Atonement is not about the offender. It's about the offended. Regardless of who pays the price, a price must be paid. Whatever brings satisfaction to the offended is often independent of the offender. We can turn it and twists it all we want, but the moment we make atonement about us we lose sight of what atonement really is. Atonement is not for the benefit or the relief of the offender. It's not about the mitigation of our guilt. After atonement the offender can still feel guilty. The offender's feelings of guilt pre- and post atonement are irrelevant. Relevance lies in the satisfaction of the offended.
Hence we can pour pure gold on it, love on it, achievement on it, contrition on it, but if none of these meets the offended's standard for atonement, then they are all useless. The quantity or quality of your guilt is irrelevant. The quantity and quality of your gold is irrelevant. Anything other than what the offended demands is irrelevant and useless.
I think you raise an interesting point but tell me, are we supposed to take all your passages in a religious context or logical as well? Because if you think about it, atonement is completely arbitrary and depends on the moral framework of the offender. If one thinks they committed no offense it would be hard to convince them to atone for what they did. Take the example of a man walking in the street who fails to return a nod of a passer-by. The nodding person in insulted and demands an apology. Has the walker really insulted the passer-by? Obviously from the latter's point of view but which is more important. I find that atonement happens only when the relationship between the two people is strong enough that the sinner does not want to jeopardize the relationship AND where the sinner can feel at least some small measure of regret. But maintaining the relationship, as you suggest, is key. However, I think it's a little more difficult to fully define when atonement is necessary.
ReplyDeletethere's also the question of who's standards or what law we are considering in order to distinguish between true offense and true atonement...there's so many laws someone breaks and ways someone can get so wrong, so who's the highest authority, who has the last say? the offender or the offended? i think that's an important thing to know
ReplyDeleteSo should the offended decide the sentence of the offender?
ReplyDeleteartist/poet: was offended once, twice or a number of times in life by one, two or numerous fellows;
ReplyDeleteoffender/character: offended the artist once, twice or a number of times in life;
plot/sentiment: the offender has attempted to make amends with the offended on more than one occasion… using materialistic methods & the offended poet has not found any reason to pardon the offender
poetic conclusion: the offended has certain "issues" that have NOTHING to do with the offender. the offender was a random incident in time; an accident; … and the offender is CONFOUNDING their actions as being the ones responsible for the offended's feelings. poor offender. must be less than 30-years-old. mentally. emotionally.
@ Vito:
ReplyDelete"Because if you think about it, atonement is completely arbitrary and depends on the moral framework of the offender."
I beg to differ, atonement is NOT dependent on the offender, it is dependent on the offended.
However, what constitutes an offense varies from person to person.
"I think it's a little more difficult to fully define when atonement is necessary."
Necessity is determined by the offended.
@Meron:
"...so who's the highest authority, who has the last say? the offender or the offended?"
The offended has the last say.
@D:
"plot/sentiment: the offender has attempted to make amends with the offended on more than one occasion… using materialistic methods & the offended poet has not found any reason to pardon the offender"
Maybe the offender should have asked the offended what is the acceptable atonement.
@ALL:
Please realize that the offender is not obligated to atone for his offense unless compelled to do so by force (imprisonment), but this does not preclude the need for atonement. The need for atonement is independent of the world-view or sentiment of the offender.
@Beverly
ReplyDeleteOk I'm a little confused how you are making these claims--
"I beg to differ, atonement is NOT dependent on the offender, it is dependent on the offended."--Beverly
First of all, why? Convince me. When making gross generalizations we must be very careful. When defining "atonement" as a whole we must be precise. Why should it depend on the offended? Many people are easily offended sans knowledge of the offender. I find no convincing evidence that everyone who feels even the smallest slight from me is due atonement. Also consider the power: the offended WANTS atonement, but only the offender can GIVE it. Therefore, while feeling offended is certainly the privilege of anyone with sentiment, only the offender can decide that atonement is necessary i.e. there is need. Unless YOU are NEWLY DEFINING ATONEMENT to mean an instance in which someone is insulted and there is ALWAYS NEED we are forced to accept the english definition which is "satisfaction or reparation for a wrong or injury; amends."-dictionary.com
This goes back to deciding when a wrong has been committed, both people will have a say which is equal but the OFFENDER holds the keys as they ultimately decide if reparation will occur.