Although Jesus used financial debt in parables, the presumption in them was that the person in debt really, really wanted to be free of that debt. You twist the parable quite a bit to presume that the said debtors wanted remain in debt.
And again, those parables addressed capacity to forgive, not obligation to forgive. Of course there are a multitude of reasons why forgiveness of debt and forgiveness of transgressions are not the same thing, but if you insist that they are, then I do hope that you've never sent anyone a bill or expected payment for your labors, as those would be things that by your logic, you should have immediately forgiven.
“Although Jesus used financial debt in parables, the presumption in them was that the person in debt really, really wanted to be free of that debt.”
Not simply in parables. Sin is referred to in the Bible as a quite literal debt that we owe to God. How else would we be able to talk about Christ’s blood ransoming us if we did not have that concept of a debt firmly in place already?
“You twist the parable quite a bit to presume that the said debtors wanted remain in debt.”
I’m not saying one way or the other what the debtors want, because it’s immaterial. I can forgive a debt whether the debtor wants me to or not, so it doesn’t matter what they want. If I do not have to wait for them to ask, then I have the prerogative.
“And again, those parables addressed capacity to forgive, not obligation to forgive.”
No, but other passages address our obligation to forgive, and none of them qualify it by saying we are only obligated to forgive those who ask forgiveness.
“Of course there are a multitude of reasons why forgiveness of debt and forgiveness of transgressions are not the same thing...”
Of course they are not exactly the same, but in terms of the mechanics of forgiveness, they are identical. Since we are talking only about the mechanics of forgiveness, then focusing on the other differences is just a red herring argument.