In class today, we talked a lot about atonement and the forgiveness that goes along with it. One question that was raised was “what if the offended didn’t give you the option to atone for what you did wrong?” Well, in my opinion, that raises another question of what if the offender recognized that they did wrong and should apologize and repent, but simply decided not to, but was given forgiveness anyway.
I recognize that in this argument, depending on the extent on the situation, this could be a really evil person. But if a person decidedly did something very wrong and chose not to follow through the period of atonement in some way, and still received forgiveness, do they automatically get sent straight to Hell?
Also, another topic that was raised during class was does a person who constantly apologizes for nothing lose the meaning of atonement? Personally, I feel that at least if someone is honestly repenting repeatedly because they feel that they were in the wrong, then it’s not a bad thing.
So, I guess what I am getting at is . . . Where is the line drawn at repenting repeatedly? And is it better to atone too much than not at all?
4 Comments
Atoning too much is definitely better than not at all in my opinion.
As for the person who acknowledges their wrongdoing but doesn’t complete all of the atoning steps, I think it depends. It depends on the severity of the wrongdoing and the steps that are skipped. If someone murders an entire family, and they acknowledge the wrongdoing but stop there, I think they are going to Hell. If someone steals $20 and feels bad, and stops there, they might still be Heaven bound.
I’m thinking that if someone who does not deserve forgiveness (because they did not go through the proper atonement process) is still granted it by a super nice person, God might slam down the hammer and yell “OVERRULED” and send that ass straight down to Hell
There are also a bunch of problems with Hell just existing. So I sort of feel like those need to be addressed before this issue. Andy mentioned one of them in class. The idea is that Hell is a punishment of eternal damnation, but the crime was a finite number of sins. The punishment seems too harsh and unjust. But God is just , right? So why is God setting up this unjust system then?
i would say that i agree that it would be better too atone too much than not enough, better safe than sorry.
At the same time though it gets annoying when someone is constantly apologizing for small little things that don’t really matter, like when playing catch and the person ALWAYS drops the ball and they always say “sorry” its like dude chill the world is not going to end if you drop the ball and don’t say sorry… my question is if a person gets aggravated with someone always apologizing and snaps at them to get their attention to stop apologizing would then that person who snapped have to apologize for snapping? because in a way then that might be hypocritical if a person is yelling at someone to stop apologizing & then they apologize when they were just trying to get there point across.
Or when you are complaining to someone about stuff and that persons says that they are sorry “because they feel bad” but it has nothing to do with them or them feeling guilty is that the same as atonement,because the person truly feels bad for you and wants to make it better for you but they dont feel guilty because they did nothing wrong. (e.g if someone’s parent dies you say sorry, feel truly bad for that person and will do anything to try and cheer them up…but you did nothing wrong to feel guilty you just feel bad for that person losing a parent…unless you killed the parent then maybe you’d feel guilty but lets say you did not kill the parent…what would that be??)
Perhaps its the difference between subjective and objective guilt.
I agree with both comments above about atoning too much, better safe than sorry! But if someone says sorry too often, it does cheapen the whole concept of atonement. However, if it is indeed subjective guilt the person is experiencing, (I think it is) then it will cheapen the experience for others around the constant atonement, not the person saying the sorrys. For them, they think they did something wrong and need to set it right. Maybe eventually when the people around them get so fed up they finally say something, then that person will realize that it is meaningless subjective guilt.
As for the person who doesn’t look for forgiveness, couldn’t this be a part of being evil? Even if it was a little offense, like stealing $20, and it was done in the wrong (i.e. You’re not Robin Hood stealing for a good cause) it would be unforgivable if you did not seek atonement. I don’t think there’s much more than that, Hell and it’s possible inconsistencies is a minor part, the real point here is that a person who acted out wrongly and did not seek forgiveness doesn’t even fall into Swinburne’s argument. I think to him, those people are not even worth considering.
So the first way to answer this would be to determine if you believe in the ideas of Heaven and Hell. If you do not believe in either, then your only real reason atoning is to correct the situation with whom you have wronged. If you do believe in the idea of eventually being judged on this basis, then there probably is not such a thing as too much.
But besides that, when you atone for something, you are showing just how badly you feel and how much you want to rectify the situation. If you are continually (and maybe even deliberately) wronging others under the impression that you will be forgiven as long as you atone for your actions, then it mostly cheapens the action. Under this assumption, I would say that atonement is pointless, because it seems pretty obvious that sincerity is lacking due to the repeat offenses.
If the person you wronged doesn’t give you the option of atonement, but you still want to and significantly try to, isn’t that more important than the actual forgiveness itself? You recognized the wrongdoing and tried to rectify the situation. In that case I would say it then becomes a problem with the person who is denying forgiveness.