Forgiveness

[ynot]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Do you believe the sincerity of that forgiveness however. Could it be just posing as a good Christian, to impress others, and to impress God himself of course. We all know how gullible Jesus pop is don't we?

Even if the intent and desire to forgive is sincere, it doesn't mean the forgiveness in practice is what's claimed on the package.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Why does the forgiven even need to know? I don't think I'd tell someone that I forgave them. It would be for me, not them.

I agree if we define forgiveness as being how the "victim" copes with their own emotional reactions, rather than the "perpetrator" having the responsibility for their actions "written off" by the "victim" for whatever reasons.

I'm more interested in how I deal with others treating me badly than I am whether I should treat others better than they have treated me. Especially if it's a form of virtue signaling that I'm better than them.

[Lothian]

I don't hold grudges, I carefully analyse them, label them and store them in a filing cabinet for when they are needed.

Once you know the facts you decide whether an action was reasonable. If it wasn't there can be no forgiveness. For me it is a permanent negative mark against that person. Of course they can do lots of good things but that does not alter the bad thing they did.

To forgive is to say you are ok with what they did. If I thing what they did was wrong I decide whether it was wrong but I don't care or it was wrong and I do care. You will never be forgiven by me for that second act.

Fortunately there has not been many bad things done to me that I care about, but when I meet someone who has an item jn my cabinet it will be the first thing I think of.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by Lothian

Once you know the facts you decide whether an action was reasonable. If it wasn't there can be no forgiveness. For me it is a permanent negative mark against that person. Of course they can do lots of good things but that does not alter the bad thing they did.

I’ve never understood or accepted the “But that was long time ago” excuse, as if a magical amount of time changes facts of reality somehow.

How can you learn from experiences if you don't remember them?

[ynot]

Originally Posted by Lothian

I don't hold grudges, I carefully analyse them, label them and store them in a filing cabinet for when they are needed.

Once you know the facts you decide whether an action was reasonable. If it wasn't there can be no forgiveness. For me it is a permanent negative mark against that person. Of course they can do lots of good things but that does not alter the bad thing they did.

To forgive is to say you are ok with what they did. If I thing what they did was wrong I decide whether it was wrong but I don't care or it was wrong and I do care. You will never be forgiven by me for that second act.

Fortunately there has not been many bad things done to me that I care about, but when I meet someone who has an item jn my cabinet it will be the first thing I think of.

I think most people are pretty much the same in practice, they're not all honest enough to admit it however.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by ynot

I’ve never understood or accepted the “But that was long time ago” excuse, as if a magical amount of time changes facts of reality somehow.

How can you learn from experiences if you don't remember them?

But people do change over time. I've done things in my past that I would never do now. I would hope that anyone I wronged would be able to see that.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

But people do change over time.

Sure, and some change for the worse. Besides, what they did wrong doesn't change over time. Murder victims don't come back to life when the murderer stops murdering.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I've done things in my past that I would never do now.

Trouble is a person being honest and a person being dishonest would say exactly the same thing. If you have lied to me badly in the past why should I believe you now?

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I would hope that anyone I wronged would be able to see that.

The hardest liar to spot is the one that is honest for most of the time.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by psionl0

How is that "forgiveness" if the wrong doer still believes that you haven't forgiven them?

But what would give them the idea that I'm judging them to begin with? Most of the time I don't go around accusing people.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by ynot

Sure, and some change for the worse. Besides, what they did wrong doesn't change over time. Murder victims don't come back to life when the murderer stops murdering.

Sure, but it is possible for the murderer to sincerely regret what they did.

Originally Posted by ynot

Trouble is a person being honest and a person being dishonest would say exactly the same thing. If you have lied to me badly in the past why should I believe you now?

...

The hardest liar to spot is the one that is honest for most of the time.

I'm not telling you that I'm changed - I didn't say that I hoped someone would hear me say that I'd changed. I would hope that they might be able to see that my behaviour had changed. We judge people by their actions, not their words, for exactly that reason. People who haven't changed might indeed have an incentive to lie about it. People who have actually changed demonstrate that by their behaviour.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by ynot

I agree if we define forgiveness as being how the "victim" copes with their own emotional reactions, rather than the "perpetrator" having the responsibility for their actions "written off" by the "victim" for whatever reasons.

"Coping with their own emotional reactions" - yes, good way to put it.

