Any chance that the archbishop would produce evidence of this "luring" going on and the "large sums of money" be spent on it? No? Didn't think so.

Oh, and I think our Lord and Savior would find imprisonment a pretty odd way of providing "deliverance and pastoral counsel".

I would be glad if the Archbishop would seek deliverance from his messiah complex, but I don't think that's going to happen any time soon.

"Pastoral letter from Archbishop Akinola"

Behold the oxymoron! Lord have mercy...

"We are calling for a national conference of all stakeholders to deal with the issue of religious intolerance and guarantee a peaceful and just future for our beloved country." - Abp Akinola -

Not that the LGBT community in Nigeria would possibly notice! Legislation against this entity hardly witnesses to this statement by the Abp.

What about trying to sort out Nigeria...its such an awful place to live... I notice thousands of Nigerians want to emigrate to the liberal USA.>

"..deal with the issue of religious intolerance"

Look in the mirror and be careful what you wish for.

I think Archbishop Akinola should read the New Testament again. Perhaps he would discover Jesus' teaching on self-righteousness!

I was very wrong to give the impression that the new Nigerian draft legislation was a fabulous victory over Akinola and his chums.

In fact the last part of the legislation leaves the definition of “gay marriage” so loose as to represent a serious threat to civil/human rights in Nigeria. Friends who are experienced lawyers tell me that such all inclusive vagueness, if left in place, is a charter for the police to do great harm to both the gay community and any other group this wish to harass. A jurist with experience of several African legal systems said he had (in general) a high regard for the senior judiciary in Nigeria, but that all the damage would be done well before the High Courts had a say in matters. He doubted that the National Assembly would leave the legislation so open to abuse as prominent opposition politicians might easily be amongst its first victims.

What we see though, as Savi demonstrates in her article mentioned earlier, is both the Anglican and Catholic Churches misrepresenting the teachings of their traditions.

There is a real case to put before other Anglican and Catholic leaders that they have have a duty to refute the nonsense that has been offered by both the Roman Catholic and Nigerian (Anglican Communion) leaders. Indeed there is a strong onus of responsibility now upon them to “put the record straight” and to ensure that the Assembly has the correct view.

In fact it might be a useful tool if the Catholic statements against criminalising gay people and the Dromantine Anathema signed off by Akinola might be published in something like a two sided prayer card format and widely distributed in Nigeria.

I am pleased to say that LGCM has already offered to help defray the costs if Barry Morgan of Wales were willing to fly to Lagos and give evidence to the committee – maybe they might consider paying for the “prayer cards” ?

This is something we need to worry bishops about – our faith and our faith tradition are being misrepresented in an evil way, it is not a time to do nothing.

"see of homosexuality"-is that anywhere near the Bay of Bigotry?. Martin Reynolds is right; our faith is being perverted in an evil way. Rumors abound in the states about Queen Elisabeth II (Elizabeth?) being increasingly irritated with ++RW, perhaps it's time for retirement with a new appointment who will not be afraid of standing up to this thug.

Its odd how the *self denominated* conservatives do not see those whom they declare to be liberal(s) as Christians. While I struggle increasingly to see Them as Christians ! With my commitment to freedom of religion I tend to berate myself (oh god I must be a liberal after all!) for this.

Yet I really do agree with choirboyfrom... that Christianity in general and Anglicanism in partic are being 'perverted' and undermined. It makesthe word 'Christian' a very ambiguous word in the UK. Whereas when I was a child it was synonymous with being British, being decent and the aspiration to live a good life, at the least 'not harming anyone else', as the phrase used to go. But now it is becoming synonymous with fanaticism, rage,& hatred, which may reach murderous proportions.

And has ....

* I use this word as I am struggling to be even handed (Yes, a bloody liberal!)

Been great if the Queen could exercise some influence .... I just hope we get a good un some time in the not too distant future before its too late.

I attended a Sephardic funeral today and that venerable Godly tradition gave me quiet hope....

What are our christian troubles after all ?

a new appointment who will not be afraid of standing up to this thug.

