Forgivness

sacrificialgoddess wrote:I think it is possible that we are using the word forgive differently here.

I have heard people say that to forgive is to forget. There are some things that should never be forgotten.


Am I angry anymore?
Of course not.

But do I forget?
Never.

Do I trust anymore?
Why should I?

Do I give that person the kind of control that actively telling the person I forgive them would give?
That would encourage more trespasses.

Remember, this doesn't mean that I never forgive. It just means that I am unlikely to forgive, if someone doesn't acknowledge that there was a problem, and at least take steps to make it right.

And as I act, I ask others to act as well. I have never asked someone for forgiveness if I haven't taken the above steps myself.

I do think forgiveness means something different to every person. I know people who think that Yahweh forgives everything they do, no matter what it is. They just have to say forgive me and it's okay to do it again, just as long as you say those words afterwards. There was a murderer in the news recently who believed that.

Then there are the ones who know they are going to be forgiven but they have to make a token gesture. Others feel they have to make full restitution to the best of their ability.

But all of the above is all about how one stands with Yahweh and not how one stands with his or her fellow men. In this life, it is the latter that is important IMO.

Greetings

Gorm,

I was friends with a gal who divorced her husband because he cheated on her and was caught. The guy, who was also a friend of mine, was utterly heartbroken and it took many years of therapy for him to come to terms with his guilt and his own self-destructive nature.... and, after a time, he was able to begin to rebuild his life.

But what do you think happened with the woman? Last I saw her, she still seethed with hate and slammed him verbally in front of her kids, friends, God and everyone every chance she got.... and it took it's toll on her life. Her own hatred robbed her of friends, the opportunity to find another lover... it also heaped more damage upon the children.

Being able to forgive is not being a doormat. Doormats do nothing aside from take abuse or sit by watching others being abused (doing nothing to help.) That is a different topic and has nothing to do with being able to forgive.

The best way to understand the word *forgive* is to look at it from a debtors point of view. Lets pretend that I loan money to my teenage son who is supposed to use it to buy a cheap used car. But instead he goes out and totally blows it. Worse, say he goes out drinking, gets into an accident and can never work again... has no way to repay his debt to me!!! So here we have a person who is already feeling like a fool and a failure... (ie, a person who shows true remorse) I ask you, what good would it be to hold his mistake over his head? What would it solve? Anything at all? Nothing that I can see; if I were the parent of this poor teenager, I would *forgive* him his debt, for life would have taught him enough.

Now what's *super* tough is to forgive a person who doesn't think they've done anything wrong (they don't think they need forgiveness) That is very tough indeed.

Same benefit for the person who forgives regardless.... so maybe the 'toughness' is more of an illusion than anything else....



May everyone here forgive me when I type cruelly without knowing it, and I shall forgive others for the same.

But she really didn't need to forgive him. She just needed to let her hatred and anger go.

Forgiving a debt - money that is owe one - is not always the best thing to do for a child or someone else. Sometimes they need to own up to what they have done and make restitution. One does not have to hate or be angry when one insists that repayment be made.

Again one does not have to forgive a person who doesn't think they need forgiving - and sometimes they really don't want forgiving because they think the other person is acting crazy. One simply needs to improve one's own life by letting go of hatred and anger that is harming the person who feels it a lot more than the other person.

Do you really think you need forgiveness for things you might do that you think is perfectly okay? I don't know. I think sometimes we try to please everyone and that isn't a good thing.

What does forgiving have to do with that woman's hate? She is a bitter bitch... Someone who holds onto that MUCH anger and hatred has problems that pre-date her husband's cheating.
She chose to live in her misery and revel in it. That's not because she can't or won't forgive. It's because she is a miserable bitter witch.

It's perfectly all right not to forgive someone when they have done a grievous wrong. The problem comes when people say "You can't heal unless you forgive"... No, you can't heal unless you let go of the anger and hatred. They are VERY destructive emotions. Forgiving has nothing to do with letting those go.

I know the man who assaulted me will NEVER get my forgiveness. Frankly, I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire. But I'm no longer angry at him... He paid. I got vindication. I am not still angry at him, once I was vindicated I was happy again. But forgiving? Never, not if I live to be a million years old... never.

Sakhaiva wrote:Greetings

Gorm,

I was friends with a gal who divorced her husband because he cheated on her and was caught. The guy, who was also a friend of mine, was utterly heartbroken and it took many years of therapy for him to come to terms with his guilt and his own self-destructive nature.... and, after a time, he was able to begin to rebuild his life.

But what do you think happened with the woman? Last I saw her, she still seethed with hate and slammed him verbally in front of her kids, friends, God and everyone every chance she got.... and it took it's toll on her life. Her own hatred robbed her of friends, the opportunity to find another lover... it also heaped more damage upon the children.

