behind the truth that I do not condemn
2017/01/17 14:57
瀏覽154
迴響0
推薦0
引用0
Because you cannot believe in the goodness of God. Forget, then, about believing in My goodness. Be-lieve, instead, in simple logic.
The reason I have no need to forgive you is that you cannot offend Me, nor can I be damaged or destroyed. Yet you imagine yourself capable of offending, even damaging, Me. What an illusion! What a magnificent obsession!
You cannot hurt Me, nor can I be harmed in any way. For I am the Unharmable. And that which cannot be harmed cannot, and would not, harm another.
You understand now the logic , nor shall I punish, nor have I a need to seek retribution. I have no such need, for I have not been, and cannot be, offended or damaged or hurt in any way.
The same is true of you. And of all others—though all of you imagine that you can be, and have been, hurt and damaged and destroyed.
Because you imagine damage, you require revenge. Because you experience pain, you need another to ex-perience pain as retribution for your own. Yet what pos-sible justification can that be for inflicting pain upon another? Because (you imagine) someone has inflicted injury upon you, you feel it right and proper to inflict in-jury in return? That which you say is not okay for human beings to do to each other, is okay for you to do, so long as you are justified?
This is insanity. And what you do not see in this in-sanity is that all people who inflict pain on others as-sume themselves to be justified. Every action a person takes is understood by that person to be the right action, given what it is they seek and desire.
By your definition, what they seek and desire is wrong. But by their definition, it is not. You may not agree with their model of the with her, he would sanction everything at oncehe answered. world, with their moral and ethical constructions, with their theological under-standings, nor with their decisions, choices, and actions . . . but they agree with them, based on their values.
You call their values “wrong.” But who is to say your values are “right”? Only you. Your values are “right” be-cause you say they are. Even this might make some sense if you kept your word about it, but you, yourself, change your mind constantly about what you consider “right” and “wrong.” You do this as individuals, and you do this as societies.
What your society considered “right” just a few decades ago, you consider “wrong” today. What you considered “wrong” in the not-too-distant past, you now call “right.” Who can tell what is what? How do you know the players without a scorecard?
And yet we dare to sit in judgment of one another. We dare to condemn, because some other person has failed to keep up with our own changing ideas about what is permitted and what is not. Whew. We’re really something. We can’t even keep our own minds made up about what’s “okay” and what’s not.
The reason I have no need to forgive you is that you cannot offend Me, nor can I be damaged or destroyed. Yet you imagine yourself capable of offending, even damaging, Me. What an illusion! What a magnificent obsession!
You cannot hurt Me, nor can I be harmed in any way. For I am the Unharmable. And that which cannot be harmed cannot, and would not, harm another.
You understand now the logic , nor shall I punish, nor have I a need to seek retribution. I have no such need, for I have not been, and cannot be, offended or damaged or hurt in any way.
The same is true of you. And of all others—though all of you imagine that you can be, and have been, hurt and damaged and destroyed.
Because you imagine damage, you require revenge. Because you experience pain, you need another to ex-perience pain as retribution for your own. Yet what pos-sible justification can that be for inflicting pain upon another? Because (you imagine) someone has inflicted injury upon you, you feel it right and proper to inflict in-jury in return? That which you say is not okay for human beings to do to each other, is okay for you to do, so long as you are justified?
This is insanity. And what you do not see in this in-sanity is that all people who inflict pain on others as-sume themselves to be justified. Every action a person takes is understood by that person to be the right action, given what it is they seek and desire.
By your definition, what they seek and desire is wrong. But by their definition, it is not. You may not agree with their model of the with her, he would sanction everything at oncehe answered. world, with their moral and ethical constructions, with their theological under-standings, nor with their decisions, choices, and actions . . . but they agree with them, based on their values.
You call their values “wrong.” But who is to say your values are “right”? Only you. Your values are “right” be-cause you say they are. Even this might make some sense if you kept your word about it, but you, yourself, change your mind constantly about what you consider “right” and “wrong.” You do this as individuals, and you do this as societies.
What your society considered “right” just a few decades ago, you consider “wrong” today. What you considered “wrong” in the not-too-distant past, you now call “right.” Who can tell what is what? How do you know the players without a scorecard?
And yet we dare to sit in judgment of one another. We dare to condemn, because some other person has failed to keep up with our own changing ideas about what is permitted and what is not. Whew. We’re really something. We can’t even keep our own minds made up about what’s “okay” and what’s not.
你可能會有興趣的文章:
限會員,要發表迴響,請先登入


