# a bad person's blessing



## Qcumber

Since some forumites seem to enjoy theology, let's discuss this problem.
A bad person blesses another person.
Is the bad person's blessing efficient or deficient if not worthless?


----------



## JamesM

Hmm.. interesting question.  What is an "efficient blessing", in your opinion?


----------



## Qcumber

JamesM said:


> Hmm.. interesting question. What is an "efficient blessing", in your opinion?


You bless to bring good luck, happiness, prosperity, protectio, everything positive you can imagine. If your blessing is efficient the person should be happier, etc. This means that during this brief moment you've become the channel for the powers above to favour the recipient of your benediction.


----------



## Trina

Maybe not worthless... but, could it be trusted?

If the "bad person" was known to be insincere, then the worth of his/her blessing would surely be dependent on the recipient's knowledge and trust of the "bad person", not to mention the recipient's ability to read the sincerity of the "bad person" 's blessing. There is always the possibility that he/she sincerely meant it.


----------



## JamesM

Qcumber said:


> You bless to bring good luck, happiness, prosperity, protectio, everything positive you can imagine. If your blessing is efficient the person should be happier, etc. This means that during this brief moment you've become the channel for the powers above to favour the recipient of your benediction.


 
Given that definition, I suppose it depends on the willingness of the "bad person" to be a channel, even for that moment. Channels are channels, in my opinion. I think a blessing changes the person who blesses when they are willing channels, and the person who receives it when they are willing recipients. It's a catalyst, in my opinion. I think an insincere blessing can still bless a willing recipient, and a sincere blessing on an unwilling recipient can bless the "blesser", even if it has little or no effect on the recipient.


----------



## Athaulf

Qcumber said:


> Since some forumites seem to enjoy theology, let's discuss this problem.
> A bad person blesses another person.
> Is the bad person's blessing efficient or deficient if not worthless?



You might want to check out the 4th century Christian theological debates over Donatism.  A significant part of them was about the validity of sacraments administered by priests and bishops who had previously sinned by becoming apostates during persecutions.  Ever since then, the official doctrine of the Catholic Church has been that the validity of sacraments does not depend on whether the priest, bishop, or (in exceptional circumstances) some other person administering them is in a state of mortal sin, however grave.  

The same topic has resurfaced many times throughout history; the doctrine that the sins of a priest invalidate his sacraments has been among the officially condemned teachings of Wycliffe, for example.


----------



## cuchuflete

> A bad person blesses another person.
> Is the bad person's blessing efficient or deficient if not worthless?



Rather than focusing on the 'badness' of the person doing the blessing, wouldn't you
consider the divine power that is supposed to consider it?  Wouldn't such a power
be aware of the sincerity of the invocation, and the righteousness, if any, of the one doing or offering the blessing?


----------



## mplsray

cuchuflete said:


> Rather than focusing on the 'badness' of the person doing the blessing, wouldn't you
> consider the divine power that is supposed to consider it? Wouldn't such a power
> be aware of the sincerity of the invocation, and the righteousness, if any, of the one doing or offering the blessing?


 
I agree. And if the sort of blessing being given is something like "May God grant you success in your new job," there's no question of the person doing the blessing "channeling" anything: What he is actually doing is expressing a religion-based wish. At best, he's doing the equivalent of petitioning God in prayer. So it's up to God.


----------



## Qcumber

I should have specified:
1) the bad person is not necessarily known as such
2) the recipient is not aware of the blessing (it's a silent blessing without any gesture)
3) the blesser is sincere


----------



## Qcumber

cuchuflete said:


> Rather than focusing on the 'badness' of the person doing the blessing, wouldn't you consider the divine power that is supposed to consider it? Wouldn't such a power be aware of the sincerity of the invocation, and the righteousness, if any, of the one doing or offering the blessing?


No, the problem I'm tackling is whether the blesser's badness invalidates their blessing.


----------



## TRG

The only One who could answer this question doesn't seem to be participating in this forum in any discernable way. However, I will keep watching... just in case.


----------



## winklepicker

Qcumber said:


> No, the problem I'm tackling is whether the blesser's badness invalidates their blessing.


 
We are all bad, Qcumber*. If badness makes blessing ineffectual, then* all* blessings are ineffectual. If not, then not. Take your pick!

