Did I miss the memo that states only black and white opinions are permitted now?
An excellent response from, appropriately enough, the Forgiveness Institute!
A definition of forgiveness, Based on Philosophical, Traditional (Hebrew, Christian, Islamic, Confucian, and Buddhist traditions, among others), Psychological and Developmental principles. Gleaned from a large survey of readings, professional dialogue, and stories of forgiveness written by volunteers.
What it is:
** Moral *
It is a response to an injustice (a moral wrong).
It is a turning to the “good” in the face of this wrongdoing.
** ** Paradoxical ** *
It is the foregoing of resentment or revenge when the wrongdoer’s actions deserve it and giving the gifts of mercy, generosity and love when the wrongdoer does not deserve them.
** As we give the gift of forgiveness we ourselves are healed. **
** Beyond duty
A freely chosen gift (rather than a grim obligation).
The overcoming of wrongdoing with good.
What it is not:
** Forgetting/Denial *
Time passing/ignoring the effects of the wrongdoing.
*Condoning
Nothing that bad happened. It was only this one time. It won’t happen again.
** Excusing *
The person did this because…it wasn’t really their responsibility.
** Condemning *
She/he deserves to know they have wronged me.
“Forgiving” with a sense of moral superiority.
** Seeking Justice or Compensation *
** Forgiveness is not a quid pro quo deal ** --it doesn’t demand compensation first.
Important Distinction:
*Forgiveness: ** One person’s moral response to another’s injustice **
*Reconciliation: Two parties coming together in mutual respect
Does that answer your question?
Here’s what you said:
So…what was it that Jesus preached exactly? Do not forgive until your trespasser asks for it? I’d like to see the cite for that, please.
stoid
Let me recap here: The passage you quoted from Hebrews was your evidence that Jesus did indeed mean we humans were allowed to mete out God’s justice on earth. (Even though Jesus did not write the book of Hebrews, Paul did, and Paul in fact never even MET Jesus, so how the hell would he know what Jesus wanted anyway.)
What I said was that the argument was invalid because the people who support these acts of terrorism (or who claimed that the terrorism was nothing more than the fate America deserved) are citing THEIR religious doctrine(s) for their arguments. They are essentially declaring that their God gave them permission. By your argument, you are doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
You cannot do exactly what someone else does, and then claim they are wrong for doing it, and claim you are right.
Please do not ascribe to me any argument I am not having. I’m not even in on the religious debate going on here, I’m merely pointing out the inconsistencies contained herein.
Well, no, it doesn’t. Like I said earlier, in my opinion forgiveness is only possible when you can find a justification or a rational excuse for a person’s behavior. I believe this is the third time I’ve typed that phrase now, what is so hard to understand about it? Also, I simply do not agree with the “Forgiveness Institute,” nor do I recognize their moral superiority over me. But let’s go through their points delineating “What it is,” shall we?
A response to an injustice. This could mean anything at all; it is too broad to have any meaning.
It is a turning to the “good” in the face of this wrongdoing. I deny the “Forgiveness Institute” has any better idea of “right and wrong” than I. I think punishment for the cold-blooded murder of thousands of innocent people is “right.” Not just punishiment, but harsh punishment. Death even. This is far more “right” than doing nothing, which in essence is what “forgiveness” means to this institute.
It is the foregoing of resentment or revenge when the wrongdoer’s actions deserve it and giving the gifts of mercy, generosity and love when the wrongdoer does not deserve them. Now we come to a valid point. I could see granting forgiveness to the perpetrator’s … if I could be convinced they deserve it. Obviously, I do not. As I said before, I believe, in order for a person to forgiven, they must first
A freely chosen gift (rather than a grim obligation). Fine, you may choose to forgive them, if you wish. I do not. If you are allowed to select gifts and those to whom you’d like to give them, I’m also allowed to choose otherwise.
The overcoming of wrongdoing with good. This is a repetition of item #2. I do not see forgiveness as doing “good,” in this situation.
You’ve called this an “excellent response.” I call it misguided amnesty. I call it potentially disastrous pacifism. I call it foolhardy self-delusion. Finally on the topic of the “Forgiveness Institute,” I did not ask what others believe to be a basis for, or justification of, forgiveness. I’d like to know what you think. You’ve done an admirable job of dancing around that point up to now and many others. Just what do you believe to be an appropriate response.
