Readers’ Responses to Our Question (89)

In my view, the psychological/sociological concepts of apology(contrition)and forgiveness,are just that and nothing more.It seems that these concepts may even have a genetic/inherited component.That they are a valuable resource in a smoothly functioning society, has been eloquently described above.
Where I part company is with the idea that there is something supernatural(ie religious) about these concepts.That christianity needs these concepts to exist as a belief structure is well documented.But this imperative for existence does not necessarily translate into truth,in fact,may hinder it.
It again comes down to the authenticity of the collected,abridged,edited,and excised writings of the ancestors(much if not most of which has been lost)which various religions have, at different times,adopted as their bible;their word of god.Forgiveness is prominent in these selected writings.
I see no need to forgive adolph Hitler,osama bin laden,etc. If there is no rational for forgiveness to advance the smooth functioning of society,or for personal psychological well being,why should I forgive adolph hitler/bin laden?

iwglfopq eolbdhwv zklarpb uvahibm rimxqvl xryclt baeo

iwglfopq eolbdhwv zklarpb uvahibm rimxqvl xryclt baeo

iwglfopq eolbdhwv zklarpb uvahibm rimxqvl xryclt baeo

iwglfopq eolbdhwv zklarpb uvahibm rimxqvl xryclt baeo

There is some great stuff posted here. Thank you for sharing your many view points.

I think my main beef with most public-figure apologies is that they aren't genuine apologies, but rather, stale utterances masquerading as if they ought to be. The hypocrisy of it is thick enough cut with a knife. It isn't transformative. Real contrition for real acceptance of responsibility for the consequences for ones actions has the character of redemption and renewal. I feel precious little of that in the public arena because to take genuine responsibility leaves one open and vulnerable to retribution from the person or institution who was harmed. Can't do that. So most public apologies have the character of having to do something distasteful because it's expected. It feels canned and artificial.

They are sorry. But for getting caught or being embarrassed -- not for truly being cognizant they did something wrong for which they ought to atone.

Or so it seems to me.

When a genuine apology is extended to me that space of redemption empowers me not to take advantage of the person's vulnerability but to open a little room for me to love them and have compassion. Then I can forgive them honestly.

The word "forgive" is a great and fascinating word. It literally means to give up forever the concern that caused an impasse. How many of us can say, "I will give up FOREVER" whatever the issue was?

Not many if we look honestly; yet I try. It is liberating and enlightening to forgive authentically.

Thank you for letting me share.

sw

In my humble opinion concerning the Don Imus issue, I say that forgiveness is a mental, emotional and spiritual process by which the feelings of resentment, indignation or anger against the person committing the offense ceases, or a cease to demand a justifyable punishment or restitution. In that light, forgiveness can be considered simply in terms of the person who forgives, or the person forgiven and the relationship between the forgiver and the person forgiven. In some, but definitely not all contexts, forgiveness can be granted without expectation of compensation, and without any response on the part of the offender. But more often than not, in modern times, it appears necessary for the offender to offer some form of acknowledgement, apology, and/or restitution. Many times the offender may receive forgiveness for nothing more than asking, for it can be only then that the wronged person(s) believe they are able to forgive

Making apologies and granting forgiveness are integral parts of any long-term positive resolution of conflict. Without them, it is truly impossible to achieve reconciliation. Apology and forgiveness can be termed the two sides of the same emotional coin in that they reflect the constructive ways the oppressor and the oppressed in any conflict may come to grips with the pain and suffering the incident produced.
But, the oppressor who committed the offense must openly take responsibility for their actions and apologize. And that apology must be heartfelt and reflect true remorse for the past action. Then and only then may it become the burden of the victim(s) to find the room in their hearts to forgive those who victimized them, even though the pain and suffering of that offense may never disappear. According to the Bible, we are to forgive. Ephesians 4:32 declares, “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” From that scripture alone, we see that forgiving is just as important as apologizing in any society that desires to put its struggles behind it. Still, it’s not easy to apologize or forgive.
Apologizing and forgiving are acts that only individuals can perform. Of course, Don Imus did apologize for his degrading and insensitive remarks. But his words are only empty rhetoric unless those who listen to and support his views actually share those feelings.