Originally Posted by ynot

In my view forgiveness is something that has benefits.

It does have benefits, but a lot of them are for the forgiver. The forgiven may benefit also. In some cases the forgiven one's dead.

Originally Posted by ynot

I'm more interested in how I deal with others treating me badly than I am whether I should treat others better than they have treated me.

They're both interesting questions.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Sure, but it is possible for the murderer to sincerely regret what they did.

So what? The victim is no less dead and the mourners are no less grieving.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I'm not telling you that I'm changed - I didn't say that I hoped someone would hear me say that I'd changed. I would hope that they might be able to see that my behaviour had changed. We judge people by their actions, not their words, for exactly that reason. People who haven't changed might indeed have an incentive to lie about it. People who have actually changed demonstrate that by their behaviour.

People lie by way of their actions/behaviours as well as their words. "I didn't actually say it so I didn't actually lie" is a pathetic excuse (and a lie).

[ynot]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

It does have benefits, but a lot of them are for the forgiver. The forgiven may benefit also. In some cases the forgiven one's dead.

You have quoted words as being mine when they aren't.

Originally Posted by Minoosh

They're both interesting questions.

I'm more interested in the former than the latter.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by ynot

So what? The victim is no less dead and the mourners are no less grieving.

I agree. But the perpetrator being genuinely remoseful is an important ingredient in forgiveness. Without it, they don't deserve to be forgiven.

Originally Posted by ynot

People lie by way of their actions/behaviours as well as their words. "I didn't actually say it so I didn't actually lie" is a pathetic excuse (and a lie).

Is it your contention that because some people lie, real change and remorse is impossible? I don't think that would be a supportable claim.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by ynot

The hardest liar to spot is the one that is honest for most of the time.

*whistles* Spot on!

Rest of your comment snipped off, because this part is what I found remarkable, and want to highlight, without in any way stepping into your larger discussion with arthwollipot. Very insightful comment, the above.

It's true, the habitual liars are easy to spot and slot and deal with. It's the very occasional liars, those wily souls that use their lies sparingly and strategically, that are that much more effective, and therfore dangerous.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

... the perpetrator being genuinely remoseful is an important ingredient in forgiveness. Without it, they don't deserve to be forgiven. ...

Agreed. Remorse, and change resulting from that remorse, are probably necessary ingredients for forgiveness, or should be. Necessary, but not necessarily sufficient. That last is the victim's call.

In fact, whether it "should be" necessary is also the victim's call, because who are we to dictate their reactions for them. But I suggest that a victim who does not think true remorse and real change necessary for forgiveness, is either a saint, or is operating from a dysfunctional emotional space. Unless of course the matter's too petty to dwell on, in the victim's estimate.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

Agreed. Remorse, and change resulting from that remorse, are probably necessary ingredients for forgiveness, or should be. Necessary, but not necessarily sufficient. That last is the victim's call.

In fact, whether it "should be" necessary is also the victim's call, because who are we to dictate their reactions for them. But I suggest that a victim who does not think true remorse and real change necessary for forgiveness, is either a saint, or is operating from a dysfunctional emotional space. Unless of course the matter's too petty to dwell on, in the victim's estimate.

I think that if someone is unrepentant, there's no need to forgive them. In fact, if I forgive someone who feels no remorse for what they've done, is that not just an invitation for them to do it again?

But if someone comes to me, apologises for something they did, and appears genuinely remorseful, then I might decide to forgive them.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by ynot

You have quoted words as being mine when they aren't.

Doh! That was psionI0

Quote:

I'm more interested in the former than the latter.

Yes, as you said.
Earlier you said this to me:

Quote:

I'm more interested in how I deal with others treating me badly than I am whether I should treat others better than they have treated me. Especially if it's a form of virtue signaling that I'm better than them.

Was that aimed at me? Because I couldn't figure out what it had to do with what I had written.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

But what would give them the idea that I'm judging them to begin with? Most of the time I don't go around accusing people.

That's nonsense. If somebody does you wrong then you both know what they did.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I agree. But the perpetrator being genuinely remoseful is an important ingredient in forgiveness. Without it, they don't deserve to be forgiven.

I would say the victim believing that the perpetrator IS ACTUALLY being genuinely remorseful is the most important ingredient in the "I forgive you" definition of forgiveness (not the one I prefer). "Genuine remorse" can be convincingly faked.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Is it your contention that because some people lie, real change and remorse is impossible? I don't think that would be a supportable claim.

