> So you're saying that there exist people whom Jesus has chosen not to forgive?

Of course!--those who don't ask.

> Mercy is *not* withholding justice from the guilty, in the long run. The justice has been given out already; it was poured on Jesus' head. In that sense justice has been withheld from all of us.

James is quite clear that mercy is the opposite of justice, even on the personal scale. James 2:13 "...judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!" Note also where God spoke to the nation of Israel, "...what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy...(Micah 6:8)"

> if it were I victimized by a murder it would be my burden and my duty to forgive him...

Actually, you'd be dead.

> Love encompasses and contains the written Law. The written Law on its own does not encompass love.

Please provide references.

> One very well *can* commit crimes against the soul; James told us to commit crimes against the body was basically committing crimes against the soul.

Where?

> If there were two entities like you describe, the only way one of them could be defined as "good" would be if there were some sort of higher entity that determined "good" and "evil"

Or there might be concrete concepts of good and evil.

> I still hold that they're both facets of the higher truth known as Love, and that it's our limited POVs that make them seem to be in opposition to each other. (A loving God could not abandon the innocents to the criminals's predation; nor could he abandon the criminals to the innocents' vengeance. Especially when the criminals and innocents happen to be the same group.)

Where does this come from? I think you're making too many assumptions in order to avoid a simpler explanation. But, by all means, if you have explanations, I'd love to hear them.

gab"er, *see them, I suppose."by