Being able to forgive is not being a doormat. Doormats do nothing aside from take abuse or sit by watching others being abused (doing nothing to help.) That is a different topic and has nothing to do with being able to forgive.

The best way to understand the word *forgive* is to look at it from a debtors point of view. Lets pretend that I loan money to my teenage son who is supposed to use it to buy a cheap used car. But instead he goes out and totally blows it. Worse, say he goes out drinking, gets into an accident and can never work again... has no way to repay his debt to me!!! So here we have a person who is already feeling like a fool and a failure... (ie, a person who shows true remorse) I ask you, what good would it be to hold his mistake over his head? What would it solve? Anything at all? Nothing that I can see; if I were the parent of this poor teenager, I would *forgive* him his debt, for life would have taught him enough.

Now what's *super* tough is to forgive a person who doesn't think they've done anything wrong (they don't think they need forgiveness) That is very tough indeed.

Same benefit for the person who forgives regardless.... so maybe the 'toughness' is more of an illusion than anything else....



May everyone here forgive me when I type cruelly without knowing it, and I shall forgive others for the same.

This is all fine, though I never implied that people who forgave were dormats. Rather I was presenting my view of the concept of forgivness and why in most circumstances, I do not find it condusive to ethical conduct. It takes much more to atone for a mistake, than merely being forgiven for it. Forgive means to absolve an indivudal of the responsibility for their actions, that is its basic (English) definition. I believe people should be held to account for their actions and the concept of forgivness is not really condusive to justice, because balance is not restored. Saying you absolve someone of their actions, when those actions are clearly wrong, may bring an individual (the wronged and the transgressor) some degree of comfort, spiritual fulfilment and so on, but the individul (the transgressor) has an obligation to make restitution for their actions.

People can be absolved of their wrong doing, when they have earned it; could the argument not be made that robbing someone of their obligation to fix their mistake, also rob them of personal growth?

Now, you could make all sorts of spiritual/ psychological arguments about suffering from guilt, remorse, sorrow for a transgression, but these are still forms of atonement in one way or another (although much easier than actual restitution).

People are responsible for their actions, forgivness often glosses over this. Actions, as always, are louder than words.

in my version of Christianity, forgiveness may absolve you from eternal consequences but not the law of sewing and reaping

just because you forgive someone doesn't absolve them of the debt they accumulated towards you-it absolves you of your personal interest in collecting that debt-you've given the collection over to powers greater than yourself

Davelaw wrote:in my version of Christianity, forgiveness may absolve you from eternal consequences but not the law of sewing and reaping

just because you forgive someone doesn't absolve them of the debt they accumulated towards you-it absolves you of your personal interest in collecting that debt-you've given the collection over to powers greater than yourself

And this makes sense, from a Christian (or any other religious/ spiritual or philosophical where forgivness is a core aspect) perspective.

Sewing and reaping is another way to describe the cause and affect, or Law of Return and Ethic of Self-Responsibility, that is part of my religion.

gillyflower wrote:Sewing and reaping is another way to describe the cause and affect, or Law of Return and Ethic of Self-Responsibility, that is part of my religion.

a lot of these things are universal and not specific to one belief

I am very leery of saying that anything is universal because I can't think of anything that is. The nuances are often so different.

its the themes that seem to be universal; not the specifics

I really don't think so. People are always saying that but every time they name a theme, forgiveness for example, that they think is universal, people will post to say that it is not a concept in their religion or this or that culture. It isn't a theme in many Pagan religions, as you have discovered. Neither is the concept of sin. Or the concept of a creating god. The idea of the Law of Return would be disputed by members of your own religion who feel that their god or devil causes/controls everything that happens.

Could you name a theme that you think is universal in all religions, please? I'd be interested in finding out if there is one. There might be.

gillyflower wrote:I really don't think so. People are always saying that but every time they name a theme, forgiveness for example, that they think is universal, people will post to say that it is not a concept in their religion or this or that culture. It isn't a theme in many Pagan religions, as you have discovered. Neither is the concept of sin. Or the concept of a creating god. The idea of the Law of Return would be disputed by members of your own religion who feel that their god or devil causes/controls everything that happens.

Could you name a theme that you think is universal in all religions, please? I'd be interested in finding out if there is one. There might be.

Not only that, Dave, but if I am honest, the Law of Return is fairly crucial to my theology, and yet, I see the concept of forgiveness in a totally different light than you do. The themes may be, possibly, similar, but the way they are handled within the religious system are so different as to be a different animal altogether.

gillyflower wrote:I really don't think so. People are always saying that but every time they name a theme, forgiveness for example, that they think is universal, people will post to say that it is not a concept in their religion or this or that culture. It isn't a theme in many Pagan religions, as you have discovered. Neither is the concept of sin. Or the concept of a creating god. The idea of the Law of Return would be disputed by members of your own religion who feel that their god or devil causes/controls everything that happens.