_* Underlying assumption - as you mention blessing, I assume you mean this in a Christian context. 1 Timothy 1 15 refers._


----------



## fenixpollo

TRG said:


> The only One who could answer this question...


Or *Ones*.


----------



## Nunty

Qcumber said:


> I should have specified:
> 1) the bad person is not necessarily known as such
> 2) the recipient is not aware of the blessing (it's a silent blessing without any gesture)
> 3) the blesser is sincere


I don't get the problem here.

If we are talking about the efficacy of someone's words _per se_ then we are talking about magical formulae, not blessings in the Christian sense.

If we are talking about a sincere wish for the good of another, how wonderful that a "bad" person (whatever that means) has such a positive side. I'm sure God would be pleased about that.

I agree, Qcumber, that you seem to have formed rather a Donatistic question.


----------



## winklepicker

Nun-Translator said:


> Donatistic


 
Wow! Thank you for sending me chasing after that one, Sister. I'd never heard of it before - I found it here. This bit I like and is pertinent(ish) to the thread:

_ ...the sacraments are powerful because of what they are, visible representations of spiritual realities. God is the one who works in and through them and He is not restricted by the moral state of the administrant..._


----------



## fenixpollo

winklepicker said:


> Wow! Thank you for sending me chasing after that one, Sister. I'd never heard of it before -


You must have missed Athaulf's post above:





Athaulf said:


> You might want to check out the 4th century Christian theological debates over Donatism.  A significant part of them was about the validity of sacraments administered by priests and bishops who had previously sinned by becoming apostates during persecutions.  Ever since then, the official doctrine of the Catholic Church has been that the validity of sacraments does not depend on whether the priest, bishop, or (in exceptional circumstances) some other person administering them is in a state of mortal sin, however grave.
> 
> The same topic has resurfaced many times throughout history; the doctrine that the sins of a priest invalidate his sacraments has been among the officially condemned teachings of Wycliffe, for example.


----------



## winklepicker

fenixpollo said:


> You must have missed Athaulf's post above:


 
Damn. Must read more carefully.


----------



## Qcumber

Nun-Translator said:


> I agree, Qcumber, that you seem to have formed rather a Donatistic question.


I'll have to refresh my memory about Donat and his doctrine.


----------



## Qcumber

Nun-Translator said:


> If we are talking about the efficacy of someone's words _per se_ then we are talking about magical formulae, not blessings in the Christian sense.
> If we are talking about a sincere wish for the good of another, how wonderful that a "bad" person (whatever that means) has such a positive side. I'm sure God would be pleased about that.


I am not talking about any religion in particular. The problem is general. I am not talking about sacraments or magic formulae. I am talking about a persons who blesses another silently and without performing any rite and not necessarily in the presence of the recipient. It is not necessary either that the blesser be a religious person.
It happens every day, all over the world.
Whatever I have the impression it's too abstract a problem. Too bad.


----------



## .   1

I am struck by the impossibility of a bad person issuing a blessing.  I just don't get it.
What is a bad person?

.,,


----------



## muselinazi

. said:


> What is a bad person?
> 
> .,,



That's what I want to know. Maybe Qcumber can clear it up for me. 
Personally I don't see how you can discuss the question meaningfully without at least a working definition. According to the Christian tradition we're all sinners. When is a person sinful enough as to be judged irredeemably 'bad'? And who does the judging?


----------



## JamesM

muselinazi said:


> That's what I want to know. Maybe Qcumber can clear it up for me.
> Personally I don't see how you can discuss the question meaningfully without at least a working definition. According to the Christian tradition we're all sinners. When is a person sinful enough as to be judged irredeemably 'bad'? And who does the judging?


 
I agree that that is the fundamental problem with the question.


----------



## fenixpollo

I disagree. I think that the fundamental problem with the question is whether a blessing can be effective or ineffective. In what way? For whom? How is effectivenesss measured?


----------



## .   1

fenixpollo said:


> How is effectivenesss measured?


With a Jacob's Ladder?

*www.ci.tumwater.wa.us/researchjacobsladder.htm*

.,,


----------



## Qcumber

muselinazi said:


> That's what I want to know. Maybe Qcumber can clear it up for me.
> Personally I don't see how you can discuss the question meaningfully without at least a working definition. According to the Christian tradition we're all sinners. When is a person sinful enough as to be judged irredeemably 'bad'? And who does the judging?