I raised this with a senior cleric, whose reply was that no-one wanted to dignify ++Abuja's outburst by replying to it. I have to say I was underwhelmed by this response.

Hi L Roberts

Like every other word in the dictionary (unless we are to be deceitful Humpty Dumptys), 'Christian' has a very precise, and circumscribed, range of meanings. Like with every other word, the number of the things it does *not* mean is ten million times greater than the number of the things it *does* mean.

At no date has it meant being good, British and decent. And at no date has its meaning had to do with fanaticism, rage and hatred. It means being a follower of Jesus and/or part of the body of Christ.

Words don't mean either what we want them to mean, or what they are misunderstood to mean.

Christopher:

You are correct; and as Jesus said, "You will know them by their fruits." Tell me, do the actions of the Nigerian church toward its gay brethren seem at all to be the actions Christ would have taken in the same circumstances?

Not to me.

Now, that sounds positively post-modern...

"at no date has its meaning had to do with fanaticism, rage and hatred."

It might not have been written in a dictionary, Christopher, but I think if you look back over the past 1500 years or so, you'll see that the practical definition of Christianity has meant exactly that: Crusades, destruction of indigenous culture, support for wars, and on and on. Fanaticism, rage, and hatred are certainly major parts of most people's working definition of Christianity. If you haven't experienced that, you need to associate more with ordinary people. But you also talk about the antipathy of the World to Christians, so you MUST have some experience with the impression of Christianity in the wider world. I don't know too many that don't see Christianity as an evil, manipulative, power abusing, oppressive religion and the "natural enemy" (as was once said on BBC, which is British, I note) of gay people and women. The current actions of the Church in Nigeria certainly add fuel to that fire. Your prolonged silence on the issue, despite continued calls for something from conservarives on this issue, also does its bit to bolster that impression. "We hate the sin, but love the sinner". Yet when those same sinners are being threatened with violence and imprisonment, you remain silent. So, the world sees someone who claims to love gay people, but does nothing to express that love. There's a word for that, Christopher, and that is another of the major definers of Christianity for many people: hypocrisy.

Christopher, from afrik.com, linked to in the thread immediately above this one, and entitled "What has Africa Done to Organized Religion to Deserve This?:

"One would think that the Catholic Church has drawn enough lessons from its hard-line advocacies of the past which saw the near annihilation of Indian populations, its involvement in African slavery while insisting that Africans had no soul, its inaction during the holocaust…"

You don't think this is only about RCs, surely.

Christopher,
Christianity ? OR - "Christ crucified; to the Jews an obstacle that they cannot get over, to the pagans madness, but to those who have been called, whether they are Jews or Greeks, a Christ who is the power and wisdom of God." - 1Cor.1:23f

It seems to me that 'Christ crucified' is the more important standard by which we are judged. And I think that Christ is being metaphorically *crucified* again whenever 'Christians' want to resurrect the old shibboleth of LAW over LOVE.

Mynsterpreost wrote: "... whose reply was that no-one wanted to dignify ++Abuja's outburst by replying to it."

Have they forgotten about Bishop Bell?

The word 'Christian' never has denoted, and never will denote, any of those things. It has *connoted* these things to various people at various times, for all kinds of reasons, some justified and others unjustified.

The hypocrisy thing I doubt. Supposing a nonChristian accused Christians of being hypocrites. Quite aside from this being a massive generalisation about 2 billion people, and therefore not worthy of serious attention, their accusation would boil down to 'They, unlike me, are hypocrites'. Which would be about as hypocritical as one could get. In other words, to condemn hypocrisy is (unless one is Jesus and speaking from a position of perfection) to display it: so the whole thing is the ultimate self-contradiction and refutation. Anyway, it seems likely that practically all of us are hypocritical to a certain degree (not always necessarily a very high one): that is the human sinful condition.

Christopher:

The hypocrisy cited is not necessarily a personal flaw, but an institutional one. Look at the history of the Christian churches (all of them, with the possible exception of the Quakers) and you see a line of bad examples for following Christ's two great commandments.

