Forgiveness: What Is It?
The recent death of Susan Atkins led me to contemplation about forgiveness.
When the book, "Helter Skelter" by Vincent Bugliosi was published, I was a teenager. A friend of mine got the paperback version and lent it to me. I read it from cover to cover, and suffered nightmares as a result. In particular, the vicious and evil murder of Sharon Tate and her unborn child haunted me. Susan Atkins' crime was, to my mind, worthy of the death penalty.
Well, in a way, Susan Atkins got the death penalty. Not as quickly as the victims' families would have liked, but she died, in prison. I can't feel any sympathy for Atkins. I don't think it matters if anyone felt sympathy for her. The only people who can forgive Atkins are those whose loved ones were murdered by Atkins and her cohorts. What I or anyone else feels about it is moot.
Which leads me to the whole idea of forgiveness. What is it? Over the years, I have read a great deal about it and heard from many people how to achieve it, but there are still crimes in my own life that I cannot forgive; I can't let those perpetrators go into the clouds of letting go that forgiveness allegedly allows. There are things I have done that I cannot forgive myself for, despite the assurances of people that some kind of a god forgives me. I struggle with the whole god thing as well.
I am sensitive to the notion that forgiveness is not a feeling. Just as I know that love is a verb, not a noun, I am aware that it isn't necessary to feel forgiveness to experience it. There are times when it is required of me to act with love no matter what I happen to be feeling at the moment, so the act of forgiving doesn't require me to express any heartfelt emotions toward the forgivee. I merely have to act in accordance with the idea that I am letting go of whatever bad feelings I have had toward this or that individual. I get this. I get this concept.
What is forgiveness to you? What have you been taught about it? Do you have instances in which forgiveness was shown to you or you have shown it to others? I'm interested in hearing what you all might have to say on the subject.
In time, I learned that part of my earning forgiveness from people was to walk the walk of change. Perhaps they only knew me as the bad person who hurt them and need to see a continous progression away from that person and a metamorphosis into a newer and better individual who has more sense and responsibility and awareness. But, ultimately...no matter what I do to regain someone's trust or to earn someone's forgiveness, it isn't up to me whether it happens. It is up to the one or ones I've harmed.
Several years ago, the relationship between my ex-husband and I was repaired by a noble act of forgiveness on both our parts. It was incumbent upon me to take the first step in repairing the relationship, since I had done the greater harm. It never occurred to me that he and I would find such a spiritual release from so much anger and pain accumulated over the years. In one shining moment, it was all released and forgiven. We have remained cordial and friendly ever since. I don't have an explanation for this event except to say that Something was guiding the both of us.
So, let me know what you feel or think about forgiveness. I'm truly fascinated to hear what others know or believe about it. Thanks to all.
When the book, "Helter Skelter" by Vincent Bugliosi was published, I was a teenager. A friend of mine got the paperback version and lent it to me. I read it from cover to cover, and suffered nightmares as a result. In particular, the vicious and evil murder of Sharon Tate and her unborn child haunted me. Susan Atkins' crime was, to my mind, worthy of the death penalty.
Well, in a way, Susan Atkins got the death penalty. Not as quickly as the victims' families would have liked, but she died, in prison. I can't feel any sympathy for Atkins. I don't think it matters if anyone felt sympathy for her. The only people who can forgive Atkins are those whose loved ones were murdered by Atkins and her cohorts. What I or anyone else feels about it is moot.
Which leads me to the whole idea of forgiveness. What is it? Over the years, I have read a great deal about it and heard from many people how to achieve it, but there are still crimes in my own life that I cannot forgive; I can't let those perpetrators go into the clouds of letting go that forgiveness allegedly allows. There are things I have done that I cannot forgive myself for, despite the assurances of people that some kind of a god forgives me. I struggle with the whole god thing as well.
I am sensitive to the notion that forgiveness is not a feeling. Just as I know that love is a verb, not a noun, I am aware that it isn't necessary to feel forgiveness to experience it. There are times when it is required of me to act with love no matter what I happen to be feeling at the moment, so the act of forgiving doesn't require me to express any heartfelt emotions toward the forgivee. I merely have to act in accordance with the idea that I am letting go of whatever bad feelings I have had toward this or that individual. I get this. I get this concept.
What is forgiveness to you? What have you been taught about it? Do you have instances in which forgiveness was shown to you or you have shown it to others? I'm interested in hearing what you all might have to say on the subject.
In time, I learned that part of my earning forgiveness from people was to walk the walk of change. Perhaps they only knew me as the bad person who hurt them and need to see a continous progression away from that person and a metamorphosis into a newer and better individual who has more sense and responsibility and awareness. But, ultimately...no matter what I do to regain someone's trust or to earn someone's forgiveness, it isn't up to me whether it happens. It is up to the one or ones I've harmed.
Several years ago, the relationship between my ex-husband and I was repaired by a noble act of forgiveness on both our parts. It was incumbent upon me to take the first step in repairing the relationship, since I had done the greater harm. It never occurred to me that he and I would find such a spiritual release from so much anger and pain accumulated over the years. In one shining moment, it was all released and forgiven. We have remained cordial and friendly ever since. I don't have an explanation for this event except to say that Something was guiding the both of us.
So, let me know what you feel or think about forgiveness. I'm truly fascinated to hear what others know or believe about it. Thanks to all.