Sorry, I said I didn't want to deal with any religion in particular.


----------



## muselinazi

Qcumber said:


> Sorry, I said I didn't want to deal with any religion in particular.



I know, I was using it more as an example. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.


----------



## gaer

Nun-Translator said:


> If we are talking about a sincere wish for the good of another, how wonderful that a "bad" person (whatever that means) has such a positive side. I'm sure God would be pleased about that.


I had much the same thought. How "bad" can someone be who is hoping, wishing or praying for something good to take place in the life of another?


----------



## .   1

Qcumber said:


> Sorry, I said I didn't want to deal with any religion in particular.


We're still in the dark about what constitutes a bad person.

.,,


----------



## Trina

> We're still in the dark about what constitutes a bad person.


Well after some research, I managed to find these...

Are you a bad person?
http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=17951793922322764878

Dante's Inferno Test - Impurity, Sin and Damnation
http://www.4degreez.com/misc/dante-inferno-test.mv

But on a more serious note, "bad person" is a completely subjective term. What  I may deem a "bad person" may be "a bit of a bad person" to someone else and "the most vile bad person on the planet" to another, while to someone else, he/she may be considered a "good person"

I don't think we ever can successfully define this.

What if we were to assume that XXX is universally (without exception) thought to be a "bad person".
Now... also assuming his blessing is meant sincerely...
what is its worth?


----------



## .   1

gaer said:


> I had much the same thought. How "bad" can someone be who is hoping, wishing or praying for something good to take place in the life of another?


I missed that. Too true. It would be impossible for a person to be 'bad' and wish a stranger well. It would be like a blind person trying to understand a rainbow or a deaf person trying to grasp Vivaldi.  It would just not occur to them to think that way.

.,,


----------



## gaer

. said:


> I missed that. Too true. It would be impossible for a person to be 'bad' and wish a stranger well. It would be like a blind person trying to understand a rainbow or a deaf person trying to grasp Vivaldi. It would just not occur to them to think that way.
> 
> .,,


I don't like the word "bad", since it is so vague, but I think what we hope will happen to other people shows a great deal about what we really care about.


----------



## Athaulf

gaer said:


> I had much the same thought. How "bad" can someone be who is hoping, wishing or praying for something good to take place in the life of another?



You've never read stories about those death camp commanders whose surviving relatives and friends swear to this day that outside of their day jobs, they were always the most loving and gentle husbands and fathers, and the most loyal, cordial, and generous friends imaginable?  Individuals often compartmentalize their lives so as to show drastically different personalities in different situations.  I don't find anything implausible in the idea that the same person can almost instantly turn from a monster into an almost angelic personality, depending on the social setting; in fact, I have sometimes observed such changes personally (though of course on a far lesser scale than in the extreme example I mentioned).  

Thus, I don't think that there is a single person who ever lived, however brutal and depraved, who wouldn't be capable of sincerely hoping and wising for the good of someone else at least in some situations.  People are always less one-dimensional than we like to imagine them.


----------



## gaer

Athaulf said:


> You've never read stories about those death camp commanders whose surviving relatives and friends swear to this day that outside of their day jobs, they were always the most loving and gentle husbands and fathers, and the most loyal, cordial, and generous friends imaginable?


Do I appear to be such a hopelessly uninformed and naive person?  I would appreciate it if you could find a way to make your point without wording your thoughts in such a superior way. 


> Individuals often compartmentalize their lives so as to show drastically different personalities in different situations. I don't find anything implausible in the idea that the same person can almost instantly turn from a monster into an almost angelic personality, depending on the social setting; in fact, I have sometimes observed such changes personally (though of course on a far lesser scale than in the extreme example I mentioned).


Fair enough. But then how do we describe such a person? Monster? Angelic person? Or a complex mixture of both? Should we devise a monster/angel scale, then give a percentage rating? 

Let me rephrase. Can a person be _*completely bad*_ who is hoping, wishing or praying for something good to take place in the life of at least one other person?


> Thus, I don't think that there is a single person who ever lived, however brutal and depraved, who wouldn't be capable of sincerely hoping and wising for the good of someone else at least in some situations.