In my humble opinion concerning the Don Imus issue, I say that forgiveness is a mental, emotional and spiritual process by which the feelings of resentment, indignation or anger against the person committing the offense ceases, or a cease to demand a justifyable punishment or restitution. In that light, forgiveness can be considered simply in terms of the person who forgives, or the person forgiven and the relationship between the forgiver and the person forgiven. In some, but definitely not all contexts, forgiveness can be granted without expectation of compensation, and without any response on the part of the offender. But more often than not, in modern times, it appears necessary for the offender to offer some form of acknowledgement, apology, and/or restitution. Many times the offender may receive forgiveness for nothing more than asking, for it can be only then that the wronged person(s) believe they are able to forgive

Making apologies and granting forgiveness are integral parts of any long-term positive resolution of conflict. Without them, it is truly impossible to achieve reconciliation. Apology and forgiveness can be termed the two sides of the same emotional coin in that they reflect the constructive ways the oppressor and the oppressed in any conflict may come to grips with the pain and suffering the incident produced.
But, the oppressor who committed the offense must openly take responsibility for their actions and apologize. And that apology must be heartfelt and reflect true remorse for the past action. Then and only then may it become the burden of the victim(s) to find the room in their hearts to forgive those who victimized them, even though the pain and suffering of that offense may never disappear. According to the Bible, we are to forgive. Ephesians 4:32 declares, “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” From that scripture alone, we see that forgiving is just as important as apologizing in any society that desires to put its struggles behind it. Still, it’s not easy to apologize or forgive.
Apologizing and forgiving are acts that only individuals can perform. Of course, Don Imus did apologize for his degrading and insensitive remarks. But his words are only empty rhetoric unless those who listen to and support his views actually share those feelings.

In my humble opinion concerning the Don Imus issue, I say that forgiveness is a mental, emotional and spiritual process by which the feelings of resentment, indignation or anger against the person committing the offense ceases, or a cease to demand a justifyable punishment or restitution. In that light, forgiveness can be considered simply in terms of the person who forgives, or the person forgiven and the relationship between the forgiver and the person forgiven. In some, but definitely not all contexts, forgiveness can be granted without expectation of compensation, and without any response on the part of the offender. But more often than not, in modern times, it appears necessary for the offender to offer some form of acknowledgement, apology, and/or restitution. Many times the offender may receive forgiveness for nothing more than asking, for it can be only then that the wronged person(s) believe they are able to forgive

Making apologies and granting forgiveness are integral parts of any long-term positive resolution of conflict. Without them, it is truly impossible to achieve reconciliation. Apology and forgiveness can be termed the two sides of the same emotional coin in that they reflect the constructive ways the oppressor and the oppressed in any conflict may come to grips with the pain and suffering the incident produced.
But, the oppressor who committed the offense must openly take responsibility for their actions and apologize. And that apology must be heartfelt and reflect true remorse for the past action. Then and only then may it become the burden of the victim(s) to find the room in their hearts to forgive those who victimized them, even though the pain and suffering of that offense may never disappear. According to the Bible, we are to forgive. Ephesians 4:32 declares, “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” From that scripture alone, we see that forgiving is just as important as apologizing in any society that desires to put its struggles behind it. Still, it’s not easy to apologize or forgive.
Apologizing and forgiving are acts that only individuals can perform. Of course, Don Imus did apologize for his degrading and insensitive remarks. But his words are only empty rhetoric unless those who listen to and support his views actually share those feelings.

True forgiveness can only follow a true (sincere)apology.

TO CONCERNED WHO IS LIBERATED FROM SENSE AND DECENCY-

you spread your smelly nonsense all over these pages- usually i laugh it off as tedious or thoughtlessly reactionary.

but you are way way out of line when you make any mentions of a persons impending funeral.
(well, especially a wake- which ive been to many a one- the number one distinctive feature being drunkeness- in case you arent aware-muslims dont drink, so youre either being intentionally insulting or are just really that clueless)

i dont know or care what your home schoolin was- but this is a public forum, with adults having civil conversations.

you go beyond limits of what is aceptable or decent here

in my life, ive found that people usually accuse others of what they themselves are guilty of- and your accusations of violence and other bizarre obsessions are your own business-
but when you make veiled references bordering on threats to others here-

you are without any credibility as a person deserving serious consideration

Ohhhhhh...Concerned :)

Always so concerned about the Messenger and the method of conveying the message of God and for God.

Only two lines from a Sura of the Al Qur'an in my last post and you really get going!

What are you worried about! Very telling, eh. When someone comes from an Islamic perspective, ye leveled accussations of Islamic propaganist!)

Ahhh..how about just as a Muslim believer eh:)

Worried that I actually read Crossan's books on my own and not regarding him as the great messiah of mind change on the NT?

As for God, there is no god but God. Just one, no matter what you call it in English, Latin or Hebrew.

Of course, the Al Qur'an is still read by hundred of millions of Muslims everyday after all these years no matter what Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Concerned the Christian Now Liberated said about it, Islam and Muslims.