"it seems likely that practically all of us are hypocritical to a certain degree (not always necessarily a very high one)"

Seems? To a certain degree? Of course we are, Christopher, and not only to a certain degree. It's a product of the Fall. Now, enough distraction, let's get back to the business at hand:
society more and more hates the Church, with good reason, and by seeking to dissemble and not address it you are adding to the problem, just as you do by spreading pseudoscientific propaganda about gay people, which makes you, and by extension all of us, look dishonest. Seeking to duck the issue with the semantic arguments that are your stock in trade compounds the issue and portrays Christians as sneaky. And your oft repeated claim to "hate the sin, love the sinner" when, even after being directly challenged, you refuse to comment at all on the appalling violation of human rights being supported by Anglicans in Nigeria in favour of these kind of semantic distractions, shows how untrue that claim of love is. And, "you" in these statements can be read in the plural, you're certainly not the only conservative guilty of these things. Yes, I did go on conservative websites like the Network, or whatever they are now and challenge them to oppose what's going on in Nigeria, explaining they could oppose SSBs without condoning this, to no avail. If you want to point out my hypocrisies, go ahead, it is Lent, after all, a time of self examination. We all have our blinders and our hypocrisies, me no less than you.

"We are especially concerned about those who are using large sums of money to lure our youth to see homosexuality and lesbianism as normative. We must consistently and faithfully teach about God’s commands on this ungodly practice and help those with such orientation to seek deliverance and pastoral counsel." - Archbishop Akinola -

The opening remarks of His Grace ABP. Akinola in his recent diatribe betray, most succinctly, his absolute ignorance on the process of what he calls *deliverance* of the LGBT community from their given sexual orientation. To say that such people are guilty of *ungodly practice* is to demonstrate just how spaced-out from reality is this wayward and reckless Church Leader.

Perhaps someone should tell His Grace the true story of the statistics on the abortive attempts to re-orientate Gay and Lesbian Christians who are worried about their sexual orientation - mainly because of institutionalised prejudice against them in the Church community.

Maybe also Akinola should be told of the social, spiritual and psychological damage done to such people because of unwise and unethical attempts made to *exorcise the demon of homosexuality*. Surely, he, who was present at a previous Lambeth Conference, when similar attempts at exorcism were made - despite the distaste of many of those Church officials present - would be more than a little cautious about using such methods for what is now exposed as a fallacious and misguided *Ministry of Healing* in this particular context.

As for 'counselling against' homosexuality, it might be more Christian for the Church to help those who are homosexual to accept the reality of their God-given differences; rejoicing in what they cannot alter, and using their special gifts for the good of the Church and the World.

Akinola is a horror. But what is most depressing to think about is that people like him are the product of two millennia of false teaching, of a horrific indoctrination that is still going on. Many little Akinolas are being produced in Christian and Muslim educational institutions all over the world.

A terrible thought, but a timely reminder Fr Joe ......

What depresses, and angers, me, is that there are so many conservative "Christians" who don't seem to care a whit that he is supporting a move to oppress gay people in his own country. As long as he foams at the mouth against the Evil Hell Bound Liberal Revisionists, he could skewer young babies when in his cups and they would still call him a saint. So much for "hate the sin, love the sinner". This is all about terrified conservatives in North America and Britain grasping at anything and anyone, no matter how evil, in a desparate attempt to return the world to the 1950s ideal of man, woman, two kinds, he works, she has perfect makeup, a neat frock, and meets him in the door every evening with a plate of fresh peanut butter biscuits. They have had sex twice, once per child.

I've mentioned many times that each of us cannot help holding to the principle 'hate the sin, love the fellow-sinner' since no viable alternative exists - of if it does exist, it needs to be stated. This is the principle we apply with ourselves, with our loved ones, with our children. The more we love someone, the more we hate anything that is oriented to destroy or hurt them. So hatred of sin and loving the fellow-sinner are directly proportional.