If you are correct—and I'm not sure your blanket statement applies to psychopaths who view other human beings as nothing more than tools to get what they want—then no one who has ever lived has been completely bad. I would not argue that point, if that is what you meant to stress.

Gaer


----------



## muselinazi

Athaulf said:


> Thus, I don't think that there is a single person who ever lived, however brutal and depraved, who wouldn't be capable of sincerely hoping and wising for the good of someone else at least in some situations. People are always less one-dimensional than we like to imagine them.



My thoughts exactly.


----------



## muselinazi

fenixpollo said:


> I disagree. I think that the fundamental problem with the question is whether a blessing can be effective or ineffective. In what way? For whom? How is effectivenesss measured?



You may be right but my inability to conceive of what is meant by 'bad person' invalidates the rest of question for me.


----------



## Athaulf

gaer said:


> Do I appear to be such a hopelessly uninformed and naive person?  I would appreciate it if you could find a way to make your point without wording your thoughts in such a superior way.



Sorry, I didn't intend it to sound that way.  My intention was to say something along the lines of "but you must have heard about X" rather than "you obviously haven't heard about X." Maybe I should have written "Haven't you ever read..." 

The lack of intonation and gesticulation normally available in spoken language sometimes makes my written English have a tone completely different from what I intended.  This tends to happen when I write something directed to a particular individual (in which I don't have much experience in English, although I've already produced heaps of technical writing in it).  



> Fair enough. But then how do we describe such a person? Monster? Angelic person? Or a complex mixture of both? Should we devise a monster/angel scale, then give a percentage rating?
> 
> Let me rephrase. Can a person be _*completely bad*_ who is hoping, wishing or praying for something good to take place in the life of at least one other person?
> [...]
> If you are correct—and I'm not sure your blanket statement applies to psychopaths who view other human beings as nothing more than tools to get what they want—then no one who has ever lived has been completely bad. I would not argue that point, if that is what you meant to stress.


Frankly, I believe that this phenomenon of people "compartmentalizing" their lives and suddenly changing their style of behavior as soon as they find themselves in a different setting means that it's never justified to assign a single rating on such a scale to a single person.  When someone behaves as an extremely evil person at certain types of situations, and as a very good person in others (for now we can leave aside the difficult and subjective question of how exactly we define good and evil), people often interpret it as if he were an evil person in general, but consciously and fraudulently acting the "good" role in certain occasions out of some selfish interest. But I don't believe it's necessarily so for any person, however evil.  

My impression is that everyone has certain "triggers" that can cause all kinds of behavior driven by genuine impulses.  It is of course true that some people seem to display a certain style of behavior all the time, either extremely good or extremely evil.  However, I'm sure that even the most angelic person (regardless of what criteria you'd use to identify one as such) could be led to monstrous behavior by being exposed to certain situations and circumstances, and symmetrically, even the worst villain you can imagine could in right circumstances be led to display entirely genuine affection, friendship, generosity, loyalty, etc.  I find it hard to imagine any absolute exceptions even among the psychopaths and sociopaths. 

Most people don't like to think along these lines, because we often comfort ourselves by thinking that the evil in the world comes from some unambiguously and fundamentally evil individuals, who are usually imagined as somehow distant, unknown, almost non-human, as if they came from some world other than ours.  On one hand, it's very uncomfortable to imagine that all these nice, good, and civilized people around us, including ourselves, could fairly easily be driven to behave as monsters in appropriate circumstances.  On the other hand, it's almost equally uncomfortable to think that people whom we write off as completely corrupt, evil, and undeserving of anything but hatred and retribution are also humans like us and capable of displaying the qualities we admire at least in certain settings.

All this makes me believe that we really cannot identify anyone who has ever lived who would be "completely bad" in the sense of being incapable of displaying genuine affection and generosity under at least certain circumstances. In fact, when it comes to the historical personalities who are commonly taken as the most extreme examples of sheer evil (and who certainly didn't get their reputation without reason), reading about their personal biographies usually leaves me with the impression that they did honestly display such traits towards certain individuals on some occasions.