What will you be without Muslims to measure yourself and rant against mate?

Peace on earth starts with you first.
May peace be with you mate.

Salam

". . . what is the relationship of apology (repentance) to forgiveness?"
This how I see it from downunder . .
For us:
Inseperable, if we place conditions on our forgiveness.
or,
Irrelevant, if we forgive all people as Christ commanded.
However, even in forgiving unconditionally, we still exercise the caution that is earned by hard experience. For example, we'd never again allow a child molestor who has 'offended our little ones' near our kids unsupervised, if at all.
For God:
Essential, because he has promised to forgive us all, conditionally. We are required to accept Christ as our Saviour.
With all that though, a precursor to sincere apology (repentance) and then forgiveness, is a clear understanding that something wrong has been done. I suspect that's one of the reasons it is always best for us to forgive all unconditionally - we simply do not know what's going on in someone else's mind. Maybe it's not wrong for them.
I think this is the reason that harbouring grudges and nurturing revenge is a cancer of the soul. Forgiveness is at first a personal release from a self-induced prison of misery.
But it's really a mirror of what's best in all of us, which is the Divine.
So for me, apology helps, but forgiving is the key. I just wish it wasn't so tough some times!

Jihadist,

Ahh, spoken like a good Islamic propaganist!!

And the Five Pillars of Islam are not dependent on "pretty wingie thingies? No "messenger thingies" then no finality of the "prophethooding"/fortune($)telling of Mohammed.

And if indeed Allah represents all gods, why doesn't the Koran say so??

And it still does not bother you that if I promulageted the above in a Muslim country or even in some European countries that I would be assassinated or stoned or jailed?? And why would this be? The militaristic stench of the Koran of course. Remove the stench, bring peace to the world!!!

Concerned,

Angels and Shaitan (devil,satan, lucifer) are mentioned in the Al-Qur'an but is not one of the core Five Pillars of Islam. The most dangerous devils are the ones in flesh perpetrating oppression as well as material and spritual corruption.

Your suggestion to "cleanse" the Al Qur'an will not bring world peace as you hoped for. I always thought that rationale a bit naive. Non-Muslims are capable of armed conflicts and atrocities all on their own - Rwanda, Cambodia, Burma and the list goes on.

There is already innumerable conferences of Muslim ulema, thinkers and scholars coming together to discuss on everything from human rights to cloning to banking. Always by consensus before being put to the public. As by tradition, if there is no consensus, the ulemas agree to disagree and leave it at that. The parameters and terms of the discussions are within the context of Islamic beliefs and practices.

Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen to my mind, don't really cleanse up the NT, but offered new understanding and interpretations based on critical studies of the history of Christianity in their books and articles. All refered to and base them on Judeo-Christian intellectual and cultural heritage. Professor Crossan, in his writings, sometimes speculated based on archeological evidence as well as newer materials that comes into light.

Muslim ulema really don't fuss over how God is called in other languages. Nor have we ever insisted that Allah be inserted in the Bible or Torah. So, there is no reason for this one sided insistence that Yahweh, Mother Nature, Zeus and Krishna be added to the Al-Qur'an.

As for flowers to my wake (ye Irish Catholic?), make it frangipanis. The death of me could be in defending Holy Texts from having passages deleted or edited. Religious texts don't need to be reformed or revised. People do - in their actions and thinking to see everything in a new and different light.

Light upon light
God guide those whom It will.

Jihadist,

So you do not believe in one of the major tenets of Islam i.e. the necessity of/belief in angels??

Cleansing the Koran is needed to bring peace to the world. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists, have done a great job cleansing the NT. I am sure they would assist Islam in a similar endeavor in cleansing the Koran.

And why don't you suggest to all the Islamic clerics you meet that they should add "Allah aka God, Yahweh, Mother Nature, Zeus and Krisna" to the Koran. I will send flowers to your wake.

Elizabeth Schumann,

....and I had thougth that greed of money is the root of all evil. Add greed for and desire to hold on to and to expand power as the root of all evil.

The Shariah laws, as interpreted, formulated and implemented by men, can be and were abused and tainted by men who want to have temporal power over others by force to submit to their will. Same reasons for men manipulating and abusing secular laws.

Sister, men's greed for this and that is the root of all evil, and they all blame Eve/women and claimed God is on their side.

Ah well, that is sexist of me eh?

...and I do wish you read the blog in Muslim sites in Muslim countries. Unfortunately, most are in the countries' native languages.

Those comments would not be possible in a Muslim country that does not separate church and state. Shariah law is the source of much evil. Say no more.

