• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Does forgiveness mean excusing one's actions?

kyuuei

Emperor/Dictator
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
13,964
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
8
And if you don't know if they regret it or not? If you don't know if they knew it was bad or not? If you no longer have contact with the person, and forgiveness wouldn't be an external gesture but an internal one? What then?

It still sets a parameter for the future though, even internally.. Saying "Look, regardless of what is going on with this person, this is eating me alive.. and I need to know what I need out of this situation to resolve it." There are no easy answers for that, but finding those answers can sometimes, for people, come from saying that you cannot control other peoples' actions, but you CAN control your own thoughts and actions. So.. take control of them. If you're not sure, don't try to assume what they're thinking or doing. Forgive the situation.. and forgive your own role in it.
 

/DG/

silentigata ano (profile)
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
4,602
1. Did the person do this while knowing that results will be bad.

2. All of this highly depends on is there a honest regret about what was done and did it ever happen again.


For me forgivness is basically much more about "this shouldn't happen again" than some social gesture.

This is actually an interesting set of questions. I've known someone who felt remorse,, but would ALWAYS repeat their poor actions. What then?
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
This is actually an interesting set of questions. I've known someone who felt remorse,, but would ALWAYS repeat their poor actions. What then?


That depends on how big is the damage and how often it happens, as well as how much they are actually sorry.
 

prplchknz

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
34,397
MBTI Type
yupp
no.forgiveness is not excusing, forgiveness is more like i know you fucked up and you feel bad and you're not a bad person don't do that again.
 

Hitoshi-San

New member
Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Messages
1,078
MBTI Type
esfp
Enneagram
???
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I personally don't think it's as much about accepting actions as to coming to terms with them. It would be saying that yeah someone did something but it's over with now so there's no need to hold that against them forever.

Depending on why the person is being forgiven, there are times where things are probably inexcusable.
 

Yama

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
7,684
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I personally don't think it's as much about accepting actions as to coming to terms with them. It would be saying that yeah someone did something but it's over with now so there's no need to hold that against them forever.

Depending on why the person is being forgiven, there are times where things are probably inexcusable.

At what point does an action because inexcusable? Can you refuse to excuse it and still forgive them?
 

GIjade

New member
Joined
Dec 19, 2015
Messages
618
MBTI Type
INFJ
I personally don't think it's as much about accepting actions as to coming to terms with them. It would be saying that yeah someone did something but it's over with now so there's no need to hold that against them forever.

I agree, IF they really stopped doing what it was that needed to be forgiven.
 

Hitoshi-San

New member
Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Messages
1,078
MBTI Type
esfp
Enneagram
???
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
At what point does an action because inexcusable? Can you refuse to excuse it and still forgive them?

I think inexcusable would be if they're not sorry, if they don't mean to prove themselves better than the mistake they made. I guess whether you forgive them or not past that point would depend on what exactly your definition of forgiveness is. Maybe there's some people out there who'd actually be able to move on with their lives knowing the other person will still probably always be at that same point in their life where they're doing whatever inexcusable thing they did before.
 

Santosha

New member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,516
MBTI Type
HUMR
Enneagram
6
Instinctual Variant
sx
What if they did something to you that was traumatizing?

All the more reason for me to reevaluate whatever meanings and beliefs I am attaching to their behavior, to view it from a less triggering or destructive angle. Tweaking ones perspective doesn't have to involve acceptance of the behavior itself, or tolerance of such person in your life. But it can mean that you take a step back and understand that what they are doing is a whole lot more about them, than it is you. It has been very helpful for me to get a kind of grasp on what variables have led up to someone being the way they are, the perfect set of conditions that could have led to no other result, actually. And, as fi dom, I also find myself questioning if I might not have done the same thing... were I to have that particular dna, those specific life experiences, those specific coping/defense mechanisms, etc. It is hard to say.

Most people will tell you that forgiveness is liberating.

"The ego demands that we refuse forgiveness, for it provides us with an insurmountable amount of power and control over the one who has hurt us; by refusing to reconcile the conflict, we forever hold a condemning, inescapable guilt over his or her head. But, in the end, the lure of non-forgiveness that is caused by our individual egos — the side of us that wants to punish and never forgive the ones who have done wrong unto us — we come to realize that the only one who is truly punished, imprisoned and enslaved by our refusal to reconcile the pain is ourselves."