----------



## Qcumber

Perhaps I should have given an example instead of starting from a generalisation.
Chicago, the 1930s. Mr. Catania is a mafioso. He is in charge of torturing people who refuse to give 50% of their net profits to his boss, Don Corleone.
Mr. Catania has a son, Luigi, who is saved from death by Dr. Cornpepper, a famous heart sergeon.
Mr. Catania handsomely pays Dr. Cornpepper, and tells him how deeply and sincerely grateful he is. He also blesses Dr. Cornpepper in his mind.
What is the value of Mr. Catania's blessing?


----------



## .   1

Absolutely nothing.
He gave the 'blessing' only because the doctor saved his kid's life but if the Don tells him to do so he will cut the surgeon's fingers off without a blink.
Creatures like that can not possess positive thoughts.
Jeeze, when I asked for a definition of a 'bad' person I was thinking in far more moderate terms than a mafioso torturer.  How much more does this bloke have to do to be described as evil incarnate.
A blessing from a professional torturer.  What a fascinating concept.

.,,


----------



## Qcumber

. said:


> A blessing from a professional torturer


Such is the crux of the matter.


----------



## liulia

JamesM said:


> Given that definition, I suppose it depends on the willingness of the "bad person" to be a channel, even for that moment. Channels are channels, in my opinion. I think a blessing changes the person who blesses when they are willing channels, and the person who receives it when they are willing recipients. It's a catalyst, in my opinion. I think an insincere blessing can still bless a willing recipient, and a sincere blessing on an unwilling recipient can bless the "blesser", even if it has little or no effect on the recipient.



I do believe that "a blessing changes the person who blesses"! 

I am not sure there are "bad" people and "good" people.  I think of myself on those days when I have no time for others, when I feel sorry for myself, unable to reach out to those around me -  I feel like a "bad" person on those days. But if I can forget myself for one moment, just long enough to "bless" someone, that blessing can transform me, and suddenly  I rediscover joy and laughter and gratitude. 
And blessings come in many forms - a smile can be a blessing, if it comes from somewhere deep and true within me.

Perhaps what I'm saying is that if you offer a sincere blessing, at that moment you are no longer "bad" because you become a channel for something greater than yourself.


----------



## Athaulf

. said:


> Absolutely nothing.
> He gave the 'blessing' only because the doctor saved his kid's life but if the Don tells him to do so he will cut the surgeon's fingers off without a blink.
> Creatures like that can not possess positive thoughts.
> Jeeze, when I asked for a definition of a 'bad' person I was thinking in far more moderate terms than a mafioso torturer. How much more does this bloke have to do to be described as evil incarnate.
> A blessing from a professional torturer. What a fascinating concept.



I think you're viewing people much too one-dimensionally.  In real life, Mr. Catania would probably consider himself as a righteous enforcer of justice against people who have damaged or defrauded his boss (which might even be true in some cases he'd be dealing with), and could easily have a quite pleasant personality outside of his job.  I don't have a slightest doubt that a typical mafioso thug could (and indeed would) feel quite sincere gratitude and affection in situations like the one described in this example.

To draw a parallel, would you draw the same conclusions about policemen or prison guards who are applying physical force for the purpose of enforcing an unjust law? (And I hope you'll agree that there are at least _some _unjust laws in every jurisdiction.) Or soldiers going to war? Would you consider them equally incapable of feeling genuine gratitude and affection in any situation because they would arrest and lock up the doctor for a violation of an unjust law, or shoot at him from a machine gun over no man's land, if only ordered to do so?  In both cases, the difference between them and Mr. Catania is only one of degree, not substance.


----------



## gaer

Athaulf said:


> Frankly, I believe that this phenomenon of people "compartmentalizing" their lives and suddenly changing their style of behavior as soon as they find themselves in a different setting means that it's never justified to assign a single rating on such a scale to a single person. When someone behaves as an extremely evil person at certain types of situations, and as a very good person in others (for now we can leave aside the difficult and subjective question of how exactly we define good and evil), people often interpret it as if he were an evil person in general, but consciously and fraudulently acting the "good" role in certain occasions out of some selfish interest. But I don't believe it's necessarily so for any person, however evil.


I would say:

1) Good and Evil (capitalization for emphasis) are only definable subjectively, since theologians and philosophers have been wrestling with these concepts for thousands of years.

2) For the same reason, every person will have different idea of what "bad person" means.