Those comments would not be possible in a Muslim country that does not separate church and state. Shariah law is the source of much evil. Say no more.

Quoi Concerned?

Cleanse the Al-Qur'an? Is this neo-baptism? In the form of cleansing a Holy Book to be free from "sins" as you tirelessly tabulated for the en-masse salvation of Muslims to save us and our souls?

You would surely have noticed Muslims got really riled up over the way the Al-Qur'an was handled at Gitmo. And with all the Suras you demanded to be out still intact too. Not a chance of multiple editions with deleted Suras of the Al-Qur'an.

By the way Concerned, as you very well know, Allah is the Arabic word for God. So, what is the purpose of adding in God, Zeus, Yahweh etc? You forgot to list Krisha. It would be like adding merci, gracias, after saying shukran (Arabic for thank you). There is no god but God.

Don't practice censorship. Just pursue spirituality, peace and happiness. To forgive all the devils who do you wrong. To repent for all you do wrong like an angel. And may all the demented demons not haunt or taunt you.

AHMED,

Bahrain would have been "Iraqified" had Saddam been successful in Kuwait. Hmmm, and who liberated Kuwait???

And to keep you occupied in your free land, how about cleansing your Koran?

Below is some starting points:

"30 qualities are connected to the heart"
(ten at a time) from the 77 Branches of Faith (Islam) is a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true faith (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings."

"1. Belief in Allah"

No problem but "aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added.

"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."

No problem but evolution and the Big Bang cannot be ignored and the "akas" for Allah should be included.

"3. To believe in the existence of angels."

A major item to delete. Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."

Another major item to delete. There are no books written in Heaven just as there are no angels to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.

Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers.

Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.

"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."

Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.

"6. To believe that Allah Most High has knowledge of everything from before-hand and that only that which He sanctions or wishes will occur."

This is invalidated by the natural/inherent/God-given gifts/attributes of the human race i.e. Free Will and Future.
As per the theologian Edward Schillebeeckx,
Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)
We must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman
doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God/Allah the great scapegoat of history.”

"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human
activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the
historical future is not known even to God/Allah; otherwise we
and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

"7. To believe that Resurrection will definitely occur."

The spiritual resurrection occurs at each death. There will be no physical resurrection from common sense considerations i.e. Heaven is a spirit state i.e. no bodies to include those of Jesus, Mary, Moses etc.

"8. To believe in the existence of Heaven."

Acceptable but it exists only as a spirit state.

"9. To believe in the existence of Hell."

Maybe, maybe not. Some say if one dies is significant sin, that person’s soul will simply no longer exist since God/Allah does not tolerate imperfection in the Kingdom.

"10. To have love for Allah Most High."

Of course, just like there is love of all creatures, spiritual and living. Again there has to be an all-inclusive statement for Allah, i..e. aka God, Yahweh, Mother Nature, Jehovah.

.

the pope did not apologize he had no reason to. why is he here as part of this.
just becasue someone is offended does not mean they are entitled to an apology.
the pope quoted an 11th century pope who said that the islamic assertion that conversions could be forced by the sword was an evil concept. well isn't it? do we have to accept it as fair and acceptable just because someone says it is? so who owes who an apology? the pope for stating what is true or the hundred million islamics that marched and sought death for the pope because he said the truth - islam's demand to convert or die is evil.

I do not believe an apology necessarily can evoke forgiveness. An apology can be merely an intellectual attempt to correct a mistake, in order to gain favor. Acceptance of an apology, also can be effected in the same manner. True repentence and forgiveness flow from within personal consciousness. A person can sense if another is sincere in an apology, and forgiveness an automatic response. Apology and acceptance, I believe are synthetic reproductions of our true capacity to repent and forgive. That unfortunately the synthetic reality dominates; the one created by the body; not personal consciousness.

Imus go. Don call me again!

The guy had a reputation for offending minorities except now he got caught and coz his job was at stake , he apologised. So, in effect his apology is a self-serving one.

Personally and in order to seek restituion, I would have called these guys and apologised to them first hand, not in a newspaper as he did. Then I would have given a decent sum of my own money to some children's charity organisation. There are plenty of those and the man is not short of a bob or two. This is to show my sincerity given my past. I believe he would have come out trumps - darn another Don!

Lets just bless him and let him go.

On to bigger fish like Bush and co. they would never apologise for their murderous deeds, coz biggots don't do that not even when their jobs are at stake. The only hope we may have, apart from the dock, is when they are old and withered that they would write a book telling us the truth of the matter. Notice how so many old horses do that - writing a book when they are old & retired. They are hedging their bets, in case there is God, Hell and Heaven?!! - so repentance may be in place. Hell, am done with anyway. End of the line. lets fool God by repenting?