Although I am not familiar with all the details of the Nigerian attitude and legislation, it is not in every respect something I approve of, nor in every respect something I disapprove of. For example: it must be a principle in lawmaking that laws be oriented towards the best overall outcome for the most people, in terms of peace, social stability and the maturing process. A striking shortcoming of some laws in this country is that they encourage (not merely fail to discourage, but actually encourage) people to continue in immature, juvenile behaviour and therefore are not only against their interests but also show themn little love.

My only point on hypocrisy is that since all of us are hypocritical to varying but not insignificant degrees, how come those people who claim to hate hypocrisy display it in the very act of accusing others of it? This is a self-contradiction.

In terms of who is honest and who is dishonest, if either cap fits we should wear it. In this morning's Metro, there are three letters from a similar point-of-view to Ford's and none against. Each of the three makes assertions; none provides evidence. Who cares what conclusion people come to? That is irrelevant. What is relevant is the way in which they come to it. If something is unsupported by evidence, it is not a conclusion. It is most likely a wish or a pre-rational ideology (as can be confirmed by asking what the person's actual wishes in fact are). If any of us dresses up a wish as a conclusion - yes, that not only is dishonest, but (more) is of the essence of dishonesty.

"The more we love someone, the more we hate anything that is oriented to destroy or hurt them."

Not an attitude expressed in the following:

"Although I am not familiar with all the details of the Nigerian attitude and legislation, it is not in every respect something I approve of, nor in every respect something I disapprove of."

Where is the love for gay people in evident in your refusal to condemn the Nigerian Church's actions? Oh, you clarify:

"be oriented towards , in terms of peace, social stability and the maturing process."

So, it's OK to subject some people to unjust imprisonment which could well lead to violent death to obtain "the best overall outcome for the most people"? Define what would be the bet overall outcome for Nigerians in this instance? I think that getting rid of a superstition that had enslaved and exploited the majority of the people was something the Communists thought was in the "best overall interest of the most people" hence their oppression of Christians. Their characterization of religion, not mine. I take it you would agree at least with their right to act on that belief, if not agree with the belief itself. If not, why not?

"how come those people who claim to hate hypocrisy display it in the very act of accusing others of it?"

As long as one acknowledges one's own hypocrisy, especially when pointed out by someone else, I think there might be a place for pointing out the unacknowledged hypocrisy of others, especially when that concerns people claiming they are trying to follow the Gospel when their behaviour is nothing of the kind. That's not accusation. It might be made angrily, but it is pointing out fact.

Oh, back to basics, Christopher. Would you agree that it is unjust to imprison gay people just for being gay? If not, why not?

"it must be a principle in lawmaking that laws be oriented towards the best overall outcome for the most people" - Christopher Shell -

This may be the popular 'democratic' view, but not necessarily meeting the Gospel requirement of a bias towards the poor, the disenfranchised, and, all minority groups - including the LGBT community. So, in essence, although what you say here seems like 'common justice', it may not be specifically 'Christian'. Who, here, determines what is 'good' for the majority? Where does authentic diversity come in?

For instance, for Abp. Akinola and the Law-makers of Nigeria to agree to legislate against those who are LGBT people in that country, on grounds which they say are for 'the common good' of the citizens of Nigeria, is not necessarily moral or just for the people concerned. Jesus did seem to exercise a preference for the outcast and needy, did he not? Or have I got the Gospel wrong?

I seem to remember at least one Gospel story - of the woman 'caught in the act of adultery' - whose accusers were chided by Jesus for wanting to stone her to death; a punishment which, in that case, was called for by the due process of 'Law'. Could it have been, do you think, that the Law was wrong? Could it be that to legislate against the LGBT community is an offence against the Gospel? I rest my case.

I am happy that the Vatican for the first time on Dec 19, 2008, declared its opposition to the imprisonment of anyone for adult consensual sexual acts.

Ch. Shell writes that laws should "be oriented towards the best overall outcome for the most people, in terms of peace, social stability and the maturing process." Yes, I remember the arguments put up to stop the decriminalization of homosexuality in Ireland -- "broken kettle" ones, including the false claim that the law was a dead letter, never applied, so we need not worry about it. Shell's arguments could have been used to block all legislation ending slavery and racial discrimination.