Advertisement
"I am sensitive to the notion that forgiveness is not a feeling. Just as I know that love is a verb, not a noun, I am aware that it isn't necessary to feel forgiveness to experience it."
I wish you could amplify on that concept. I don't really and truly like and admire many people. Remember when Yoko Ono sang of John, "You say you love humanity, it's people you can't stand"? That's me. And I'm with you that absent liking, we can love, or behave in a loving manner. I was a massage therapist for 30-some years, and often worked on people I didn't care for, knowing full well that it was an act of faith; it was possible that through my loving corrective body work, that they might somehow improve, not only feel better, but be better. But there were occasionally people who made me sick, and I drew the line there, telling them that I couldn't re-schedule them because we "just didn't work well together."
I said in a comment on another post that I had paternal grandparents who were total stinkers. They were cruel to me, but kind to my older sister. There constant disparagement was more powerful than seems possible.
they expressed their disdain for me in their wills, and what little I got my sister "borrowed" from me. I could not forgive my grandparents in real life, but in dreams I forgave them, separately, and years apart. "Grace" was the only way I can account for it, in fact I even had another, rather neutral, dream about my grandfather two nights ago.
My sister and I don't speak much anymore; she doesn't want to take responsibility in any way for her cruelties. I can't say I miss her. Maybe I'll have a dream one night; or maybe she will.
I don't believe in the expressed Christian version of forgiveness, and I think it puts the cart before the horse. With living people, I think there often needs to be some truth-telling on both sides before forgiveness, otherwise it might be just Pretend Forgiveness. I'll check back later, Jan.
September 26, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just don't have the answers, Wendy. I think this is one of those lessons that each of us has to learn in our own individual ways and on our own individual paths. There is this person whom I was once friends with, and who treated me badly. I eventually gave up on her and let her go. She has made one very limp attempt at an apology---one of those "I'm sorry, but..." statements. I couldn't accept that from her and told her so. I've come to realize, after a few post-friendship interactions with her, that she is very disturbed. There isn't anything I can do about that, and it's useless of me to expect her to change. My options are to harbor anger and resentment against her or to just let it all go and let the Universe take it from me. I chose the latter because I didn't want the burden. There are, however, some things I can't let go of, and it is in the interests of learning if it's possible to ever let go of them that I wrote this blog and asked for feedback. I appreciate what you have shared it. It's wonderful.
September 27, 2009 6:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is said that forgiveness is a favor you do yourself rather than the one you forgive. I don't know. It must be hard to let go of the pain, bitterness, or even hatred that is the natural reaction to someone who has done you terrible wrongs. If it were easy, there would be no need for sermons.
The news item that Susan Atkins died in prison at age 61 impelled me to ponder the meaning of her story. I recall some of the public details and can only guess at the rest.
Susan Atkins never had a chance. As I understand it, she was essentially abandoned as a child by uncaring parents. She fended for herself on the street, suffered great adversities, and became part of the Charles Manson "family" as a young women filled with inchoate rage that expressed itself in a murderous rampage almost unmatched in its wanton and deliberate cruelty. The murders she committed were more than "premeditated"; they were revelled in and celebrated, with an unfathomable contempt for the victims.
Sentenced to life in prison (after California repealed the death penalty statute), she settled into the interminable boredom of prison life, knowing that each tomorrow would be the same as today, with no respite except from death. She would never walk free, never travel in the natural world, never visit friends, never marry, and never bear children. Childnessness was a legal penalty, but as she aged, it became a biological one. Her menses stopped on nature's timetable, and she metamorphosed into what might be any ordinary middle-aged woman who had long ago lost the bloom of adolescent enthusiasm. Unlike the others, however, she was denied the substitute pleasures of family, friends, and fruitful activities, and the anticipation of a varied and gratifying future.
Somewhere along the way, her hatred cooled. She became a Christian, repented her sins, expressed her sorrow. Those who knew her in prison say she was sincere.
She grew older, and the ordinary wrinkles and sags of age further distanced her from the child-like but murderous image the world saw in the Manson trials. Still, every day was the same as the last one, and that would not change.
She developed strange symptoms. A tumor was growing in her brain, and as it expanded, she became partially paralyzed. The prison staff, who were not unsympathetic, tended her needs, tried to relieve pain and suffering when it occurred, and watched her deteriorate.
Her requests for parole had always been denied, but this time she appealed for compassionate parole, based on her condition. She was wheeled in and out of the Parole Board meeting on a gurney. The members made their decisions for disparate reasons. Some responded to potential political repercussions against release. Others were genuinely compassionate. However, compassion, even if it required kindness, did not translate into a contempt for justice. The suffering of Sharon Tate, the destroyed fetus within her, and the other victims whose lives ended through that horrific and gleeful indulgence in maniacal violence would been dishonored by an act of parole that consigned their memories to oblivion. They deserved better. The Board voted unanimously to deny parole.
Susan Atkins, in part, had hoped for a better result. Another part of her expected the decision, and met it with resigned accecptance. A small, secret part of her probably believed that any other outcome would have been wrong in the sight of God.
Her condition worsened. She lapsed into a coma and died. The prison staff performed the required duties respectfully. There was no family to attend. Nowhere in this world was someone who loved her, who could now come to mourn her death - no children, no brother or sister, no parent, no husband or lover. She was born without love and died without love, and with her passing, the last victim in the story is gone.
September 26, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, Fred. Just Wow!