Bush, Cheney and other PNAC authors apologising? Perhaps when pigs fly. But please don't fly them in a Muslim country coz we dont do pigs. Lets say when camels can fly. Thats better. Salam.

Imus go. Don call me again!

The guy had a reputation for offending minorities except now he got caught and coz his job was at stake , he apologised. So, in effect his apology is a self-serving one.

Personally and in order to seek restituion, I would have called these guys and apologised to them first hand, not in a newspaper as he did. Then I would have given a decent sum of my own money to some children's charity organisation. There are plenty of those and the man is not short of a bob or two. This is to show my sincerity given my past. I believe he would have come out trumps - darn another Don!

An apology is not repentance, it is only one step of repentance. the steps of repentance is first recognizing what you have done wrong, second acknowleding what you have done , third confessing to God and to those you have hurt what you did wrong and forth NEVER doing it again

We are commanded in the New Testament by Christ to forgive, but I don't believe an apology is the same thing. True repentance is a godly sorrow and then shunning the thing we repent of. An apology doesn't mean what happened was intentional or even wrong. It could simply imply an accident.

Elitist public apologies are the white man's equivalent of rap music.

They are redundant, not terribly imaginative, all sound alike, most often insult our senses due to the unnecessarily loud noise they create and the purveyors continue to make the big bucks due to the publicity they generate.

As to repentance, its usually puerile in content in the manner children blame the family dog for the spilled milk.

All of it is not only absurd but more than anything else obviously hypocritical!

If I step on someone's foot, I ask forgiveness, and most people accept my apology without question. I believe the same is true for an infraction that causes another person pain. One must apologize to the offended, and the offended, though perhaps in a serious case it would take time, would be wise for his own peace of mind to accept the apology and let go of the anger. "I'm sorry"...probably the most important words to learn to say with conviction. However, American society is so narcissitic, that it's becoming more and more rare to hear them.

Hi,

I would like to say that I was once a Christian, not only because I was raised in the church, but I needed the placebo effect it offered when I went through a very difficult time in life. As an English teacher, I've read a great deal about both sides of the issue. Finally, my common sense prevailed when my ex-boyfriend and I went our separate ways, and while apart, he became a born again Christian. Having been raised Jewish, he saw Christianity as the next step in his spiritual growth and joined a fundamentalist church and Jews for Jesus. He went from being a selfish, greedy person, to being a selfish, greedy, judgemental person! His transformation solidified my belief that religion was dangerous and detrimental to society. I found myself arguing against something I had believed in myself, and that's when I found a new "truth." One argument I made was this: as a mother, I cannot imagine wanting my daughter, most of all, to spend her days paying homage to me, nor could I imagine that if she didn't live her life by the rules I set for her that I would condemn her to eternal misery. If I'm a flawed human and I can be more compassionate than the Christian god, it had to be that religion had it all wrong. Second, I was stunned when my ex told me that he took the stories of the Bible literally! I begged him to consider the scientific evidence that pertained to when homo sapiens and homo homo sapiens first lived and compare that to the Garden of Eden story. He told me that it just hadn't been proven yet! Wow, I turned my back on religion forever. I began reading the other side, and I encouraged him to also. He wouldn't have any of it. He had the TRUTH, and he was worried about my salvation. When I pointed out that I work every day with disadvantaged youth and have always been a person to give back to society, he told me not to rely on good works. To this day, he will not speak to me. Anyway, this experience led me to researching the fundamentalist movement in the U.S., and I was shocked at what I learned about the influence it has had on public policies, and more shocked to learn that such groups are pulling college kids out of school and away from their parents in large numbers. The message has to get out. We cannot let this generation of kids buy into the mythology of religion. However, I do think we need some way to promote a moral code to replace the moral code of religion. Kids think nothing of stealing, lying, or cheating with their best friend's boyfriend. That is the challenge that our culture now faces, as I see it.

Islam plagiarized all of its concepts from the OT, NT and other ancient religious books. With respect to the real Adam and Eve see https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

An excerpt:

"Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.

Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.

It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."

See also "The New Torah for Modern Minds" at From http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

Heraclitus:

"As Bob Dole once said about Oral Sex"

Totally off topic, but since you brought it up, you may want to consider the HPV vaccine for your sons too.