" A striking shortcoming of some laws in this country is that they encourage (not merely fail to discourage, but actually encourage) people to continue in immature, juvenile behaviour and therefore are not only against their interests but also show them little love." Not sure what he means. But the legal recognition of gay marriage is encouraging mature, adult behavior. I read in today's Japan Times that Japanese same-sex marriages abroad are to be recognized in Japan (unlike Ireland, which refused to recognize such a marriage). Japanese can marry their foreign same-sex friends, but not their compatriots!

Hi Ford-
Would it be right to imprison gay people for being gay?-
(1) Why assume people are going to accept the terms in which the question is couched: i.e. that there's a sector of the population that's intrinsically/endemically 'gay'? That is precisely the point at debate (genetics/environment), and as I've mentioned often it seems provisionally likely from current stats both that both play a part and that environment is the larger factor. (2) 'Homosexual'/'gay' is a vague term - does it refer to desires/actions/both? What people have traditionally been opposed to (rightly, I think) is less 'homosexuality' than sodomy & associated things - mainly for medical reasons (on which reasons the appeal to 'nature' can properly and best be grounded). If, on the one hand, we define 'homosexuality' in terms of actions, then it's something harmful even to the individual, let alone society (society will automatically be affected since as in 1 Cor.12 if one part hurts, all hurt). Whereas if we define it in terms of desires, then we all know the world is full of numerous desires many of which each of us know we must and do resist for our own good and the common good.

Romans 1 (writing with the wisdom of observation which we can equally apply 2000 years later) suggests that any penalty that was to be had would regularly be received in the shape of self-imposed predictable physical effects/risks (as with eating too many cream buns), never mind prison. As one does in fact find from the demographically-skewed HIV/AIDS statistics etc.. It is one thing for barrier contraception to be an *option*; but where we have an act for which it is a *necessity* there is no way one can call that act 'natural', and every way one can identify it as unnatural. (A further point: what about the days before BC was widely used?) Let's get real here.

Hi Fr Ron-
Although I am a 'mere Christian' not identified with any one party, the evangelicals have you in a cocked hat over John 7.53-8.11. They are able to integrate it into an overall NT theology which reads, listens to, & takes account of, the whole NT. To hear liberals talk, on the other hand, one could sometimes have sworn that the entire NT consisted of this passage.

Various writers seem to assume I am on Nigeria's side here - even when I wrote above that I can see both good & bad in their proposals.

"the evangelicals have you in a cocked hat over John 7.53-8.11." - Christopher Shell -

Christopher, I should be the very last person to use what the Evos call 'proof texts', but then, one does need to take the tenor of what the scriptures have to say on particular subjects. But mostly, 'thinking' Christians are more likely to quote the reported sayings of Jesus, than they are the writings of the O.T. - simply because Jesus did himself take the trouble to define, more clearly, what the essence of human behaviour towards one another ought to be. This he said was: First, love God; then, love one's neighbour -as one would expect to be loved ones-self. He said that if these two commandments (which he pronounced as primary) then evertthing else would fall into place. Sin is a reality; Redemption is a reality; Forgiveness is a reality. Nothing we can do will ever prevent this plan of salvation from being open to all who desire it. God simply does not wait fotr us to repent, withholding forgiveness until this happens. The ideal human response to our forgiveness is to recognise God's sorrow at our sins, and to want to change because of that. This is why Holy Week and Easter are an important opportunity for us to contemplate what God was to willing to suffer on our behalf - in order to gain our attention, and focus on how each of us might share the burden of others. *God so loved the world... Grace versus Law!

Hi Fr Ron-
The thing I'm not sure about is why you drag the OT into it, since as you see (3 times) I was talking only about the NT.

The balanced NT view is summarised by this passage itslf: 'Neither do I condemn you; go and do not sin again.'. Evangelicals acknowledge both sides of this saying; what they object to in their opponents is the apparent 'cherry-picking' that emphasises one side and de-emphasises the other.

