paarsurrey
Veteran Member
sojourner, " No blood atonement was necessary. No sacrifice is needed."Forgiveness has nothing to do with “compensation,” “sacrifice,” or “cost.” Dawkins is correct here. The Anglican bishop on stage was wrong when he said that forgiveness is costly.
The English word forgive is a compound word. The “for” part comes from the word that means the “fore” part of a boat. When fishermen would be out in the bay fishing, they placed one man in the “fore” of the boat, to watch for other boats. When one came too near, he would call “fore,” and then the men could push the oncoming boat away from them. The energy of the oncoming boat was pushed back toward that boat, and thus not absorbed by the first boat.
When we “for-give” someone, we give the negativity (inherent in the wrongdoing) back to that person, rather than absorbing it ourselves. God takes the negativity of our sinful actions and gives that energy back to us.
Why? Because when we do wrong, it costs us some of our life-energy. We push that energy toward others in hurtful acts. That’s energy we need to be healthy. when God forgives, and pushes that energy back to us, God is returning life-giving energy to us. If there is a “cost” to forgiveness, it’s in our being able to take back the energy we put out there to begin with. We have to open ourselves to receive it.
No blood atonement was necessary. No sacrifice is needed. Jesus forgave them. He pushed their energy back to them. An ultimate act of love is the paradigm for forgiveness, not an “ultimate sacrifice.”
I agree with one here, please. Right, please?
Regards