing? No one would, nor would Jesus. Consider that Jesus 'Fights' and wages 'War' in the NT, but it is more clearly a war of peace. In the book Revelation a sword comes out of Jesus mouth. This concept of 'Waging peace not war' is not a new usage but an old one. Jesus didn't invent it. I think its a reveal of the way Moses fought his wars.

Bible historians will tell you that the Old Testament records a very violent and bloody history. Jews slew Midianite children without remorse; they took over Midianite lands and wells because "god told them" that the land belonged to them. They destroyed over 60 towns and villages and killed all the inhabitants in a land grab. And this is only one instance; I could name hundreds.

You cannot say that the Bible wrote these stories merely to teach others not to be violent. It is a history of a very violent and bloody people, and they did not advocate peace in the sense that you and I think of peace. They advocated peace only for those who were part of their people or who would submit to their people's domination.

As far as your assertion that no one would believe a book about killing, on the contrary, millions do. But the vast majority of Christians have never read the Bible cover to cover and do not know all of the history revealed in it. I was a Christian education director and Sunday School teacher for 20+ years before I actually read the Bible cover to cover. Before that, I "cherry-picked" the parts I liked, as did my teachers in catechism class.

It was only after I actually read it all that I began to doubt my faith. I think that if every Christian on Earth were to do the same, many would cringe. In fact, according to Christianity Today, a conservative Christian magazine, many people are doing just that. They reported, with alarm, that if current trends continue, as many as 80 percent of all children born to Christian parents today will leave the Christian faith by age 29. (Nov. 2009 issue.) That's a very sobering number.

Christianity is one of the few faiths that are losing followers worldwide, while Paganism, Wicca, Muslim, Buddhist and even Atheism are gaining followers. Hinduism is maintaining its membership. Less than one-third of all people in the world are currently Christians. With the world becoming a smaller and smaller place and with Christian numbers dropping, it won't be long before more Christians start wondering what it is that they actually believe.

You are right in that the Bible contains a great deal of fiction, but the violence recorded is, for the most part, accurate to history. Even devout Christian scholars do accept that as fact. Let's face it; people were barbarians back then, and Moses is no exception. (Of course, most of the things attributed to Moses were actually written much, much later by someone else, so it's hard to know exactly what he did. The books attributed to Moses are now known to have been written many centuries later. Linguists have studied the language patterns and determined that.)

Despite all of this, the Bible contains many beautiful things, and Jesus said many beautiful things as well. However, he told the people that he did not come to change the law, but rather, fulfill it. He also said that he was one with the Father, and, if you take the Father to actually be the person written about in the Old Testament, this means that Jesus is part of a very violent, jealous god trinity. The God of the old testament, if you read it in its entirety, comes across as an unforgiving, bigoted, jealous murdering tyrant, not a loving father. And he often tells his children to do contemptible things. That is not to "teach" them the value of non-violence. That is done to secure their place as dominant leaders in their area, and to subjugate all who will not bow to their will. The Bible, therefore, is an extremely violent book, and yes, people do believe in it.
 

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
FreedomElf said:
Bible historians will tell you that the Old Testament records a very violent and bloody history.
Only Bible literalism says that. Higher critics assume it, but historically there is no evidence that Canaan was defeated militarily (that I know of). Instead we have a Bible story about a completely miraculous defeat of Canaan. As a Bible student, I can tell you firmly that a Bible story about a miraculous defeat is entirely different from a Bible story about a military defeat. Historically it implies there was no battle at all.

More likely there was an ideological change throughout Canaan which was illustrated later as a war won by the LORD won by his servant Moses whose name means 'Drawn out'. The Philistines were real, and all the groups were real; but the conquest was not by battles. Which Bible historian would tell me that the Hebrews marched around a city until the walls collapsed inward? Which one can show that Egypt was struck by a series of weird and deadly plagues one after another? Where is the stele that mentions it? Oh, I see; so these particular violent acts didn't happen according to 'Bible historians' but everything else did? This logic fails in many ways. No, these were not military conquests at all.
 

Flat Earth Kyle

Well-Known Member
I wonder if a woman who is raped, decides not to press charges against her rapist, and then the rapist goes and rapes several other people will feel.
Are you worrying more about God forgiving you than you are of future victims of a crime? Do you think God would be happy about that- since some of those future victims may also be following God? You can still forgive the person and still make sure that there isn't any future victims. I think God has understanding and will know that you forgave the person yet had to make sure he or she didn't harm anyone else. (But I am repeating myself)
As I already said, I am not talking about someone who you lent $5,000 (or whatever) to and decided not to pay back and you forgive him. If you feel moved to do that, then it is fine. I may do the same thing if the person can't pay me back and I wouldn't take the small claims court or anything. I am only speaking of forgiving someone of violent crimes that he or she probably do to someone else.

This is the last I am saying on this subject. :)

I believe God will fight our battles and God will stop the rapist and punish him more justly than any man has the power to do. Forgiving the rapist is saying, "God I know my life is in thine hands and I know their life is in thine hands, Lord be it according to thy will."

I believe unless God specifically tells you to fight back with violence, it is better that we do not.
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
I believe God will fight our battles and God will stop the rapist and punish him more justly than any man has the power to do. Forgiving the rapist is saying, "God I know my life is in thine hands and I know their life is in thine hands, Lord be it according to thy will."

I believe unless God specifically tells you to fight back with violence, it is better that we do not.
I don't believe in violence and I avoid it. I don't think I said anything about violence. But we do need to protect ourselves and our children.
 

Flat Earth Kyle

Well-Known Member
I don't believe in violence and I avoid it. I don't think I said anything about violence. But we do need to protect ourselves and our children.

