Roses=forgiveness.
Punch to the throat=not.

If you’d prefer secular forgiveness you can look https://www.theforgivenessproject.com/our-purpose. Or see a psychologist.

(February 25, 2019 at 1:29 pm)900ft j Wrote:

---

(February 7, 2019 at 5:59 pm)tackattack Wrote: "Offering forgiveness is a process that usually involves, seeing something broken, dealing with the emotions of that brokenness, understanding how it happened to grow beyond and then justly reconciling that. "

I think this is how it works with me. When I'm asked about a specific person or wrong and whether I can forgive, I get stumped at that word because I never feel forgiveness has anything to do with it. IT,s more like you say, working through it, deciding if the situation is ongoing, deciding that if it is something - whether past or not - that should be tolerated. As an example, my ex was abusive to my kids and I. Forgiveness doesn't come into it. His actions were never ok, never will be ok, forginess is irrelevant. I made changes so that we are safe, really took time to understand his nature so I could decide how to deal with him, worked past my anger, and that's it. There's nothing more to do. I see no place or reason for forginess, just makes no sense to me and if he ever asks me if I forgive him, I'd have to tell him it's not ok what he did, and if he wants to live with it, he needs to find his own way.

(February 7, 2019 at 5:59 pm)tackattack Wrote: "No forgiveness should excuse accountability and responsibility for making someone a victim. "

Probably why I don't see the point of forgiveness, feels like a doge of responsibility and a way of avoiding working through anger.

---

I think we agree that forgiveness is a process as we outlined. That doesn't mean there's not a threshold where you can say forgiven= yes instead of no. Where I believe we differ (and where you're actually getting hung up in the process) is determining whether "that should be tolerated". Forgiveness does not excuse personal accountability or prevent justice. Forgiveness is your process of moving past a wrong done to you. if it doesn't include the last threshold (from my perspective) of justice and reconciling responsibility and holding people accountable then it hasn't reached the threshold.

I'll use your example if you don't mind.
Phase 1- identifying "my ex was abusive to my kids and I"
Phase 2- stopping bad stuff from continuing - "deciding if the situation is ongoing"
Phase 3- putting bulwarks in place to prevent future harm - "I made changes so that we are safe"
Phase 4- dealing with the emotions and understanding the people - "really took time to understand his nature so I could decide how to deal with him, worked past my anger,"
Phase 5- seeking just recompense - I don't see that in your example

As an outsider with no history on receiving abuse, my opinion matter little, but I still see a need for an abuser to reconcile his wrong actions, the damage he's done to the kids and you, and make whatever reparations are appropriate. I'm certain a lot of people say, "nothing can excuse what you did, you can never make up for it". Those are people that can't forgive. The way I see it, people make mistakes and do bad things sometimes. No one can change the past, so what's done is done and what's said is said. You can let it hurt you and stop you from being the best you can be health problems link, but I'd prefer to genuinely move on completely. A lot of times people don't fully deal with things and they are suppressed or there is buried resentment. I see the above as my process for ensuring there is not cognitive dissonance created by things in my life, when I feel wronged. I do appreciate you sharing your story. Thanks!
</2 cents>

(February 26, 2019 at 9:54 am)tackattack Wrote:

(February 25, 2019 at 1:29 pm)900ft j Wrote: [hide]

"Phase 5- seeking just recompense - I don't see that in your example"

"As an outsider with no history on receiving abuse, my opinion matter little, but I still see a need for an abuser to reconcile his wrong actions, the damage he's done to the kids and you, and make whatever reparations are appropriate."

What a great breakdown you gave!

On phase 5 - it is productive if the abuser reconciles (as in rapist admitting wrong, helps the victim just hearing that admission) but in some cases, as in the one I gave, that is not always possible. The guy is a malignant narcissist - or whatever current term is used for that type - and he will never admit wrong, never reconcile or make things right. So for myself, and especially for my kids, we had to find our own type of closure, that he will never admit what he has done, and that is beyond our power to change but we can decide never to let him or his past actions affect us from now on.

Should he pay for what he did? If it is a legal matter where justice serves some good, sure. But if it's to feed our sense of revenge, I'm opposed to that. For me, punishment doesn't balance scales, I don't believe there are scales, but punishment has a justifiable purpose if it deters more wrong doing, keeps people safe, is a tool for the wrongdoer to learn.

thanks for your insights!

I agree which is why usually I opt for resolving the emotional hurt prior to seeking justice. It can not always be done. Sometimes they die or there’s a statute of limitations, etc. . It is most assuredly different from revenge.i just hope it helps the OP

Hard to define, but a pretty good example can be found in the 24th chapter of 'The Iliad'.

Boru

(February 27, 2019 at 9:56 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Hard to define, but a pretty good example can be found in the 24th chapter of 'The Iliad'.

Boru

What do you mean more exactly? Is it when Achilles gives Hector's body back to his family? Did he truly forgive, or did he thiought that there is no use in keeping the dead body? Maybe he did feel sorry for his friends and family, but does this mean he forgave them?

Boru,
That smacks of emotional pleas and is a bit of an aggrandizement in the story. A pragmatic enemy would have simply captured him and used him to get the people to evacuate and claim the place without any more bloodshed and then turn over the body. Appeals to emotionalism are rarely healthy, IMO. Some people, whose egos can be stroked by begging, might prefer that to whatever thing they're doing but I don't think it's particularly beneficial generally. I believe that's more of a partial reconciliation rather than a forgiveness. It's more of a giving into emotion than moving on, IMO.
Since we're quoting books, I don't really ascribe to interpersonal human unconditional forgiveness. I think it's more harmful than good in the majority of cases. The OT and NT have some nice stories about forgiveness. My favorite is Joseph (Genesis 45 if you're interested).

(February 27, 2019 at 10:04 am)Der/die AtheistIn Wrote:

(February 27, 2019 at 9:56 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Hard to define, but a pretty good example can be found in the 24th chapter of 'The Iliad'.

Boru

What do you mean more exactly? Is it when Achilles gives Hector's body back to his family? Did he truly forgive, or did he thiought that there is no use in keeping the dead body? Maybe he did feel sorry for his friends and family, but does this mean he forgave them?

I was actually thinking more about Priam's coming to Achilles, kneeling before him and kissing his hands.  In the context of Achilles' rage, I really didn't see Priam as begging for his son's body (although he was definitely pleading for it), but he was forgiving Achilles for butchering and humiliating Hector over what was an honest mistake (the death of Patroclus).

Boru

Joseph is pretty good, too.  Redemption for his brothers comes in the form of gods plan.  They didn't need to work for it or do anything or even be regretful.  Joseph, for his part, forgives them.

Just balls to the wall brother come give me a hug and nevermind all that selling me into slavery shit.

(it might even be representative of how repatriated isrealites would have seen their past and present relationship with judahites post exile.)