No. Don't know how you could think it would be from my post. I was specifically responding to this (main points highlited) . . .

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I'm not telling you that I'm changed - I didn't say that I hoped someone would hear me say that I'd changed. I would hope that they might be able to see that my behaviour had changed. We judge people by their actions, not their words , for exactly that reason. People who haven't changed might indeed have an incentive to lie about it. People who have actually changed demonstrate that by their behaviour.

I was simply saying that people can lie by their actions as well as their words, and we indeed DO judge and believe them (or not) in reference to both. Seems you're saying lies are exclusive to words, and I'm saying I don't agree with you.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Was that aimed at me?

Only aimed at you to read, nothing personal beyond that.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by psionl0

That's nonsense. If somebody does you wrong then you both know what they did.

Well . . . That's nonsense. A person can believe they've been done wrong by a person who doesn't agree they've done wrong. I'm also sure "knowing what they did" has nothing to do with what Minoosh said.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by psionl0

That's nonsense. If somebody does you wrong then you both know what they did.

I am not sure that everything is so perfectly understood in the normal course of events.

Mostly I think people do what they think is right for them, without a whole lot of consideration for the wrong they may be doing others.

IOW it's not personal. I might think someone is being a right ****, but that's related to what expectations I had of them to begin with, at least as much to what they supposedly did.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by ynot

I was simply saying that people can lie by their actions as well as their words, and we indeed DO judge and believe them (or not) in reference to both.

An old boyfriend once asked me, "Why must you always judge me based on past behavior?" I give him points for chutzpah; it's exactly the kind of argument that leaves me stuttering. On what other basis could I possibly judge him? But really it had to do with whether I was finished putting up with that behavior, or not.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

An old boyfriend once asked me, "Why must you always judge me based on past behavior?" I give him points for chutzpah; it's exactly the kind of argument that leaves me stuttering. On what other basis could I possibly judge him? But really it had to do with whether I was finished putting up with that behavior, or not.

That's the kind of question the Scorpion would ask, when begging for a ride.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by theprestige

That's the kind of question the Scorpion would ask, when begging for a ride.

Once I understood his nature, there was nothing to forgive him for.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Vixen

If someone does you a wrong, they will tend to avoid you and might very well feel guilty about what they did. If it is a family member whom you otherwise love, you might tell them you forgive them because you don't want them to feel bad about what they did.

It acknowledging that what they did was wrong but you understand why they did it, rather than hate them forever, as they might assume.

That gives me something to think about, but I'm not sure how to apply it in life. I know for a fact people who have built up whole narratives about who did them wrong, while the supposed wrongdoer either never acknowledged responsibility or has long ago forgotten about it.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

That gives me something to think about, but I'm not sure how to apply it in life. I know for a fact people who have built up whole narratives about who did them wrong, while the supposed wrongdoer either never acknowledged responsibility or has long ago forgotten about it.

That goes back to the idea that forgiveness is more about the forgiver -the letting go of bad feelings- than the forgiven.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

That gives me something to think about, but I'm not sure how to apply it in life. I know for a fact people who have built up whole narratives about who did them wrong, while the supposed wrongdoer either never acknowledged responsibility or has long ago forgotten about it.

I agree. The person who wronged me has never apologised nor even admitted they were caught red-handed wronging me. Far from it! I have been made out to be the one in the wrong, I've been blocked, bad-mouthed behind my back, but hey, I have forgiven this person, so it doesn't bother me.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I agree. The person who wronged me has never apologised nor even admitted they were caught red-handed wronging me. Far from it! I have been made out to be the one in the wrong, I've been blocked, bad-mouthed behind my back, but hey, I have forgiven this person, so it doesn't bother me.

. . .

[Chanakya]

Sand therapy?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by ynot

A person can believe they've been done wrong by a person who doesn't agree they've done wrong.

Normally you would tell a wrong-doer what they did, how it impacted on you and how it made you feel. If their response is denial or "don't be such a wuss" then you can't really forgive them. All you can do is let it go.

OTOH if they apologize then forgiveness is on the cards.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Normally you would tell a wrong-doer what they did, how it impacted on you and how it made you feel. If their response is denial or "don't be such a wuss" then you can't really forgive them. All you can do is let it go.