Could you name a theme that you think is universal in all religions, please? I'd be interested in finding out if there is one. There might be.

the Golden rule-do as you would be done by or its negative version is in most beliefs

sacrificialgoddess wrote:

gillyflower wrote:I really don't think so. People are always saying that but every time they name a theme, forgiveness for example, that they think is universal, people will post to say that it is not a concept in their religion or this or that culture. It isn't a theme in many Pagan religions, as you have discovered. Neither is the concept of sin. Or the concept of a creating god. The idea of the Law of Return would be disputed by members of your own religion who feel that their god or devil causes/controls everything that happens.

Could you name a theme that you think is universal in all religions, please? I'd be interested in finding out if there is one. There might be.

Not only that, Dave, but if I am honest, the Law of Return is fairly crucial to my theology, and yet, I see the concept of forgiveness in a totally different light than you do. The themes may be, possibly, similar, but the way they are handled within the religious system are so different as to be a different animal altogether.

I don't disagree with that.

You said it yourself - most beliefs. So it isn't universal. Do you have any more suggestions?

It actually doesn't have to be a part of anyone's religion. It is a concept that goes hand and hand with group living rather than one's relationship with deity.

Ed. to add: We may be talking at cross purposes. Some things are universal about humans - the need for air, etc. I meant universal in religions.

who is being the literalist now? "most beliefs" is close enough to universal for me- i certainly was not including left-handed paths when i dropped the word

I meant that many Christians do not hold the Golden Rule to be true if one is talking about homosexuals or witches or non-believers, at least so it is in the bible. In the OT, it was perfectly all right to commit genocide against non-Hebrews wasn't it?

Forgiveness is not really an issue in Asatru. Justice neither requires it to act, nor necessarily forges it when complete. Our codes of ethics and conduct are quite specific in how to interact with those that have acted honourably towards you, and those who have acted dishonourably towards you, and at no time does it demand that you forgive those who have acted as nithlings against you. Rather the opposite actually. Our faith and its notion of Weregild or suffering price is what gave the Anglo-Saxon world the civil law to address damages between individuals as an alternative to strife in matters falling outside the criminal law to punish. This is a way of allowing the community to aid in the resolution of conflict between parties without bloodshed, it does not require the wronged party to forgive, rather to accept a formula of restitution from their offender as set by communal authority. It is enough you do not seek private vengeance, and the offender make good his damages publicly; no one is asking for a group hug afterwards.

There is absolutly no idea that the offender owes god or gods resitution; it is for men and women to answer those that they have wronged, thier heirs or successors in this world for the wrongs they have done. It is not in the will of the gods to ask that you set aside an offense offered to you or yours because the offender has made supplication to the gods, it is not the gods they have offended, so it is not for the gods to offer forgiveness. If you have offended the gods, be sure they will see to their own collection. If you have offended men or women, it is to them you must make your supplication and remuneration.

Problem with the golden rule as well, we are not obligated to all individuals equally, so our behaviour towards others will vary by group.

My obligations and expectations within my own kindred, between my neighbors, between fellow oath-sworn servicemen, to a stranger of my own nation, to a colour-wearing member of a criminal organization or gang, a uniformed soldier of an enemy force, a guerrilla combatant of an enemy force will all have different sets of obligations and expectations attached.

One size fits all rules don't really work outside of a classroom.

What you said!

but if I was dressed in gang colors and were acting suspiciously i would expect others to police me-I think if your interpretation is broad enough-its about the closest to a one-size fits all rule one can get

but yet your point is well taken

I don't get it. Could you rephrase?

John T Mainer wrote:Problem with the golden rule as well, we are not obligated to all individuals equally, so our behaviour towards others will vary by group.

My obligations and expectations within my own kindred, between my neighbors, between fellow oath-sworn servicemen, to a stranger of my own nation, to a colour-wearing member of a criminal organization or gang, a uniformed soldier of an enemy force, a guerrilla combatant of an enemy force will all have different sets of obligations and expectations attached.

One size fits all rules don't really work outside of a classroom.

Yep. It is the product of group living, and anyone listed as "other" for whatever reason is treated differently.

Differently, but to most something is owed. The degree to which I am expected to risk myself, and devote resources owed to my own family will depend on the situation and the individual involved.

In all fairness, I would not expect others to extend to me the aid and comfort you would expect to be given a child, or your own kinsmen.