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/04/17/Floridian/Clues_to_the_cancer.shtml

in memory of the beloved,ADAM and EVE.
adam and eve descandant on the planet earth
after disobeying ,the all mercifull all forgiving creator lord taught them what to say to repent, they repented, the mercifull lord accepted their repentance .
iblees also descandant on the planet earth after disobeying but was giveing no repentance ,only cursed and respited till the day of judgement.
on the planet earth ,enemeyies to one another ,the offsprings of adam and eve and iblees and his offsprings till the last day.
iblees and his followers are wating on the 4 corner of humanbeings to distract and hinder and block them from the straight path to be back in the eden that their father and mother were kicked out from, after listening to iblees .
the all mercifull all forgiving lord extended his mercey and forgivness to humanbeings as he sent trustworthy messenger to remind them that the invitation back to eden still exist and still on, just follow the trust worthy messengers they will lead you to eden.
the strugle between iblees and offsprings of adam and eve is so intense so fierce ,some are totatly knoked down,some are fighting back,some are victorious .the strugle is on till the last day.
humanbeings are between divine revelation and also iblees revelation.
divine revelation is leading back to were adam and eve were.
iblees revelation is leading to hell .
the reality of adam and eve is the reality of this life till the last day.
the complet story of adam and eve is explained in details in the last divine revelation QURAN mercey to mankind.

Is an interesting question. Without actually doing work, an apology is meaningless. Takes work to repent. Lip Service is no work at all especially coming from a politician or a talkshow host, they talk all the time.

Now some think that being an Apologist for the Church is their mission in life. Why apologize for a Church committing sin ?

Imus died by the sword he lived by, the shock came back to shock him. Oh, when everyone tuned into hear his shock the company and advertisers were happy. I would say that they all had a good run. He was just a blink in history through new corporate responsibility.

I don't think Vatican ought to be boycotted like refusing to buy cds with offensive language but without an active repentence apologies are meanless.

Remember Einstein and the Vatican Scientist Galileo had laws for the natural universe, one of which is Work=distance x mass.

F. Saint
Rome

No, God is not offended by any nonsense, as God is infinitely nonsensical. On the other hand, he is also infinitely rational, so he is always offended at everything everywhere. Thus, God is the most Godless God since God.

I think we all should apologize to God for having believed the baloney invented by Paul of Tarsus about His allegedly divine son dying to save us all. Surely God must be offended by such nonsense.

This is the only question to which Jacob Jozevz's opinions are as important as any of the panelists. Cereal box, indeed.

This question is strangely framed. An apology is not repentance unless the person you are apologizing to is God (or at the very least "your conscience"). Apologies are a way of trying to repair a relationship with a person who you have wronged. Repentance is looking goodness in the face and realizing you are not it. Mutual repentance is necessary for deep forgiveness. Apology can at best promote begrudging toleration.

400,000 or whatever the correct number of Iraqi civilians have died because of the Sunni/Shiite blood bath. These idiots have been at it for centuries. We should let them have at each other instead of trying to bring peace to this historic land.

Cheney and Bush Lie: 400,000 Die

But they don't need to apologize. Let's talk about Imus.

The front page of the Washington Post at this moment details George Tenet's outrage that Dick Cheney outlandishly stretched the intelligence about the Iraq threat in the run up to the war, and Bush followed suit.

Where is our sense of proportion? Sure, Imus was bad, but Bush and Cheney were grossly criminal, and they are the leaders of our country.

As Bob Dole once said about Oral Sex, "Where's the Outrage"
when 400,000 die as a result of Cheney/Bush lies?

The Enormous Elephant: Bush/Cheney Should Apologize

we are dicking around with Imus and Nifong, and the New York Times today quotes the ex Director of the CIA saying that
the bush administration had no serious discussions about whether Saddam was REALLY a threat
the administration exaggerated and cherry picked intelligence, then blamed bad intelligence for theri incompetence and failures.

America and Bush/Cheney have committed the greatest sin against the World in the last 30 years. They need to Truly apologize, make reparations, and America needs to vow never to make this mistake again.

This Horror dwarfs Imus, bad as his comments were.

A better question might be...Why is this newspaper engaging in this deluded discussion? God is for children. God is a delusion. A figment of "faith"
that the weak are abused by. And the death? What a horror. Religion is the bane of humanity surely. Why does the Post persist in keeping the flame of the stupid bright?

A better question might be...Why is this newspaper engaging in this deluded discussion? God is for children. God is a delusion. A figment of "faith"
that the weak are abused by. And the death? What a horror. Religion is the bane of humanity surely. Why does the Post persist in keeping the flame of the stupid bright?

Amasing...