It goes beyond liberation for me. My greatest suffering has been a catalyst to scrap false-beliefs about myself, others, the world.. even the nature of reality. But I am stubborn, and my ego is strong, so my trend is that I've needed things to become intensely painful before I am moved (not do something about it but)to let go... haha. It sounds cliché, but many times my suffering has turned out to be a gift, people who hurt me, teachers. And some people just cant grasp these ideas. They are too different, their beliefs are too different. And of course, whatever beliefs one holds.. as they look out at the world they will constantly find evidence for it. It doesn't have to work for or make sense to others, only me. There is a lot lost in this word, I think, to looking outside oneself for answers.

Should you still change the way you view their actions rather than condemn them? Can you think what they did was wrong without condemning them or is that the same thing? Should they be forgiven?

'Forgiveness is the intentional and voluntary process by which a victim undergoes a change in feelings and attitude regarding an offense, lets go of negative emotions such as vengefulness, with an increased ability to wish the offender well.' from (just) wiki.

You should do whatever feels right to you. Many people thrive on condemnation, some of my closest friends, who I love dearly, do so. It is very validating for them, especially if they can get others in on their band-wagon and say "shame, shame shame!" to people who do not think/feel or behave as they do or expect. Most people are caught in a game of controlling the behavior of others and external conditions to be content. It works for them. It's just never worked for me.

Op, I almost forgot. Feelings do not require validation, imo. They just are, and you don't need a bunch of people to get together and say "oh that is just so terrible and awful! I would also be <insert whatever negative emotion> for it to be okay that you hold it. What you do with it is far more important.
 

Santosha

New member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,516
MBTI Type
HUMR
Enneagram
6
Instinctual Variant
sx
Some of the thinking that you've mentioned there I've recognized as being typical of some of the person centred therapies and been taken up with glee by individuals who have done real harm themselves, or permitted it to be done by others, all on the basis that there is no harm besides the perception of those who have received it and it is there perception and not anyone else's behaviour which ought to change.

Now I have read most of those therapies back and forward, especially some of the ideas about non-judgementalism and unconditional positive regard, which to be honest I'm in conflict with, I think there are duties of candor to clients too and clients can be done a serious disservice by professionals who fail to reflect universal norms and values about harm and in the process support distorted thinking. Sometimes I think there can be methodological arguments to support non-judgmentalism or positive regard but I would not support them in principle.

However, that is a bit of a digression, my point is that none of the theorists who developed these ideas, generally in response to something else altogether, would have anticipated this development, their schools of thoughts being used as rationalisations for individuals dealing with guilt about the harm they are responsible for or attempting a wider paradigm shift, which all offenders dream of, that society at large will join in their own thinking that there's really no victim in their offences, in fact if anything they're the victim of how everyone else thinks about them and their lack of charity or forgiveness.

As I said before in order for something to deserve forgiveness there needs to an original wrong, I think forgiveness is about someone saying that the original wrong will not continue to torment them, that they're setting a limit to the harm done. It sets and obligation on the wrong doer to change but whether or not they decide to act on that or not the original wrong isnt going to be permitted to matter any longer to the wronged party.

I agree, for something to require forgiveness, there does need to be an initial wrong. But I do fall into the (small) camp that believes with enough understanding, no forgiveness is required. It may be that the degree of understanding I refer to is not accessible with our human filters. And because my perspective is informed by/entwined with what I would call, a more individual 'spiritual intuition', I really have little interest (or ability) to sufficiently break it down in any coherent or meaningful way. I think any system of thought (both 'person-centered' or more along the lines of group norms) can be, and often IS rationalized. The crux of rationalization being - who gets to be the authority of the truth and appropriateness of these rationalizations. Are you serving a client if the universal norms and values about harm are outdated, or don't sync up well with the individual?

I appreciate you taking the time to comment on my post, and find much of what you say interesting/insightful. But I suspect that you and I have fundamentally different vantage points, almost in the realm of fi/fe divide. I'm not sure we can make much headway in terms of morals/ethics :shrug:
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I agree, for something to require forgiveness, there does need to be an initial wrong. But I do fall into the (small) camp that believes with enough understanding, no forgiveness is required. It may be that the degree of understanding I refer to is not accessible with our human filters. And because my perspective is informed by/entwined with what I would call, a more individual 'spiritual intuition', I really have little interest (or ability) to sufficiently break it down in any coherent or meaningful way. I think any system of thought (both 'person-centered' or more along the lines of group norms) can be, and often IS rationalized. The crux of rationalization being - who gets to be the authority of the truth and appropriateness of these rationalizations. Are you serving a client if the universal norms and values about harm are outdated, or don't sync up well with the individual?