One can say that the NT is diverse and contradictory (which is in itself an extreme ideological generalisation), but, when it comes to our present topic, the pattern that forgiveness comes *only* and *always* to the repentant is a pattern never broken in the entire NT to my knowledge. If there are exceptions to this rule, then the matter is up for debate, but not otherwise.

NO !

Forgives precedes repentence.

That is the Gospel I have recieved and seek to transmit ...

Hi L Roberts

Nonsense, IMHO!

(1) You are confusing 2 different aspects of forgiveness: forgiveness offered and forgiveness received. You are speaking as though forgiveness were merely an action. It is more than that: it is a 2-way transaction.

(2) Among those who intend to receive it, you must logically admit that some will see it as licence to sin more; others will be humbly grateful. Neither Scripture nor logic even remotely classifies the former instance as Christian repentance/forgiveness. Suppose the woman caught in adultery had *genuinely accepted* the offer of forgiveness with a sarcastic: 'Cool, Jesus baby' and then rushed off to do more of the same. She likes the forgiveness for one reason only: she perceives that it will let her off the hook. The real situation, and her actual response, was very different.

(3) It's not relevant what you have taught all these years, only what you have *justifiably* taught all these years.

"Suppose the woman caught in adultery had *genuinely accepted* the offer of forgiveness with a sarcastic: 'Cool, Jesus baby' and then rushed off to do more of the same. She likes the forgiveness for one reason only: she perceives that it will let her off the hook. The real situation, and her actual response, was very different."

What was her response, Christopher?

Meekness, from the look of it. The key is the way she addresses Jesus as 'sir' or 'Lord' (kurie).

That she addresses him politely isn't the question - he just saved her life, after all!

Where does she express remorse before Jesus forgives her?
Where does it say that she didn't think she'd been let off the hook?
Where does it say that she never sinned again?

You are free to interpret those things into the story, that's what engaging with the bible is about after all, it is not proof texting.
But L Roberts is just as free to interpret differently.

(1) Where does it say that she didn't think she'd been let off the hook? - Which hook? She has been let off hook A (impending death): i.e. her life has been spared. She has not been 'let off' 'hook' B (need to live a chaste/faithful life). From hearing Jesus's own words alone (and indeed from the entire culture which she inhabits and has always inhabited), she knows that she has not been let off, and is not going to be let off, hook B. There was never any question of that in such a culture. Her words show respect and deference, but I agree with you that we do not absolutely know that she resolved thenceforth not to commit the same sin again. For purely pragmatic reasons she may well have done so (not wanting to be in the same situation again), and the combination of this pragmatism with the transforming presence and words of Jesus may have clinched it. Jesus's intervention tended to have this life-transforming effect (Zacchaeus, Legion, etc.).

(2) Where does it say that she never sinned again? - nowhere, nor does it say that she did. Hence, it is absolutely necessary to be agnostic on the question: i.e. the very reverse of your view which says that both answers 'yes' and 'no' are acceptable 'interpretations', and people are free to hold them. No, honest people are not free to hold either of them and remain honest: neither is even a remotely acceptable interpretation. The only acceptable interpretation is 'We don't know.'.
People are not 'free' to 'interpret' anything into any story, biblical or otherwise. It is intellectual dishonesty to do so, and also a misunderstanding of what the word 'interpret' means. Very often, the answer is: 'We don't know, but the likeliest scenario is X followed by Y....'

Christopher
I agree, we don't know!
I agree, it is necessary to be agnostic on the question.

This is precisely what caused me difficulty with your earlier post where you say:
"but, when it comes to our present topic, the pattern that forgiveness comes *only* and *always* to the repentant is a pattern never broken in the entire NT to my knowledge." And you cite this particular story in evidence.

And yet, in this story we have no idea when the woman repented, whether she truly repented or was just grateful to have had her life saved, and whether she changed her life or not.

It is therefore entirely possible to believe that forgiveness may be offered freely and that repentance may or may not follow.

(1) If forgiveness is offered, but not received repentantly, forgiveness does not take place. Forgiveness is not just an action, but a transaction.