Your "dispassionate" recounting of Susan Atkins' life and times stands as perhaps the very best obituary that can be offered. By suspending much of the moral judgement and pontificating that usually accompanies such accounts, you have packed a very powerful opportunity for the rest of us to see this story for what it is.
The parole and release of Atkins would not have served any notion of justice as you point out. But I believe you tangentially show that any pursuit of "justice" in this case was never in the cards for reasons that stretch even far beyond the details of the horrific crime itself.
September 26, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am going to second Sleepin here Fred. Quite an obit.
September 26, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
This business of forgiveness is curious. Whether the quest is to forgive, or to be forgiven, the motivation, imo, is only one of self-interest when one of the two parties is either unwilling, or unable, to re-engage. Otherwise, in my observation and experience, the achievement of Forgiveness (whether forgiving or being forgiven) seems to depend entirely on one thing only -- the Willingness of both parties to earnestly engage in that quest.
In a worst case scenario, like that of Sharon Tate and Susan Atkins, it was still theoretically possible for Sharon Tate's family to forgive, or for Susan Atkins to be forgiven, if the Tate family had perceived that their self-interest was actually in forgiving, as well as Susan Atkin's to be forgiven. That said, although this kind of forgiveness is better than nothing, it is never fully releasing, as it is based in an intellectual decision, rather than being triggered by the kind of spiritual or emotional epiphany that is empathy-based. Perhaps the very cause of that limited benefit is that the decision does derives entirely from self-interest; it is undertaken for the sole purpose of freeing oneself to go forward, rather than enabling both parties to be freed in a fundamental way to go on.
Better is the level of forgiveness achieved when both parties participate so that reconciliation may be attempted, even though it may not be finally achieved. It doesn't seem to matter very much whether the attempt is initiated by the offender or by the aggrieved, nor does it seem to matter how long a period of alienation has transpired in the interim, so long as earnest communication between the parties occurs. Something in the willingness to re-engage at all softens the dug-in positions of both persons, allowing the aggrieved to move from inflexible and ultimately self-suffocating righteousness, the offender to move from detachment in the forms of defensive denial and apparent lack of remorse, to a common ground that is may be unsatisfactory, but is more or less neutral. They may never agree, but each tried, and each acknowledges the effort of the other. It seems to enough for both people to feel that they made the attempt, through which each is able to breathe more easily thereafter, which in turn allows each to release the other from the bonds of conflict to whatever the future may hold, independently.
The fullest experience of forgiveness for both parties, of course, occurs when the offender either initiates contact with the aggrieved to apologize, or at least candidly acknowledges responsibility for the offense when so confronted. Amends made thereafter by the offender are sometimes helpful. But if the trangression was heinous enough -- as in the case of Susan Atkins -- there may be no effective amends that can be made. Curiously, that inability to make amends seems to be almost irrelevant to this level and experience of forgiveness. Once the wound is acknowledged by he, or she, who caused it, then he, or she who suffered it can, in fact, forgive, which allows the offender to forgive him or herself. And by mutually consent, finally move on. It is in this scenario that both parties feel spiritually and certainly emotionally lighter, even uplifted; each may feel that he, or she, has in fact experienced an epiphany.
None of this, in my opinion, has anything to do with religion. Rather, in its two better forms, it has to do with embracing and experiencing empathy as an ethic.
September 26, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good-oh, wendy staebler. You said so eloquently that which I choked on. The idea of the better way for the living people rang true to me: both parties willing to participate, dialoging about the NEED to work through issues. I know that my sister, for instance, would never even acknowledge that there could be pain on my side; she always handed it back to me as my problem. She was right, strictly speaking; my pain, my problem. But her magical ability to Presto, change-o! twist reality meant that we could never grow close; our relationship was built on her defining it: she was without fault, she was always "right," her religion was "right," even when she changed religions, her emotion-free grasp of our family history was the True History. I had so few relatives after our parents died that I persevered, but really, in the end, our sisterhood was hollow; now, as you well know, I seek out sisters everywhere. :-}
What you spoke of as more of a one-sided forgiveness may be just a letting-go: there is no joint healing possible, so maybe no reconciliation; but one must not be poisoned by anger or regret over the lack of apology or understanding. Moving on may require a big old chunk of Letting Go. And you're right; the motivation for that is self-interest.
I have a friend whose fiancee of four years (my husband's nephew)is today marrying another young woman. He and his family are extremely fundamentalist Christians; she is from a three-generation Hollywood acting family. It wasn't going to work between them, ever. But she can't let him go, and now she has two kinds of cancer; when she cries, her eyes leak blood, she says she only has a couple years to live. I wonder, and have asked her in our emails, if not letting him go might be making her sick. He was cruel to her, but that doesn't seem to be the point any more, if if all this is killing her.
Jan, you haven't been back here to comment. Are we answering anything you were asking about?
September 26, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wendy, I don't expect "answers" per se. What I was really looking for are others' perspectives on forgiveness. Everything said so far is amazing and wonderful.
September 26, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the concept is variable depending upon circumstances, but I think all the various manifestations of forgiviness requires a release of the feelings the forgiver has toward the forgiven. Yet genuine forgiveness is more than simply an absence of that negativity. That is what makes real and true forgiveness so difficult to find and achieve in cases that are serious or genuinely important/significant.