I appreciate you taking the time to comment on my post, and find much of what you say interesting/insightful. But I suspect that you and I have fundamentally different vantage points, almost in the realm of fi/fe divide. I'm not sure we can make much headway in terms of morals/ethics :shrug:

I would say yes, absolutely, first of all if you encourage someone to believe that their own individual perspective that is divergent or deviant, because that's what I'm talking about here and perhaps defining exactly what transgression is in question would be important to any further discussion, is sufficient to excuse or exempt them from consequences then they are going to suffer, that's a fact, any duty of candor towards someone will involve being clear about that.

Second, and the bigger point I feel, is that often individuals question universal norms and mores and find that they dont sync, as you say, with their own individual norms and mores simply because they are selfish and dont want to acknowledge the harm involved in their behaviour towards others because it'd interfer with their repeating the behaviour which, whatever the consequences for anyone else, gives them some satisfaction or a thrill.

I met plenty of offenders who adopt the approach you mention and cloak it in therapeutic language, spiritual language, whatever language, its merely a rationalisation, ie "this is OK, and I'm going to do it again". Its why there's sanctions in most societies beyond simply politely saying "please would you stop doing that".

We do have fundamentally different vantage points, I suspect its got to do with more than typological cognitive preferences too. One thing I would say is that this sort of discussion can be very fine and abstract for most people, especially students, some professionals or in academia, it takes on an entirely different complexion when you are dealing directly with the unmistakeable sorts of wrong doing I'm thinking of when I come to the discussion and have direct contact with.
 

prplchknz

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
34,397
MBTI Type
yupp
I've forgiven someone on here, for something that hurt me majorly, but i would be pissed if she did the same thing to me again. and we're mostly cool now. :shrug:
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
No. That's the paradox in Christianity that some people don't like. They say guilt is pointless, but people who feel no shame tend to barrel towards extreme self centeredness, even narcissism. Just look at 21st Century Western culture - people are sex objects, the earth is being destroyed and everyone and everything can be bought and sold.

I mean I thought about this tonight because I did a meditation maze at church for Good Friday, and forgiveness is required if we are to stop the spread of evil. Vengeance, even righteous vengeance, begets more vengeance.

During the service, a presentation referred to Martin Luther King using Christian techniques - that is non-violence and accepting blows, without giving up on what is right, either. Standing your ground without lashing out to defend yourself is a huge spiritual accomplishment. Most people are bad at it. ...because people hurt, feel lack, feel needy, feel wronged...so they either want to lash out, or else be a doormat...it takes a strong person to do neither. It's part of the reason faith is so central in Christianity. ..a person who truly feels filled by God's love and believes that God will provide or sustain them, is more likely to be able to keep trucking, neither giving in and backing down, nor lashing out from fear/pain/anger/jealousy. ..because they believe God, not circumstances.

So yeah no, you can protect yourself from an unrepentant rapist without wanting to bash their head in. You can forgive an abusive parent or ex partner while moving away from them. Etc.
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
This is something I sort of wrestle with. Generally speaking, if I got a point where I wrote someone off, it's 99% of the time BECAUSE of their actions. If I were to excuse them and forgive them, by extension I feel like I am forgiving their actions. As a result, I need to find a way to reconcile those things before I can do so.

Does it actually mean you forgive their actions by forgiving them as a person? Of course not. That's something the individual determines. As such, that's something you sort of need to decide. Personally, I have decided that the person and actions go together. I can't forgive one while ignoring the other.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
There is that Socratic idea that no one does harm or wrong knowingly, that if they knew good they would do good, and there are myriad explanations for wrong doing which indicate that the wrong doer is anywhere and always a kind of retarded or perverted/distorted personality, now, a real remorseless offender/wrong doer who has no conscience is going to say that's all people seeking consolation who are unable to avenge the wrong, they're going to laugh at the idea of forgiveness altogether, even your average wrong doer/offender who still has a conscience, which they're repressed as much as they can, is going to be defensive, like I said enlisting theories such as the person centred therapy ones to excuse their actions and wrong doing.

Its part of what perturbs me about attacks on moralism and the whole Nietzsche lite thing, some of the time its people whose conscience weighs to heavily upon them and are seeking some sort of respite from it, most of the time its some real assholes looking for any sort of support for the unsupportable, unsupportable in their own head, unsupportable in the heads of anyone else who was aware of their conduct.