I agree that we need to protect ourselves and our children.
I just don't believe in doing so with violent measures unless God specifically commands us to.

Matthew 5:39 says
"39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

However I do believe that preaching the gospel is resisting evil, but not through violent means, which is what I believe Matt. 5:39 taught.
I believe teaching our families the gospel of Christ and being a good example to them is how we should protect our families.
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
I agree that we need to protect ourselves and our children.
I just don't believe in doing so with violent measures unless God specifically commands us to.

Matthew 5:39 says
"39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

However I do believe that preaching the gospel is resisting evil, but not through violent means, which is what I believe Matt. 5:39 taught.
I believe teaching our families the gospel of Christ and being a good example to them is how we should protect our families.

I hate to assume things, but it almost sounds as if sending people to prison for a crime is violence and against God's teaching. I don't and will never agree with that.
I follow God's teachings as well as possible, but I wouldn't want to send a rapist on the loose to rape other women. That is irresponsible and opening up more women to that person's violence. This is the last I am saying on this subject because I am repeating myself.

God bless,
Christine
 

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
The most appropriate treatment is to give the rapist the responsibilities of a marriage but without the benefits. They should get the bills for life, as if they had married and signed a generous prenuptial and be committed to the victim for life in addition to a hefty fine. The rapist isn't enslaved but they are indentured to the victim for life. I'm sure there are special circumstances in each case, but I think its sounds overall like a good idea. If the rapist is dangerous then all means should be used to protect people from them, but in many cases I think that the above solution will work best since the criminal is held responsible to do something about the victim's condition. This may seem a little soft to some and a little harsh to others.
 
Last edited:

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
As for me I believe God will Judge the rapists and stop them as he pleases.

Do you think that there should be a police force in your State?
Do you think there should be a death penalty in your State?
Do you think there should be prisons in your State?
 

McBell

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
The most appropriate treatment is to give the rapist the responsibilities of a marriage but without the benefits. They should get the bills for life, as if they had married and signed a generous prenuptial and be committed to the victim for life in addition to a hefty fine. The rapist isn't enslaved but they are indentured to the victim for life. I'm sure there are special circumstances in each case, but I think its sounds overall like a good idea. If the rapist is dangerous then all means should be used to protect people from them, but in many cases I think that the above solution will work best since the criminal is held responsible to do something about the victim's condition. This may seem a little soft to some and a little harsh to others.
So you think it is a good idea to make the victim not only have to look at their attacker every day, but interact with their attacker as their slave master every day?

Really?
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
So you think it is a good idea to make the victim not only have to look at their attacker every day, but interact with their attacker as their slave master every day?

Really?

Come on then.......
You tell us....... How would you sentence a convicted:-
Violent rapist, who held a knife at the victim's throat.
Boyfriend who raped his girlfriend.
Husband who raped his wife.
Man who raped a boy.

??
 

Flat Earth Kyle

Well-Known Member
Do you think that there should be a police force in your State?
Do you think there should be a death penalty in your State?
Do you think there should be prisons in your State?

I do not believe in forcing my religion upon other people. I believe eliminating these things would be doing so. I believe that police forces, the death penalty and prisons are all unnecessary, but nice alternatives to individuals who do not share in my belief. As for me, it is a question of do I put my trust more in God in carrying out justice, or do I put my trust more in man?
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I do not believe in forcing my religion upon other people. I believe eliminating these things would be doing so. I believe that police forces, the death penalty and prisons are all unnecessary, but nice alternatives to individuals who do not share in my belief. As for me, it is a question of do I put my trust more in God in carrying out justice, or do I put my trust more in man?

Hi! Thankyou for your reply.

This point could go a lot further......

If you do not believe in police, and prisons etc and put your trust in God to carry out justice, then also, you might not need State troopers, Army, Air force or Navy, indeed, no police nor defence systems at any level.

In a LDS World, would you ignore the laws and judicial systems layed down in the bible, and not have a theocracy?
 

Flat Earth Kyle

Well-Known Member
Hi! Thankyou for your reply.

This point could go a lot further......

If you do not believe in police, and prisons etc and put your trust in God to carry out justice, then also, you might not need State troopers, Army, Air force or Navy, indeed, no police nor defence systems at any level.

You are right, I do not believe any of that is nessicary, all we need is more righteous people. Christ never taught self defense to anyone in his entire earthly ministry.

In a LDS World, would you ignore the laws and judicial systems layed down in the bible, and not have a theocracy
Could you rephrase that, I do not understand you here.
In an LDS world would we still have countries, or would we all stand united as one nation under God?
 

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
Mestemia said:
So you think it is a good idea to make the victim not only have to look at their attacker every day, but interact with their attacker as their slave master every day?

Really?
I think its the reverse. You should make the attacker face what they have done every day. Here in the USA it could be handled by family courts, and once there was a conviction the victim would not have to meet face to face. They would receive money, and the attacker would pay it. The attacker would be in a kind of divorced situation with garnished income on top of the original large sum paid. I don't think this would be a cruel or unusual punishment, and the court could fine tune it to include say, a yearly letter of apology or something like that.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Is it possible to forgive someone and and still press charges against someone?

When first thinking about it the instinctive answer is no, but then thinking about it on a larger scale if someone were to intrude into your house and attack a member of your family seriously injure them or even kill them, then they run away and the police catch them. Afterwords you say, "I forgive you for what you have done", and then have the police throw them into prison. Is that true forgiveness?

It is harder to say now, but deep down my heart still feels inclined to say no, it wouldn't be true forgiveness if I were still to press charges even in the case of murder.

What do you think?

Even if for some reason you "forgive", it's still the responsible thing to do for the sake of law and society. by allowing them them to go unabated with impunity, you aid and abide their next victimization of an innocent person.
 
Top