Trivial transgressions, where forgiveness often comes easily is more akin to simply letting bygones be bygones. But in cases where deep, abiding anger, profound negative feelings, etc... spring from circumstances and are directed from one or more persons toward one or more others, it is often extraordinarily difficult to find a way to forgiveness. Just the search for it can take a long time, sometimes a lifetime. This is so precisely because forgiveness is far more than simply declaring one's forgiveness. If it were that easy the world would be rid of a great deal of difficulty, personal anguish and torment. It is the actual release of the intense negativity within (in the form of both thoughts and feelings) that seems to exist on it's own and to continue in existence by virtue of it's existence alone. Because of its powerful nature, once the negativity comes into existence it can often seem far beyond our control.
It is, in short, an extraordinarily difficult thing to accomplish and something that sometimes simply cannot be done even in a case where one wishes to do so and tries. It cannot always come to pass that we can forgive or succeed in doing so completely.
September 26, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good writers can somehow stand in the shoes of other people...no matter how evil those people have been.
I do not wish to get into the shoes of murderers.
It is too uncomfortable.
September 26, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
hmmm
There's a difference between personal forgiveness and forgiveness by society. In Atkins case, the later would not. I don't know if Tate's loved ones did.
This story, and others like it, have made me question this, too. I think we have to be ready to forgive, and the one who has wronged us has to acknowledge that they have done so.
Sometimes, our grievances are all we have left, and it's hard to let them go.
September 26, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bwak:
Your ability to see, to digest, to analyze but then to transcend is amazing.
For what it's worth, "One" is my favorite song, bar none, of all music that is not Baroque, Brazilian, Blues or random other.
Thank you.
September 26, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've always felt that forgiveness was more for the for the person who had committed the wrong than the person who was wronged. The way I've seen this that I can explain it the clearest involves my first marriage and the child that caused it.
When I was 18, I got pregnant. Not the smartest thing to do, but I stood up and accepted responsibility. I got a job, started putting money aside for baby things, etc. I was in no way interested in forever with the child's father, but my parents wanted none of that idea. In the end, they put it to me that either the guy and I married, or they would kick us out. At this point, living on our own just wasn't an option, so there was a wedding.
The baby's father changed immediately. I went from being his cherished soul mate to being his property. I was treated like literal crap. I hung on, hoping things would change when the baby was born.
I was dead wrong. He showed no interest whatsoever in our son when there wasn't an audience. I was hit if I couldn't psychically predict when he was going to wake up and have him out of the room before he started crying, for fear of waking his father up.
When he was 2 weeks old, he started being unable to hold down food. By 6 weeks, he weighed less than when he was born and was literally starving to death. He had to have surgery on the muscle between his stomach and his small intestine to allow things to pass through. And, of course, all this was my fault. I'd given him an imperfect baby. (Nevermind that he was the one with a litany of medical issues, whereas the only thing that's wrong with me is I need glasses.)
Finally, I couldn't take it anymore. I put my foot down, and we decided to put our son up for adoption and get a divorce. But when we sat down with my parents to tell them, the story came out quite a bit different. His version of it was that I wanted out. i was apparently in love with some other man and wanted to get the hell out of Dodge.
My parents kicked me out of the house. My exhusband and son still live there, on my parents' dime, 6 years later. I moved in with a friend, not half an hour from where they lived. I maintained an active presence in my son's life for over a year, til I enlisted and left for Basic.
But that isn't where the bad stuff ends. A friend warned me one day, about 5 months after I'd been kicked out, that my mother had asked after her divorce lawyer. At this point, there was talk of reconciliation between me and the father, and I still trusted and loved my parents. So when they told me no such thing had happened, I believed them.
3 weeks later I was served with papers. I had no lawyer, and no money for one, so all I could file was that I had received the paperwork. About 2 and half months after that, I received a call from my Aunt, the only person in the family who wasn't on my exhusband's side. She wanted to know why I hadn't shown up for my court date.
They had given the court the wrong address for where I was living. Purposely. They admitted to it, even bragged about it. My date was in November, and my summons to court eventually showed up in my mailbox in February of the next year.
I was shut out of my son's life. My mother's name was everywhere in the paperwork. I had no visitation, but was required to pay an insane amount in child support. I had no say in anything.
As of today, it's been over 4 years since I've seen or had any sort of contact with "my" child whatsoever. But this doesn't seem to matter to the judge when I file paperwork to revoke my rights, or to lower the payments so 3/4s of my check isn't going to a child whose father got free college from the government, is on every government aid possible, and is still living off my parents.
Before I deployed, I went home to see my "family." My parents begged for forgiveness for what they'd done. My father actually seemed sorry. My mother cried, talked about how much it "hurt" her to do it, etc. And then my exhusband called, because my son was crying and he couldn't figure out why. And I heard something that made it totally impossible for me to ever see them as family again. My mother had him put my son on the phone and all the sudden it was "Mommy" this and "Mommy" that.
She has him convinced that she is his mother.
I pulled my father away from the table and asked him for his email address. I told him that I forgave him, and only him. He would hear from me, I promised, though I've been a little lax on this since I got out of the Army and am no longer constantly in harms way.
I asked him to inform my mother than I forgave her. I didn't, but apparently she needed to hear that.
And then I left. I got glowing emails from my mother talking about how their lying was really the best, because I'd have been a horrible mother, you can guess. I haven't spoken to her since that day. I never returned a single of those emails, simply because, for all her insulting over my son, she couldn't find it in her to send a picture, an update, or even a thanks for robbing me blind to support him, and the weeks I spent arguing with the Army to get him medical.