This is utterly and absolutely ridiculous. Instead of writing something of consequence, something involving the least bit of investigative journalism, or even the slightest bit of effort, you post a question that belongs on the side of a cereal box. I don't believing that people ACTUALLY get paid posting empty, pointless, arbitrary questions for the purpose of tricking a bunch of people with WAY too much time on their hands into believe that their insignificant and poorly informed opinions ACTUALLY matter in the grand scheme of ANYTHING.
The Post deserves to be on the revenue slope they're on if this is how they choose to use their annual budget.
Amazing...
Oh and if I offended anyone....
I apologize.

Don Imus' tasteless comment mentioned in the same breath as sexually abusive priests? Good Lord!
The degree of self righteousness in these panelist opinions and the posted comments is breathtaking!
Physician...heal thyself! Oy!

Granting Absolution to Imus (etc)

The question of granting forgiveness is one for those who were harmed (since there is no God).

In Imus's case, the Rutgers Basketball team, black people, and women.

I.e., not me.

I am free to have an opinion about it.

I think if I were a member of the Rutgers Basketball team, I would accept Imus's apology, but I would be skeptical that he
1. would have apologized at all were it not for the public outcry. after all, "i was just joking."
2. would have changed his long history of racist and sexist remarks if he had not got into trouble and had stayed on the air.

The core of the moral situation is that Imus hurt other people, and his moral obligation is to be aware he did, be sincerely sorry, make reparations, and not do it again.

His practice of using sexism and racism to make money from his radio show came into conflict with American Express's belief that they would lose money by continuing to be associated with racism and sexism.

Money was the operant morality here.

Not that Don Imus is not a good person.

Scripture says that the acceptable sacrifice is a humble and contrite heart. God wants his servants to be humble. Pride is the sin that caused the fall of satan, and one third of the angels. Try not to repeat that mistake.
We shall be accountable for every word we speak.
Matthew 25, the sheep and the goats, explains that there are penalties for non-actions...too.
The reason many find it hard to apologize, is that they function on a "my will be done" paradigm. They forget, or never understood, that we are all children of the one same GOD.
-chuck

To pose the question requires that you clearly define "apology." To add to Dominic's comments, please reconsider whether the pope issued an apology or whether it is more accurate to say he attempted to explain his remarks to those who were so quick to misconstrue them (see Soja John Thaikattil's posting).

Thank you Robin for your appreciation. My response has come from my heart.

Aida,

Thank you for what I think is one of the best posts/opinions I have read so far.

Apology is not something that comes from unfavorable conditions, like in the case of Imus, or the others. Had not America had enough of them, they wouldn't care less to give an apology.
Apology is not asked, it is given, and it is not given when demanded, it is given when the heart really understands the error, when the heart really repents before God and man.

Not a single one of these men gave an apology. What they did is that they obeyed to the public opinion by giving an acceptance speech. They didn't give an apology. Apology is when you actually try to undo what you did wrong; you actually show fruits of repentance and act against your previous behavior.

Apology is not an "Ok, you want me to say I'm sorry speech" - here you have it. Apology is hiding from the face of the earth because you really are sorry and you can't even face yourself, let alone the world. And when you truly are apologetic, you can face anyone, not with a mere apology, but with a work to undo what you did wrong.

I think its important that an apology is more for the person giving, than the person receiving. As Eleanor Roosevelt once said, "No one can make you feel inferior without your permission." In our world today, we are very big on apoligizing. As a teacher, I can tell you the biggest mistake I ever made student teaching was demanding that a group of students apoligize to me for their behavior. (As parents, have you ever done this?)

Yes, small children need to be instructed why apologies are important, but it is more for them to understand why their behavior was wrong than it is for the other party.

Pope Benedict XVI in his ‘Meeting with the representatives of science,’ Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg, 12 September 2006, gave the lecture titled, “Faith, Reason and the University Memories and Reflections.”

From that speech:

“It is a moving experience for me to be back again in the university and to be able once again to give a lecture at this podium. I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn… The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the "whole" of the universitas scientiarum, even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.

“I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

“In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death.” …

“The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

“At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the λόγος". This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, σὺν λόγω, with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: "Come over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) - this vision can be interpreted as a "distillation" of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry…

“The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur - this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. "Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God", said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.”

The whole speech can be read here:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

An invitation to Muslims and non-Muslims for critical comments:

Points to note:

Please read the lecture in its entirety before making comments, so as not to miss the context.

Please read his statements which caused furore in the context of the whole speech. The topic was ‘faith and reason’, not about Islam.

The Pope was NOT issuing a papal statement or delivering an official papal speech.

The Pope was visiting his university where he had been a professor for several years and the talk was privately addressed to the faculty at the university.