OTOH if they apologize then forgiveness is on the cards.

I would argue that letting go of hurt and anger towards someone who has wronged you IS forgiveness.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by xjx388

I would argue that letting go of hurt and anger towards someone who has wronged you IS forgiveness.

That's the problem with threads like these. Everybody is arguing in accordance with their own pet definition of the word and the resulting debate becomes rather confusing.

I would say that it is not really forgiveness until it has been communicated. Otherwise, you are allowing the wrong doer to believe that you have not forgiven them which is a form of retaliation.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Thermal

I always thought the important part of forgiveness is that the recipient is pentinent? You know, cops to the wrongdoing and makes what ammends they can, then the forgiveness clears the slate of any balance

This post seems to have been pretty much overlooked, but I think it's an important point. Forgiveness doesn't have to be a carte blanche nor does it necessarily exclude the options of punishment (as opposed to vengeance) or restitution. The religions that I know of generally hold forgiveness to be contingent on acceptance of, and contrition for, wrong doing. Making some kind of act of attonement isn't unusual either. Similarly in a more secular environment a convicted criminal that has served their sentence is allowed to re-enter society and not be punished a second time for the same crime, that's a kind of forgiveness.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by psionl0

That's the problem with threads like these. Everybody is arguing in accordance with their own pet definition of the word and the resulting debate becomes rather confusing.

What you call the problem is the purpose of threads like these.

Originally Posted by psionl0

I would say that it is not really forgiveness until it has been communicated. Otherwise, you are allowing the wrong doer to believe that you have not forgiven them which is a form of retaliation.

Now you're just confusing the debate with your own pet definition of the word.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by ynot

I’ve never understood or accepted the “But that was long time ago” excuse, as if a magical amount of time changes facts of reality somehow.

How can you learn from experiences if you don't remember them?

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

But people do change over time. I've done things in my past that I would never do now. I would hope that anyone I wronged would be able to see that.

This is most confusing.

If someone changes over time to become a better person, one should be able to accept that reformed individual on his or her merits, as they are now. Doesn't change the fact that the previously reviled individual, who no longer exists, will remain unforgiven.

Yes I agree that people change over time and perhaps it is unreasonable, to keep on condemning someone for what they once were. It may also be said in the reverse also, if a person changes for the worst.

The religious, who believe in an everlasting and unchanging soul, would find argument with this. Who however, can get through the thick heads of that lot.

[ynot]

It’s easier to assume a person is innocent until proven guilty than it is to accept a person proven guilty will be innocent in the future. Trust once broken isn’t always easy to repair (aka - forgive).

[Agatha]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I agree. But the perpetrator being genuinely remoseful is an important ingredient in forgiveness. Without it, they don't deserve to be forgiven.

I respectfully disagree with this. I am absolutely certain that my stepfather regrets nothing about the way he treated me and my brother, nor the way he treated his own children (my half-siblings and adopted siblings), nor what he did to our mother before her death, nor the way he treated his second wife.

But I have forgiven him for all of it because before I forgave him, he lived rent-free in my head and that was poisoning my life. I can't forget - indeed some of the things that happened are still coming to the fore as I deal with the flashbacks - but I can forgive and let them all go.

I don't care enough to find out what he's doing now or even if he's still alive. He is nothing to me any more, and the only way I can make him nothing is to forgive him; to let go of the pain and the hurt and the betrayal and to say to myself "he is what he is, which is less than the dust on my shoe"

Hatred for him was destroying me, so I had to overcome that. But again, I don't forget it. He will never, ever get a second chance to be in my life.

I admire the people who can forgive the murderer of their child or their spouse. I'm not sure I could do that, but I hope that if I were ever in that position I would try, because hatred is so poisonous.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by ynot

It’s easier to assume a person is innocent until proven guilty than it is to accept a person proven guilty will be innocent in the future. Trust once broken isn’t always easy to repair (aka - forgive).

I can forgive someone for doing me wrong, but that doesn’t mean they get my trust back. That’s something entirely different. Forgiveness doesn’t mean everything goes back to normal.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by ynot

What you call the problem is the purpose of threads like these.

To obfuscate debate?

Originally Posted by ynot

Now you're just confusing the debate with your own pet definition of the word.

What is your own pet definition of the word and are you going to give a reason for it as I have?