But she felt justified in what she did, because I said the magic words.
September 27, 2009 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kuyleh. Yours is a staggering story. I can't think of anything to say that wouldn't sound trite in the face of it except, my God, the evil things our families can do to us in the name of good. This blog will time out soon, so I can't ask how, or if, you are able to move on with life, and get an answer. There must be oceans of tears in you still. Love to you.
September 27, 2009 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was really bad when it all first happened. I spent alot of nights crying, and I'd breakdown whenever I saw someone with a baby.
I think the thing that saved me was that I deployed. Being in a warzone, I suddenly had my life in my hands. I had a responsibility to the rest of my unit. And with that huge thing in front of me, I was able to force a (possibly unhealthy) amount of denial to kick in.
After I got home, I stuck with that denial. I just immersed myself in the day-to-day. It eventually got to the point where I felt detached from it all. The only real constant reminder I have now is the child support, and I've come to see that as just an obligation.
I don't often tell people I have a child, because in my mind, I don't. As to my family, if asked I say we're estranged. If anyone pushes further, I imply that my parents strongly disagreed with my enlisting.
It doesn't hurt as much anymore. There are still moments when it's huge, but they aren't as common as they used to be.
But I've decided I'm not interested in having kids. Thankfully, my fiance isn't really interested in them either.
So, yeah. I guess it all comes down to denial being my saving grace. And I really appreciate your asking. It was a bit of a relief to unload, and even nicer to know that someone cared enough to listen.
September 27, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Forgiveness: The act of pardoning someone, ceasing to hold accountable. Giving up claim for recompense.
Are all things to be forgiven NO? If someone drops something on your foot, and he asks forgiveness, because it was accidental, it should be forgiven.
If a manslayer asks for forgiveness, because it was an accident, Accidental death can be forgiven.
There should be know forgiveness for some one whom with malice and intent takes another’s life.
A person steals from you and then asks for forgiveness, then he should repay the value of what the victim lost and THEN they will be forgiven.
It should be a heartfelt asking; He must do what he can to right the wrong or damage done.
Not based upon seeking a lighter sentence, only to return to a life of stealing, and then continually asking forgiveness, only because they got caught.
The thief must be determined to change; otherwise the asking for forgiveness was not truly sorry.
Not like the old sorry game, sorry I got caught.
To be forgiven a person must rectify the wrong as prescribed by law.
To illustrate another aspect of forgiveness; A rancher has a mean raging bull and it gets lose and harms someone, maybe causing death. If it was an accident, the bull knocked over the fence it got out, it can be forgiven. The rancher must do what he can to right the wrong or damage done. Compensate the loss to the family or the spouse because of the loss of the breadwinner perhaps?
If the farmer had been warned repeatedly to keep his mean Raging bull, locked up for fear of injury, and the farmer disregards the admonition and the bull gets out again and causes harm. How can the farmer then claim it was an accident?
Imagine all the victims of the Union Carbide accident, and suppose the management knew the safety of the facility was questionable, but was ignored. How can forgiveness be extended, how can the wrong be rectified to those who lost loved ones?
Paying off the family as hush money, blood money, didn’t protect the ones slain willfully or with neglect.
Accidental murder can be forgiven, but willful murder is a violation of the moral sense.
Atkins was fortunate in some respects that Tates relatives couldn’t avenge her death.
But would you say her avengers should be NOT be forgiven if they sought to avenge?
In ancient days, a manslayer had to flee and plead his case, before the gates of the city he was hoping to find refuge in.
His case would be heard, and if it was determined that it was an accident, the manslayer had to stay within the confines of the city, he had sought refuge.
On the other hand; if the qualified city fathers determined the manslayer willfully and with hate, murdered someone, the manslayer was thrown out of the city, so that the family could bring justice upon the manslayer. This was a deterrent to those who would ignore the most basic principles to society’s needs for safety, and protection from manslayers.
How could Atkins say it was an accident? How could Atkins rectify the wrong?
She got the safety of living within the walls of her prison unharmed from anyone with cause to avenge, Tate and her unborn child. Who were so brutally murdered not by accident but deliberate. Never got a chance to live they’re lives.
Atkins had a life and with it she used it to destroy, and in doing so she violated the very moral sense expected from all members of society. “Thou shall not murder”
Just as with the Rancher and the raging bull, Plenty of warning to keep your rage under control, and if not there will be consequences. With willful murder how can there be forgiveness? Not only is the victim’s family harmed, but also Society suffers, when some are excused. What restraint would there be? What fear, would prevent the weakest amongst us from being victimized.
If you have money you can get away with murder? You might be able to pay off the family, but you can’t buy your way out of justice.
September 27, 2009 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe you comprehend the concept of forgiveness, Resistance. You seem to confuse it with exoneration or exculpation. It is neither of those. Forgiveness does not wipe away the consequences of wrongful acts, but can release both the forgiver and the one forgiven from the bond of hatred that joins and consumes them. It is often most meaningful when the wrong done is serious and deliberate, because that is when the bitterness or hatred can be greatest.
