Why was Jesus so selectively forgiving?
Options
Huruma
Members Posts: 2,284 ✭✭✭
I should have researched more before I posted this but I'm curious.
Jesus is well known for 'forgiving' thieves, criminals, adulterers etc. and identifying with the 'lowest of the low' but being very angry with the pharisees and religious leaders of his day, among others. Why not have the same unconditional love for them as he had for say, the woman who he rescued from the angry crowd (John 8 : 2-11)? He claims "repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all" (Romans 12 :17-18) and “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. ” (Romans 12 :20-21). In Luke 23:34, Jesus asks ? to forgive his killers but insults a pharisee who shows him hospitality in Luke 11:37 and loses his temper when money changers in a temple are exploiting worshipers (John 2:15), why not have unconditional love for all sinners, including the hypocrites and religious, authority figures, as you do for the 'traditionally' immoral?
It almost reminds me of some modern 'liberals' who make a huge show about identifying with the 'bad guy' and the people you'd expect most people not to sympathize with but don't show the same empathy for the people you are traditionally expected to empathize or identify with (ie. a White male who is sympathetic to people of color and women but indifferent to other White males, doesn't see 9/11 as a big deal but empathizes with Iraqi victims of Bush's war etc.), as though they're trying to show the world just how incredibly forgiving and non-'judgmental' they are. You have people who are anti-capital punishment (as they should be) but when frustrated, angry people who understandably disagree argue for the death penalty, they're "sick", "psychos" etc. Of course capital punishment is wrong but surely you can understand why the father of a little girl who's been brutally ? and murdered would have a natural inclination to revenge. They say nothing about the killer but the vigilantes are "sick" and "twisted". I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say "if you're for capital punishment or if you want murderers, child molesters, 'bad' people etc. to suffer in hell, you're just sick, you need help etc". Whether or not we can make a moral distinction between 'innocent' people and 'guilty' ones (I don't think we can), clearly the psychology of wanting to execute a serial killer is not the same as the psychology of killing people for amusement, even if both show a lack of empathy the former comes from an instinct that has helped prehistoric human societies deal with those who were a threat to group survival and social order which is why natural selection has favored that instinct to this day.
So, why is it fashionable for 'liberals' to empathize with some kinds of people but not others?
Jesus is well known for 'forgiving' thieves, criminals, adulterers etc. and identifying with the 'lowest of the low' but being very angry with the pharisees and religious leaders of his day, among others. Why not have the same unconditional love for them as he had for say, the woman who he rescued from the angry crowd (John 8 : 2-11)? He claims "repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all" (Romans 12 :17-18) and “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. ” (Romans 12 :20-21). In Luke 23:34, Jesus asks ? to forgive his killers but insults a pharisee who shows him hospitality in Luke 11:37 and loses his temper when money changers in a temple are exploiting worshipers (John 2:15), why not have unconditional love for all sinners, including the hypocrites and religious, authority figures, as you do for the 'traditionally' immoral?
It almost reminds me of some modern 'liberals' who make a huge show about identifying with the 'bad guy' and the people you'd expect most people not to sympathize with but don't show the same empathy for the people you are traditionally expected to empathize or identify with (ie. a White male who is sympathetic to people of color and women but indifferent to other White males, doesn't see 9/11 as a big deal but empathizes with Iraqi victims of Bush's war etc.), as though they're trying to show the world just how incredibly forgiving and non-'judgmental' they are. You have people who are anti-capital punishment (as they should be) but when frustrated, angry people who understandably disagree argue for the death penalty, they're "sick", "psychos" etc. Of course capital punishment is wrong but surely you can understand why the father of a little girl who's been brutally ? and murdered would have a natural inclination to revenge. They say nothing about the killer but the vigilantes are "sick" and "twisted". I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say "if you're for capital punishment or if you want murderers, child molesters, 'bad' people etc. to suffer in hell, you're just sick, you need help etc". Whether or not we can make a moral distinction between 'innocent' people and 'guilty' ones (I don't think we can), clearly the psychology of wanting to execute a serial killer is not the same as the psychology of killing people for amusement, even if both show a lack of empathy the former comes from an instinct that has helped prehistoric human societies deal with those who were a threat to group survival and social order which is why natural selection has favored that instinct to this day.
So, why is it fashionable for 'liberals' to empathize with some kinds of people but not others?
Comments
-
Because 1) He came for his people who was being led astray by other people who was not from the line of Jacob and to let them know to repent and come back to your FATHER
2) Pharisee's were not hebrews they were from the linage of Japhet and Amalek who where the descendants of the nephilim, if you have understanding you would of know that. The Pharisee's were not levities and were put in the seat of Moses by The Romans,put it like this the Jews of today were the Pharisee
3:29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
23:30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
23:32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
genesis 15:16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. -
Even if he had, they wouldn't have accepted it. In their eyes they had no sins to be forgiven, especially by some random nobody.