The German Muslims it seems had very little problem understanding the context of the Pope’s statements. They agreed that it was a diplomatic blunder to have forgotten that as a Pope even a private lecture at a university at which he had taught for many years, had political ramifications. But they did not hold it against the Pope for having given a lecture as any university lecturer would.

Would a Muslim university lecturer or any Muslim be held to account for mentioning the crusades in relation to Christianity, in the context of any lecture, discussion, whether private or public?

SINCERITY

school of morticianry science .
digging in the relics division:
now looking for the judas!to make the balance?
the son and the judas in the reaction flask ,will make the bigest show on madison square garden!
school of morticianry science along with the school of late saints and the school of the jewish carpentry put the last nail in the coffin of human civilization for more than 2000 years.
to come up from the 2000+ juda-christian coma people are highly urgent to know and understand their true creator lord ,jesus son of mary never created any thing in this universe nor he is son of god ,adam was created from no father and no mother it doesnot make him god ,jesus son of marry created from a mother but no father ,doesnot make him god nor son of god.
eve was created from ribe of adam with no mother does not make her god nor the daughter of god.
ascribing an earthly son to the creator lord is serious insult to the all perfect creator lord.
forgiving and repentance belong to him he is the allforgiving, to seek his forgiveness you need to know him ,he is closer to you than yourself ,willingly or unwillingly your life and death is in his hand.know your creator.

Forgiveness for me depends upon how much physical/emotional pain someone has caused me or my loved ones. And also, their relationship to me as well.

I attempt to separate the behavior from the person. Its not always easy though, at least for me. I can forgive the behavior, but the person will still have to earn back my trust.

An apology to me is admitting that my thinking and subsequent behavior was wrong. But regardless of how much I say I am sorry, I still had the thought which led to my actions to committ the offending behavior in the first place.

So I think that it is extremely important to recognize that we are all just ordinary human beings who can and do hurt one another. In the case of TV and radio hosts I think that as a society asking these hosts to say "I am sorry for the offensive behavior" is very dangerous behavior on our part. Would I apply that same standard to a police officer, a politicians, a doctor, etc..? No. Some people are hurt at the drop of a dime. Some others are able to shrug off hurtful comments as easy as a duck can shake off water. So where do we draw the line at telling people where to say "Sorry!" and then ask for forgiveness?

Are we headed back to the 1950's where there was a communist in every radio station? And all the witch hunts that followed? Are only certian races going to be allowed to insult others, and get a free pass. The same for religions and the sexes too.

For those people that you listed I found the remarks wrong. But I was not offended. Its their job. Or was until the witch hunt got fired up. I wonder who the witch burners will get next, and for what offense?

Imus was railroaded by a group of hypocritical black facists who believe they have a right to pick on anyone who is not of their race.

Jackson - An adulterer
Sharpton - A drug dealer

If anyone needs to apologize, I suggest it's them. they pick on an old white guy for saying on 1 day exactly the same thing as said by rappers for years.

DISGUSTING

Why do posters keep referring to Paul Wolfowitz's "brilliant mind"? Is it because he, like his fellow neocons, had the shrewdness and money to get a PhD? Because he (and his think-tank buddies) decided to turn the Middle East into democracies based on Plato's "Republic"? This is hardly the brainchild of a brilliant mind. In fact, we might forgive poor Paul's stupidity had it not led to so many deaths and the tragic ruin of priceless Mesopotamian antiquities. There remains only one way for Wolfowitz to apologize - and that is to resign as soon as possible! Perhaps his God will forgive him...but the American people and the entire world will hold him responsible for the inevitable ensuing chaos.

What kind of ridiculous discussion question is this from a leading newspaper? Has Diane Sawyer joined your staff?

Apologies are part of the civil discourse. Most of the time, they are delivered to smooth out the future path of a relationship that either is, or has the potential of being, beneficial to both parties.

Apologies are meaningless unless true remorse is shown. Neither one of the candidates you cited -- the Pope, Wolfowitz, or Imus, are capable of such remorse. They are too infatuated with themselves.

Hi, I have to stop at your intro line - how disgusting and disgraceful to put the Pope in with others like Nifong, Wolfowitz and Imus. The pope's comments were a tiny piece of a much larger lecture that was earnestly trying to find common ground and explore differences between faiths (more than I can say for this disingenuous column) and were provocative. Nifong wrongly accused 3 men of rape, thus ruining their lives in the process, just to advance his career, Imus has a long history of raw racist comments and Wolfowitz plunged America and Iraq into an historically disastrous war well be fore this bald piece of corruption with thousands of dollars of the taxpayers money. Only the most ardent and blind opinion could tie the other three with the pope.