Forgiveness and justice can co-exist - indeed, they must. Justice is the principle that civilized societies have adopted to replace personal vengeance. It permits a just punishment to be imposed, while allowing victims the emotional latitude to get on with their lives without a need to pursue vengeance, and perpetrators the ability to accept their punishment without added vulnerability to actions by the victims. Under these circumstances, forgiveness becomes possible. It does not always happen, nor can it be forced by outsiders, but when it does occur, it can be a gift for all concerned.
September 27, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Fred Moolten writes “I don't believe you comprehend the concept of forgiveness,”
Maybe it would be wise to hold back from being pretentious because it is a presumptuous of you to claim it is I lacking comprehension.
I fully understand forgiveness and the value that is derived.
What I believe you are speaking of, is Mercy: a lightening of judgment or punishment.
You could have expressed your thoughts, without implying my lack of comprehension.
Or did you feel better at the expense of insulting me?
Not as serious as a deliberate manslayer, but none the less, was your intent deliberate?
A perfect example: an accidental slip of the words vs. a deliberate attack. One that could easily be forgiven, but if a pattern becomes apparent that the writer is without remorse and like a manslayer delights in causing harm, when does forgiveness come into play?
Or will you're asking for forgiveness, be more , Sorry I got caught?
September 27, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll let others judge from your earlier comments whether you understand the concept of forgiveness - particularly, the enduring value of forgiveness, when it can be attained, in cases of terrible wrongs, deliberately committed.
September 27, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, in so many words told you I was offended and instead you look to justify your misconduct?
I will extend kindness, although it is probably undeserved kindness. Not to be confused with forgiveness.
No more needs to be said, it appears your last post implies Non repentance, from your deliberate words, that were meant to cause me insult. I suppose in your eyes as in mine a petty cheap shot.
Lacking in consideration or kindness.
So be it.
September 27, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am grateful for all the feedback here. It's all relevant. It's obviously a subject that brings up strong emotions and strong ideas.
One of my favorite books is still "Till We Have Faces" by C.S. Lewis. I have long abandoned Christianity as a belief system, but in this book by Lewis I have found wisdom. It's a retelling of the Psyche/Eros legend as told from the eyes of one of Psyche's sisters. In one conversation with her tutor, whom she lovingly calls "Grandfather", Orual asks: "But, Grandfather...Are not the gods just?" Her grandfather replies: "Oh, no, child. What would become of us if they were?"
The meaning there is that humans have imperfect vision when it comes to concepts like justice and forgiveness and love. Imperfect though we may be, nonetheless we have much to offer one another. Which is why this thread has been so invaluable. I'm learning a great deal from reading all that has been written here. Thank you all.
September 27, 2009 3:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Forgiveness is the selfless act of letting go of a past hurt that may have been caused by selfishness.
September 27, 2009 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Selfless because it takes a big heart to do it, but it ultimately is a gift to oneself. Someone once told me that holding a grudge is like eating rat poison and waiting for the rat to die.
But I wonder about this: Truly forgiving doesn't mean to you have to trust the person and become best buds. It just means that you acknowledge that whatever they did is done and unchangeable, and that you have let go of the bad feelings associated with the act; that you don't bear them any ill will for it. You can see them on the street and not feel that negative pang.
September 27, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know how you feel about scriptures, so it is not necessarily intended for you alone, but to others, who might read your comment as I have, and I do agree with what you say because I have been taught this principle.
(Matthew 6:9-15) . . .“‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. 10 Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth.
11 Give us today our bread for this day;
Here's the important part for Christians
12 and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And do not bring us into temptation, but deliver us from the wicked one.’
14 “For if YOU forgive men their trespasses, YOUR heavenly Father will also forgive YOU; 15 whereas if YOU do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will YOUR Father forgive YOUR trespasses.
Apparently verse 12 implies, NOT carrying out wicked deeds against those who have wronged us.
You are absolutely correct, We don't have to trust trust them, we don't have to have fellowship with them. For why should we let our guard down to allow them to inflict us again and again.
would we then say I forgive you 1000 times and yet the person hasn't asked you for foregiveness and really doesn't care for your foregiveness and considers you afool for coming back so they can inflict more pain to you. In effect the victim saying over and over "I forgive you." to a truly unremorseful individual.
(Romans 12:17-19) . . .Return evil for evil to no one. Provide fine things in the sight of all men. 18 If possible, as far as it depends upon YOU, be peaceable with all men. 19 Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: “Vengeance is mine; . . .Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good.
September 27, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The authority expressed in "Vengeance is mine" marks a great divide amongst people who would otherwise agree that the lust for revenge is a cancer that consumes what it promises to restore.
Nietzsche, for instance, explored the difference between confidence in the ultimate Punisher taking care of the fate of each soul (so that you don't have to)and the acceptance of a world where what happens doesn't include a Punisher:
Resistance, the above is not given in order to challenge your point of view (although I freely acknowledge it does challenge it). My primary intention is to show the wide divergence possible in how people think about the experience of forgiveness.
September 27, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no problem of how people would view forgiveness. I only expressed my opinion.
Then of course I would expect the same courtesy from others. If I have failed to do so, I would ask for forgiveness.
Now it becomes a matter of as I stated in my original posting. What is the gravity of the offense? What must be considered? Must I ask for forgiveness in order to receive it?
The asking and the change in attitude or life course, provides proof that I am sincere in my apology. I recognize that I have made an error.
If one never recognizes the error, how can one correct them?
It surprises me that many believe; a mass murderer must be forgiven.
Even if they should ask forgiveness; who are they asking, the living?