How does this match up with a God who took on all of the sins of the world? I really love the novel Lolita. In it we peer into the mind of a 37 year old man who molests a twelve year old girl. Now, Nabokov never condoned Humberts behavior, in fact saw him as selfish and deplorable. ..and yet shows us the humanity of a child molester and kidnapper, all the same. We see then that Humbert really believes he loves Lolita, he believes in his stunted adolescent emotions, that he needs her. And in the very end he gives her money to help her with her husband, in a fatherly way, though the now 17, married and pregnant, refuses to leave with Humbert, he for once actually really acts with unselfish love. Then we are with him, in his guilt and shame, listening to children play on a playground, and his remorse for stealing Lolitas childhood. This is the man God forgives. We are never expected to CONDONE his actions.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
I agree, for something to require forgiveness, there does need to be an initial wrong. But I do fall into the (small) camp that believes with enough understanding, no forgiveness is required. It may be that the degree of understanding I refer to is not accessible with our human filters. And because my perspective is informed by/entwined with what I would call, a more individual 'spiritual intuition', I really have little interest (or ability) to sufficiently break it down in any coherent or meaningful way. I think any system of thought (both 'person-centered' or more along the lines of group norms) can be, and often IS rationalized. The crux of rationalization being - who gets to be the authority of the truth and appropriateness of these rationalizations. Are you serving a client if the universal norms and values about harm are outdated, or don't sync up well with the individual?

I appreciate you taking the time to comment on my post, and find much of what you say interesting/insightful. But I suspect that you and I have fundamentally different vantage points, almost in the realm of fi/fe divide. I'm not sure we can make much headway in terms of morals/ethics :shrug:

Could you be more specific? If someone harms another person or group of people, or is exceptionally cruel to animals for that matter, forgiveness means we do not repay evil with evil. The concept of forgiveness is to erase a debt - the debt of an eye for an eye. So, to forgive ultimately means not to enact the death penalty to a rapist or murderer. Forgiveness means trying to rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated. And the concept of hell is symbolic of the person who is never sorry, who is incapable of remorse or rehabilitation.

So I mean, what do you mean with enough understanding no forgiveness is required? Are you saying wrong doesn't exist? Because yes, molesting children HURTS the child, so we understand it's wrong to hurt children, so must then forgive the child molester for perhaps having the emotional intelligence of an eleven year old...forgiveness is still required, because it's still wrong, in a tangible way. Forgiveness means we don't take him out and stone him to death...but realizing his actions are wrong means we don't form support for legalization of man-boy love either. People who enable things like that are just as stupid as the people who can't wrap their mind around a pederast having a serious emotional and sexual problem.

If by this specifically you mean homosexuality, I understand your viewpoint somewhat more.
 

jcloudz

Yup
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
1,525
MBTI Type
Istj
No. Forgive only if you take responsibility an attone. Otherwise discard an move on.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
How does this match up with a God who took on all of the sins of the world? I really love the novel Lolita. In it we peer into the mind of a 37 year old man who molests a twelve year old girl. Now, Nabokov never condoned Humberts behavior, in fact saw him as selfish and deplorable. ..and yet shows us the humanity of a child molester and kidnapper, all the same. We see then that Humbert really believes he loves Lolita, he believes in his stunted adolescent emotions, that he needs her. And in the very end he gives her money to help her with her husband, in a fatherly way, though the now 17, married and pregnant, refuses to leave with Humbert, he for once actually really acts with unselfish love. Then we are with him, in his guilt and shame, listening to children play on a playground, and his remorse for stealing Lolitas childhood. This is the man God forgives. We are never expected to CONDONE his actions.

Only God forgives.
 

Dreamer

Potential is My Addiction
Joined
Jul 26, 2015
Messages
4,539
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
794
For me, forgiveness allows both parties to move on from a situation. You're not giving that person a pass, it's letting them know that what they did was wrong or hurt you, and yet, you can see beyond that incident and see the good inside them. Giving someone forgiveness is also good for the person that gave it, because it gives them a feeling of closure. That both parties sort of came to this agreement and now they can move on. Though, I don't always forgive people's actions, but more often than not, I do. Or, at the very least, I'll accept the person's apology since I find people to be genuine and sincere in their apologies. Keep pushing that same boundary though, and I cut that person off immediately.
 
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
625
A prominent feature of guilt societies is the provision of sanctioned releases from guilt for certain behaviors either before the fact, as when one condemns sexuality but permits it conditionally in the context of marriage,[citation needed] or after the fact. There is a clear opportunity in such cases for authority figures to derive power, monetary and/or other advantages, etc. by manipulating the conditions of guilt and the forgiveness of guilt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_society
 
Top