No, there was no memo to this effect. I’m questioning your participation not because your opinion is neither black or white, I questioned it because you seem to have no opinion. You’ve stated specifically that you are not championing forgiveness as the proper course of action; you’ve also declined to state what you think the proper course of action may be. You’ve left nothing to judge as black or white, or even a shade of grey.
I’ve answered this several time already, too. Jesus told us that one must ask forgiveness from the Lord in order to receive it. Very simple. You want cites?
No. This is incorrect. To this moment in time, I see nothing, not a damn thing, from any terrorist organization claiming this to be an act of terror, justifying them politically or religiously. Until that time I refuse to judge it as such. Until that time, to me, these attacks remain an overt act of war, or even simpler, mere criminal deeds. As such we are perfectly within our rights to mete out justice according to the applicable laws of the United States. Again, as I’ve said above to Stoid, I’ve made this point earlier in this thread. You, like her, either refuse to recognize that, missed it entirely, or I’ve failed to make the point clear.
Who is “they?” Do you have information the rest of us do not? “They” have not made any statements, except outright denials, of their justifications.
Nothing…and what would be your point? I didn’t ask you to explain forgiveness to me, or your opinion of it, and I had no trouble understanding what that was. It was ** you who requested an explanation of what you did not understand**:
You asked for an explanation of how others could forgive, and could see forgiveness as the appropriate response. I gave you one, and it was a terrific one, I think. That you don’t see it that way is not really at issue, we knew that going in.
Actually, that isn’t true. You asked how forgiveness could be an option, and you asked me to explain what I meant when I said “As for not granting forgiveness until it is asked for, I think that’s missing the point entirely. One can fogive without such forgiveness wiping the slate clean for the fogiven, you know. It’s more about wiping the forgiver’s slate clean.” Which I did, using the words of the Forgiveness Institute. Since I was using their words to explain what ** I ** said, I think it would be pretty obvious that I agree with the words.
As for not having any respect for the Forgiveness Institute (which I myself had never heard of until I went poking around for someone else to articulate what I was evidently doing a poor job of articulating) they are a pretty hip group, it seems. They are actually scientists who have done studies of forgiveness as a means of helping people to ** emotionally heal. **
Ya know, Unclebeer, I think you are really stretching hard here. What are the “many others” that I’m dancing around, eh? I’ve given you solid, thorough, direct answers to your questions, the fact that you don’t agree with my answers or respect my sources doesn’t mean that I have “danced around” anything.
As for your most recent question, I clearly and unequivocally decline to answer it, both because I do not owe you an answer (I have not offered my opinion directly on this, and I am under no obligation to do so), and because I do not have one that is clear, specific and unchanging. The situation is fluid, our emotions are fluid, and frankly, I’m not a national security expert. Last time I checked, neither was anyone else around here.
What I do think regarding this particular thread, is that if some people feel that forgiveness is the best option for them, that is absolutely wonderful and I support it wholeheartedly.
Now… as for folks dancing, let’s get back to your assertions about Jesus and forgiveness
I don’t want cites for * that, * because * that * wasn’t the topic. The topic was us humans forgiving those humans, not forgiveness from God. . As is quite obvious from the rest of this post, and this thread. Arguing that God does not forgive until He is asked would have made no sense in the context of the discussion.
So, do you have any cites for your * original * assertion, which certainly appeared to be that Jesus preached that forgiveness not be granted by one human to another until the transgressor requests it?
And finally, let me try to help you understand the big picture at issue in this particular thread, and really for all of us: ourselves. Our emotional and mental health now and in the future. Most of us are completely powerless to “do” a damn thing about what has happened or may happen in the future. These are matters for governments, military, intelligence organizations, and terrorist assholes. Worrying about, discussing, arguing and debating what they will do may make us feel better, but it isn’t going to make a difference in what actually happens.
So each of us ultimately needs to figure out how we are going to deal with this personally. Are we going to let it keep us in a state of anger? Hate? Rage? Pain? Are we going to choose to stay in negative emotion, or move on to something else? How are we going to change our daily lives? ARE we going to change our daily lives? What will we teach our children in the wake of this? Will we be different, will we change as people? * ** Will our response to this enhance us or diminish us?
** * And how will we define that?
These and more are the important questions that really have a direct meaning and impact on us as individuals, and the OP’s question is, I think, directed to these issues. Certainly we all know that the US government isn’t going to “forgive” the terrorists, that’s just silly. But maybe it’s appropriate for some us to do so in our own hearts, for the reasons and in the manner outlined in the definition given by the FI. And if anyone does, I really can’t imagine a basis for deriding that decision or belittling the person that makes it.
stoid