(2) To deny that repentance is necessary would be to deny something central to the NT. Jesus proclaims the kingdom Mk 1.15: 'repent and believe'. Peter preaches Ac.2: 'repent and be baptised'. Jesus praises John the Baptist's repentance ministry as his necessary precursor. Why do they say these things? For us today, in corporate or private prayer, repentance needs to come first. (Repentance, of course, is partly an action word, and is not the same as regret. A few years ago the episcopals made two conscious mistakes simultaneously when (a) expressing regret rather than the necessary repentance and (b) regretting something that someone else had felt, not something that they themselves had done. Like a naughty schoolchild trying to wangle their way out of saying sorry. The formal, 'objective' language just made it worse.)

(3) If your theory were right then Jesus would not have needed to say 'Go and do not sin again'. But he did.

(4) There's a danger, for obvious reasons, that we'll accommodate our 'beliefs' to (a) our particular culture and (b) human nature - both of which would love to jettison sin and repentance. Wishful thinking, not truth or reason, is at the root of this. How else account for the bizarre 'belief' in no-strings laissez-faire 'forgiveness' which requires no particular response? It could only arise in a no-strings culture.

(5) The thing I said we had to be agnostic about was whether she sinned similarly again ever afterwards, not whether she knew that repentance was necessary for forgiveness.

(6) Just as Jesus healed those with a certain attitude (faith), and often emphasised faith, so he forgave those with a certain attitude (repentance), and often emphasised repentance. Sometimes this faith or repentance was shown by something as little as the person's coming (or deferring) to him.

(7) Where I agree with you is: it's a Christian thing to offer forgiveness immediately whether or not it is accepted. How does one accept it? Repentance is no more and no less than the way in which forgiveness is accepted/appropriated.

Christopher
You give me a good summary of your theology.
But that is not how we started out.

You said that there is not a single instance in the NT where forgiveness is offered before repentance, and that the pattern is never (!) broken to your knowledge, and that "If there are exceptions to this rule, then the matter is up for debate, but not otherwise."

All I've done is to give you one exception.

As for "go and sin no more"... you do know that this story is the only one where he says this. In all other stories forgiveness is granted and no conditions are attached.

It really isn't all as simple as moralists would like to have it.

You misquote me! I said that repentance precedes forgiveness, not precedes the offer of forgiveness, which (as I mentioned twice) is only one half of the transaction. However, I think your overall view fails to explain where exactly repentance (something emphasised by Jesus and his followers) fits in.

Christopher
I'm not misquoting anyone, I'm merely looking at the story.
We have ascertained that the woman is polite.
We have no idea whether she repented or when.
We do know that Jesus said "your sins are forgiven".

I do not interpret the story.
I merely state that it is highly ambiguous and does not allow any pat interpretation.

From the comments above, one can see that you did undeniably misquote me. I said: 'forgiveness comes only and always to the repentant'; You misquoted that as: 'there is not a single instance in the NT where forgiveness is offered before repentance'. The difference is the verb. 'Comes' is obviously a different thing from 'is offered'. To 'offer' is an initial gesture; to 'come' is for the deal to be sealed.

I can only think off the top of my head of five instances where we can see Jesus at work forgiving sinners, all except Mark 2 from comparatively late-dating gospel material:
(1) In John 8 he forgives with a proviso.
(2) In Luke 7 he notes the evidence of the woman's salvation: her life has turned (turning and repentance are, etymologically, the same thing).
(3) In Luke 19, Zacchaeus shows similar concrete evidence of a changed life.
(4) In John 5 there is (despite what you said above that John 8 is the only 'sin no more') another 'sin no more' warning: sin would be in danger of making the man's healing null and void: the man would be in danger of returning to square one.
(5) In Mark 2 he forgives 'when he saw their faith'. However, this is all just part of a wider picture where emphasis is laid on the necessity of the right attitude (faith, repentance).

The overall picture: there are some who do not need to be told not to sin because their repentance is already manifest in their attitude and life-change. For the others, Jesus says 'sin no more' twice, and this therefore certainly applies to everyone else in the same situation. He would hardly think that one group of people should sin no more and it was ok for another group of people to go on sinning, would he?