3) I agree with the idea that people do compartmentalize their lives. Sometimes the compartmentalization is deliberate, other times it is not, or at most it is subconcious—often a defence mechanism. However, these compartments ofen "leak". 

So far we have not even been able to agree upon what a "bad person" is. To preceed to analyzing the effect of a "blessing" coming from a "good person" vs. a "bad person" seems completely pointless to me. Next we will have to define "bless". I think we all know how successful that will be.  


> On one hand, it's very uncomfortable to imagine that all these nice, good, and civilized people around us, including ourselves, could fairly easily be driven to behave as monsters in appropriate circumstances.


If you're talking to me, you're "preaching to the choir". I would not use the words "appropriate circumstances", but I believe I know what you mean, and I agree.


> On the other hand, it's almost equally uncomfortable to think that people whom we write off as completely corrupt, evil, and undeserving of anything but hatred and retribution are also humans like us and capable of displaying the qualities we admire at least in certain settings.


Once again, I agree.


> In fact, when it comes to the historical personalities who are commonly taken as the most extreme examples of sheer evil (and who certainly didn't get their reputation without reason), reading about their personal biographies usually leaves me with the impression that they did honestly display such traits towards certain individuals on some occasions.


To me that is a very complicated way of saying: "No one is completely bad". 

Gaer


----------



## Trina

I think we are missing the point here.
Qcumber, who started this thread is interested in discussing the value of a blessing made by someone considered to be a" bad person" not what the definition of a "bad person" is.
Why can't we just, for the sake of this discussion, assume that "bad people" exist. 

In other words, assume that person XXX is considered by everyone on this planet to be a bad person.  XXX then, for whatever reason (see Qcumber's post #37), decides to bestow a blessing on someone and he/she sincerely means it.
What is the value of this blessing?


> A blessing from a professional torturer.  What a fascinating concept.


Exactly. The professional torturer sincerely blesses the doctor for his efforts in saving his son. Is this blessing valid? Should it be disregarded?
If it is sincerely meant, should it not be as valid as any other blessing?


----------



## TRG

If a "bad person" issues a blessing to someone he is saying "may God bless you", so it is the expression of the desire on the part of the "bad person" that God will bring you some good fortune. So the question is, "Is God listening?" God either listens to everyone or he listens to no one and by definition he has the power to listen to everyone. It's hard for me to see that the "bad person" would have anything to do with what God chooses to do. Besides, God can see for himself if someone needs something, so if he were inclined to be granting favors he'd probably just go ahead and do it regardless of what the "bad person" said. Then there's also the matter of being cursed. One could make a case that the "bad person" would have more influence here.


----------



## AngelEyes

Once the blessing is "sent", it becomes its own entity, separated from its source and having postive energy and lightness of being all on its own.

At the point where it assumes its own power, it's perfect.

By its very nature, it's a blessed thing and good.

I'll take any blessing...anytime, anyday. 

Once it exists, it can't contain evil.

This is my belief.



*AngelEyes*


----------



## mplsray

TRG said:


> Then there's also the matter of being cursed. One could make a case that the "bad person" would have more influence here.


 
Okay, you have the winking emoticon, so you're not completely serious. Nevertheless, I'd be skeptical of any case which asserted that the bad person could have more influence when cursing.

If we're talking about just magical words, there's no possible way to judge the effectiveness. But if we're talking about traditional curses, we can at least make a logical argument that a bad person would have less influence. The reason is that curses such as _Damn you!_ are based on the idea of a God who could condemn someone to hell. _Damn you!_ was originally _God damn you!_ and such curses were first used by religious officials. As in _Bless you!_ this is a case of the mandative subjunctive, which is a sort of a wish about something over which the speaker has no actual control himself. At most, this is equivalent to petitioning God in prayer. It's later that curses such as _Damn you!_ started to be used as curses, and they are generally considered blasphemous even when used by otherwise decent people. How then, is it likely that God (providing he is good, of course) would be more likely to take action according to a bad person's wishes than according to a good person's wishes?

(If you're saying that a person who says _Damn you!_ is petitioning Satan rather than God, that's a novel interpretation which should, according to traditional theology, be utterly ineffective, since only God can punish someone with hell.--And it would be _really_ blasphemous to boot.)