That would be like me asking your neighbor if it would be okay to steal from you, or to murder or rape you and your neighbor say’s, I’d forgive you.
To which I would reply, “Thanks a lot neighbor let it happen to you and see how you’d like it.”
Ask the murdered one for forgiveness, not the living for forgiveness.
How is that going to be possible? Therein lies the problem. Disinterested people get to decide for the murdered; you’re excused?
Even in the event the murdered ones family members can find a way to forgive one accused and found guilty. It is impossible to ask the victim. A victim who looked forward to the Grandkids, or one who loved life so much, maybe in the service of others, devoting they’re lives for the betterment of the whole, only to have they’re life snuffed out by a selfish act.
Ask the primary victim if they’re willing to forgive. Impossible Task NOW, shouldn’t this have been a consideration before the act was committed?
Put into perspective, an adulterer has treated their mates’ dishonorably. They may ask they're partners, even the children involved, for forgiveness. The victims may choose one of two paths. But at least the victims have a say.
A victim of intentional murder has no say, and who of us can truly speak for the victim?
Then you quote Nietzsche?
This is the same same atheistic German philosopher Nietzsche who wrote “Just as we no longer need a moral code, neither do we need religion,”
The same fool who wrote “Become who you are!” And selfishness and greed led to violent upheavals in the first 6 months of 1916. Cutthroat business practices abounded.
The same Nietzsche who wrote: “Hope is the worst of all evils, for it prolongs the torment of man”
History records that when Nietzsche lost his faith and hope in God, he not only sneered that “hope is the worst of evils,” but turned to riotous, loose living.
Even as God’s Word notes, those without hope often say, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die.”—1 Cor. 15:32.
Without hope man is prone to turn to loose conduct and Nietzsche life, proved this true.
This same atheist Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, “Guilt is the most terrible sickness that has ever raged in man.”
Susan Forward, Ph.D., an internationally recognized therapist and author. “Guilt is an essential part of being a feeling, responsible person,” “It’s a tool of the conscience.”
Imagine a world without Conscience?
But NO! It doesn’t take imagination. We have recorded history of a world without a conscience.
Historian Will Durant called Nietzsche a “child of Darwin.” The book Philosophy—An Outline-History summarized one of Nietzsche’s beliefs: “The strong, brave, domineering, proud, fit best the society that is to be.
A model for fascism, and Hitler expanded this view to the Aryan race, No guilt, no conscience, when he had millions slaughtered.
I’d hate to live in Nietzsche world. No guilt or Bible trained conscience or any conscience for that matter. Living in Nietzsche world, victims would not be represented, crime would run rampant, a world without law, or an antagonist.
Moat wrote. “Although I freely acknowledge it does challenge it.”
No, there is no challenge any longer. All these so called philosophies have run their course and they have been proven worthless.
Pharaoh of Egypt thought he could challenge the God of the Hebrews and he lost.
Learned men thought they could challenge the teachings of Christ. The best they can do, is find fault, not in the words; but the in the bad deeds, or in the lack of adherence to the writings. Finding fault in so called christians, who do not apply the Moral code written within it's pages.
In my opinion you found a wrong role model if your going to be a follower of atheist Friedrich Nietzsche. His ideas have been debunked by history.
I’ll stick with the counsel found in the Bible about how to be a TRUE Christian. When properly followed it leads to true peace and harmony.
It shows you the truth about forgiveness. Not just any opinion from men.
That's left for another discussion, perhaps to determine which advice is more beneficial for ALL of mankind?
September 27, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have read a lot of Nietzsche and learned that he specifically condemned the conscienceless people who carried out the terrors of the Nazi era. He talked about these people. He condemned them. But that issue is a distraction from what was being discussed; the different ways revenge can be seen as bad.
I didn't quote Nietzsche to say he was right and you were wrong. The critical matter is whether one believes in the existence of one who punishes or forgives sins. You don't have to be Nietzsche to not believe there is a such an agent of justice in our midst. He just expressed the disbelief more eloquently than many do. I am trying to say that there are competing ideas about what "conscience" amounts to. I am not supporting a philosophy that considers all notions of conscience to be ridiculous.
I am curious to see if you can see the divide as difference rather than as a rebuke of your faith.
September 27, 2009 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jan Tessier in her blog wrote “So, let me know what you feel or think about forgiveness. I'm truly fascinated to hear what others know or believe about it.”
What would have been an offering of individual perspectives, turns into an insult, and your suggesting a rebuke of my faith. Interesting.
You write "Am I not extending the same courtesy you hoped to receive?" I'll answer that one later.
You wrote, “Resistance, the above is not given in order to challenge your point of view (although I freely acknowledge it does challenge it."
What? the above is not given in order to challenge your point of view. "Although it does challenge it";
What is it either you are or you aren't?
Empty speech is what I see.
What? It, being my opinion?
“My primary intention is to show the wide divergence possible in how people think about the experience of forgiveness”
What was your secondary intention? "The above is not given in order to challenge" and then a second later you freely acknowledge it does. WTHeck ; Is this double speak?
"Am I not extending the same courtesy you hoped to receive?"
I would hope mature individuals would be courteous.
Hoping you'll do it? Is there a reason to suspect you wouldn’t?
Putting this aside, or to move along past semantic razzle-dazzle.
Attack the idea and not the person is a good model.
