Likewise.
In a practical sense, as in forgiving a material debt, it makes sense. I lent money to a friend a while back, knowing that money lent to friends or family is usually money that won't come back. I don't mind whether I'll see that money returned--she's not the type to repeat offend, at least so far, and I expected that it would be hard for her to repay it, due to her constant expenses. I could say I've forgiven her that debt.
In a religious sense: If you believe that you can take metaphysical payment or revenge, such as sending the person to hell, and you freely elect not to, that could be forgiveness. In Christianity, at least in the Christian denominations with which I'm familiar, that isn't possible. They don't have any say in whether the Christian God allows the person to be punished or not; it's a unilateral decision made by that God. Forgiveness, in that case, is the prerogative of the God alone. The "Our Father" / "Lord's Prayer" refers to interpersonal forgiveness, but ultimately, Christians don't have any spiritual recourse against those they forgive--they can't send them to hell or block them from going to heaven--so the concept of forgiveness doesn't make sense, unless applied to material outcomes. In at least one school of Islamic thought, though--I don't know whether it's a universal tenet in Islam or not--those who are oppressed actually have a say in the eternal outcome for their oppressor(s). In that case, forgiveness means something, because it can result in the difference between heaven and hell for the oppressor. It isn't the right of the God alone.
These days, when people talk about forgiveness--this is true of when I used to go church, and it's also true in regard to psychotherapy talk--forgiveness is treated like a psychological concept. As a psychological concept, forgiveness has never made sense to me. The person will either improve his or her character, or not. There's no forgiveness to be spoken of if there's no realistic possibility of repayment or vengeance. It can't be purely psychological.
In the Christian sense, as I understand it, believers are encouraged to recognise that they are sinners too, one of the principle prayers requests of God "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who have trespassed against us". For me it is similar to another line in the same prayer "you will be done on earth, as it is in heaven", it is an encouragement or reinforcement for behaviour or character which prefigures the desired destiny/eventuality.
Where the issue arises, I believe, is when the "trespass", "sin" or trangression is much more grievous, it is one matter to forgive (although not necessarily forget) someone who has wronged you in a business dealing, although murder/rape/population displacement? I do not think that there is any way to profess to be a Christian and desire or overtly state you want satisfaction or retaliation in a "tit for tat" manner but its also something very human, I definitely understand it because I have known it myself directly. I would also say its human, all too human, in the sense that humanity can be always contrasted with the divine.
One thing that I do reflect on, however, is that a lot of modern thinking about Christianity, I think is really mistaken, the old testament exists and tells the story of a very different God to a great many modern conceptions. I'm not a fan of many of the Christians who spend more time focused on what I would describe as an "old testament religiosity", as I often think they amplify the wrong things. Although, that said, it needs to be taken into account.
Sometimes, I think Jung's idea of a God in dialogue with humanity progressing inevitably towards the incarnation of himself as a human being can account for what seems like an apparent paradigm shift in God's role in (allowing for all usual points about misconception, language being unable to articulate the ineffable, human incomprehension or lack of apprehension of the obvious etc.).
Though, one thing I know, is that there are numerous, very numerous, assurances that God is just and not in an abstract philosophical manner, that the justice will be plain to all and be seen to be just. That's a prospect to be understood with equal apprehension and appreciation, I think anyway, and largely should make people think about the magnitude of their wrong doing if they think about it at all.