----------



## Qcumber

That several forumites have hijacked the thread to debate other issues (what is a bad person?, what is the difference between a soldier and a torturer?) clearly shows that this general theological problem is very hard to solve. So it's only a matter of opinion.
Mine:
The value of your blessing depends on how many good things you have done so far. Blessing is like a cheque. If you've got enough got money on your account, then the cheque is good. If you are in the red, the cheque is bad, and it bounces.
The mafioso torturer is deep in the red (pun intended) so he'll need to stop being a torturer and do all he can for one day his cheque to be payable. As it was a fat cheque, he'll probably have to devote the rest of his life to the relief of other people's sufferings.


----------



## liulia

Qcumber said:


> the relief of other people's sufferings.



Is this not a good definition of a blessing?


----------



## Qcumber

liulia said:


> Is this not a good definition of a blessing?


I don't think so. It's like saying "cured" is a good definition of the medicament that cured the patient. The cause is not the effect, is it?


----------



## liulia

I don't think your parallell is right - maybe I wasn't clear. 
My point was that the act of relieving other people's suffering is not very different, in my mind, from the act of blessing them. 
Whether this *also* heals something within the person who gives the blessing - and I believe it does - is a separate thing.

How would you define a blessing?


----------



## winklepicker

liulia said:


> My point was that the act of relieving other people's suffering is not very different, in my mind, from the act of blessing them. Whether this *also* heals something within the person who gives the blessing - and I believe it does - is a separate thing.


 
That is a very beautiful thought, liulia.


----------



## Trina

TRG said:


> If a "bad person" issues a blessing to someone he is saying "may God bless you", so it is the expression of the desire on the part of the "bad person" that God will bring you some good fortune. So the question is, "Is God listening?" God either listens to everyone or he listens to no one and by definition he has the power to listen to everyone.


If we are talking about blessings which are God-related, then this argument, to me, makes sense.
But what about the other types of blessings? In other words, ones which: 


> confer prosperity or happiness on [someone]- WR dictionary


The simple everyday blessings ...
eg. I wish you a happy birthday.
     All the best for the New Year.
     I wish you all the best.

If a "bad person" and atheist, sincerely wishes me (hopefully, a "good person" ), also an atheist (for the purposes of this example) "all the joy and happiness", I would accept it, gladly. After all, no-one is bad _all the time, _and _good deeds, thoughts etc _should be encouraged!

Disclaimer: The above is an example only of a non-religious blessing and in no way suggests that there is any correlation between being a "bad" or "good" person and whether or not one believes in God (of any religion).


----------



## mplsray

Trina said:


> If we are talking about blessings which are God-related, then this argument, to me, makes sense.
> But what about the other types of blessings? In other words, ones which:
> The simple everyday blessings ...
> eg. I wish you a happy birthday.
> All the best for the New Year.
> I wish you all the best.
> 
> If a "bad person" and atheist, sincerely wishes me (hopefully, a "good person" ), also an atheist (for the purposes of this example) "all the joy and happiness", I would accept it, gladly. After all, no-one is bad _all the time, _and _good deeds, thoughts etc _should be encouraged!
> 
> Disclaimer: The above is an example only of a non-religious blessing and in no way suggests that there is any correlation between being a "bad" or "good" person and whether or not one believes in God (of any religion).


 
So far we've discussed blessings as (1) religious wishes and (2) magical words. The subject was whether a blessing from a bad person is effective. Well, if it's just a matter of psychology, then the status of your third type of blessing is a no-brainer: A blessing usually makes a person feel better for having received the blessing—with some exceptions, such as those atheists who are extremely annoyed at the idea of someone praying for them, for example. And it a blessing usually makes a person feel better for having given it—again, with some exceptions, as when a person who hates the idea of being a hypocrite neverthess gives a hypocritical blessing because he believes society requires it of him.

But that's the problem with your example: The answer _is_ obvious! Who in the world would deny the effectiveness of a blessing (in giving some positive feelings anyway) on the giver and the receiver of the blessing? If that were the sort of blessing *Qcumber* had in mind, it would be unlikely that he would have posted anything about it in this forum.


----------



## Qcumber

mplsray said:


> If that were the sort of blessing *Qcumber* had in mind, it would be unlikely that he would have posted anything about it in this forum.


Very simple: the blesser thinks "*I *bless you" without saying a word.


----------