I perceived, that if you quote someone as a reference to your argument to be considered, are you not promoting that individual as an authority? I didn’t see anything in your comment to distance yourself from the harm his philosophy wrought upon mankind.
Now you become an apologist? “Have read a lot of Nietzsche and learned that he specifically condemned the conscienceless people”
Nietzsche writes about how bad guilt is, or he says “Just as we no longer need a moral code, neither do we need religion,” So that listeners and believers take his ideas and abolish moral code and the results are disastrous and now he say’s he was wrong? He condemns them because they believed his empty speech? Tell that to his victims.
Surely you jest? Besides I would question the authority that attributes Nietzsche recanted. I suspect others recognized the flaw in his logic and in order to salvage the movement that "God is Dead." The new and improved Nietzsche will have better results?
Nietzsche asked the same question you wrote in order to be dismissive of God.
Now you write “ The critical matter is whether one believes in the existence of one who punishes or forgives sins” \
you just got done saying you didn't quote Nietzsche ...
Then you turn around and ask the same old "critical matter of the existence of God"
Nothing new here, just another attempt by you to emulate Nietzsche.
Nietzsche’s ideas were bad then and now. Calling it Moats new Nietzschism won’t change the motive. Discredit GOD.
You write: I am trying to say that there are competing ideas about what "conscience" amounts to”
Oh! for a certainty I do know of these competing ideas, they’ve been around since Noah’s great grandson, Nimrod, built a tower to the heavens to bring about competing ideas.
With the results being as intended, as you wrote, “But that issue is a distraction”.
You’re absolutely correct; all these competing ideas are a distraction. To get you to follow the Nietzsche’s of the world. Distract you from listening to the wisdom from men and kings of Old, who knew a thing or two about laws and the nature of people without law.
In fact they had accounts recorded, so that future generations could benefit from the knowledge, so that we could avoid the pain of those who had their own ideas, of what a conscience should be or not be.
You wrote “I am curious to see if you can see the divide as difference rather than as a rebuke of your faith.
The only division I see and to those with a discerning eye, is the recognition of those who are to blind to see the results of mankind’s refusal to listen to good teachers and would rather surround and fill their minds with empty speech
(Colossians 2:4) . . .This I am saying that no man may delude YOU with persuasive arguments.
(Colossians 2:8) . . .Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry YOU off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ. . .
(Ephesians 4:17-19) . . ., that YOU no longer go on walking just as the nations also walk in the unprofitableness of their minds, 18 while they are in darkness mentally, and alienated from the life that belongs to God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the insensibility of their hearts. 19 Having come to be past all moral sense, they gave themselves over to loose conduct to work uncleanness of every sort with greediness. . .
(Ephesians 4:25-5:15) 6 Let no man deceive YOU with empty words, 15 So keep strict watch that how YOU walk is not as unwise but as wise [persons]. . .
I have seen the differences clearly, everyone being entitled to their own opinions doesn’t mean I have to agree. My faith is based upon my life’s trials and I am convinced of my course. Let everyone else choose his or hers.
Differences are clearly obvious in deed. As in good deeds, good results.
I prefer a World of hope, to a world of despair. I prefer a World with law and not lawlessness.
A world with a conscience, and not a world of conscienceless individuals asking and deciding for themselves; what is conscience?
I prefer a law proven, than one filled with empty deception.
Back to your first question "Am I not extending the same courtesy you hoped to receive?"
My answer is, NO, you are not. You play fast and loose with words, I expected an honest debate and you have tried in vain to trip me up with your spreading of .... Empty speech. Deceptive.
September 27, 2009 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you answered my question clearly enough; for you the discussion of the divide is a rebuke of your faith.
I take offense at your suggestion that I am being dishonest. I asked my question in good faith and wasn't hoping to belittle you by it. Expressing a self righteousness that builds itself up by imagining the other to be empty would be insulting. Only one of us has expressed themselves that way.
Sorry to have troubled your waters.
September 28, 2009 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Moat writes: "I have read a lot of Nietzsche and learned that he specifically condemned the conscienceless people who carried out the terrors of the Nazi era. He talked about these people. He condemned them."
"But that issue is a distraction from what was being discussed;"
WELL I GUESS IT WOULD BE A DSISTRATION. TO LIE
THEN AS ANY LIAR WOULD WHEN EXPOSED
LATER moat wrote: take offense at your suggestion that I am being dishonest.
far from being a suggestion; LIAR
How is it? Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (October 15, 1844 – August 25, 1900)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche
Moat wrote "and learned that he specifically condemned the conscienceless people who carried out the terrors of the Nazi era. He talked about these people. He condemned them."
When was this?
MAYBE LIAR IS TOO HARSH OF WORD, HOW ABOUT UNTRUTHFUL.
Moat wrote, "But that issue is a distraction from what was being discussed;"
I agree, it's really hard to have a discussion with someone, who can't be trusted.
Then come here saying, Moat wrote "I take offense at your suggestion that I am being dishonest.".......Expressing a self righteousness that builds itself up by imagining the other to be empty would be insulting"
Now to all readers, this is a perfect example of expecting forgiveness, feigning hurt before others, in order to achieve something; like maybe I should fall over myself seeking moats forgiveness.
Why? It should be YOU Moat, apologizing for having misled our community.
Should we forgive him, when it appears that he wasn't seeking it, but instead still attempted to carry on his deception?
I am not troubled, it is you.
September 28, 2009 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink