Who needs forgiveness?

your don't forgive for the other, you forgive for yourself. Once you forgive you can let go of what was done to you, you can break the chain of that person or that event controlling your destiny. Forgiveness is practiced by those who are the most evolved, not the least as you assume.

But what if you don't take it personally in the first place?

if you did not take it personally then however did you come to be offended?

My wife is a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, and living with a person who has not healed is difficult. We spouses are always told that as best we can we should not take the negative behaviour directed at us by the damaged person personally. We know enough to know were this negative behaviour comes from, and while it is directed at us it is not about us. When we spouses do this we never blamed the survivor for her actions, thus never had any need to forgive it, nor her.

do you see what I am getting at??

Nothing is more destructive to your emotional and physical health than nursing a grudge against someone. My grandfather nursed a grudge against his sister for 70 years and that's all he could talk about on is death bed.

Maybe I haven't made myself clear.
I'm not trying to back up reasons why people should keep grudges at all.

I'm saying I don't need forgiveness because I would rather try to UNDERSTAND why a person has committed an action rather than simplify it into 'they did something wrong to me and I'm angry, yet I'll forgive them.'

Hawkeye, I'm very sorry about your wife, but I think we are actually getting the same point.
In the case you mentioned, I would say that you don't need the concept of forgiveness- you understand why your wife may create negative actions, you don't take them personally. The actions are complex and the result of your wife's mental anguish- to take the attitude to your wife 'you've wronged me again, but I'm going to forgive you again' is to crassly oversimplify isn't it?
Surely sine you know your wife's mental state probably better than anyone there is no need to view it in terms of right and wrong and forgiveness for actions- just understanding.

In a broader sense, I recently have read several social commentators point out that we moderns are very quick to take personal offense compared to the historical norm, and we can choose not to. I don't think understanding is required, it is a "life and let live" life philosophy that does it.

Compartmentalizing also helps. It is said that 50 years ago Senators and Representatives could argue forcefully their positions in Congress, berate their opposition with vigour, and then a few hours later be at a party or dinner with the opposition acting for all the world like long time friends. We moderns can't do this very well. You see this at a2k where hostilities in one thread tend to migrate to other threads where the individuals meet up again.

that what I don't like, people taking things personally.

Couldn't that be put down to the fact that 50 years ago society dictated that everyone be more polite with each other?
I don't know.

Hawkeye I agree with you. I think we're getting at the same thing really.

when someone does take what someone says or does personally, they disregard the reason behind that persons actions, and as a consequence interpret it "personally", which provides them with such a narrow perspective on that persons actions, and virtually no perspective on their motives.

kinda a chicken/egg situation, does excessive narcissism cause degraded civility in the society, or does degraded civility cause narcissism?? I don't know, but scores of observers have commented over a long period of time about how civility is crumbling They are usually ignored, told that they don't understand what history looked like thus their observation is a bunch of hooey. The narcissism is plain to see, consumer culture is build upon it.

This is a fun topic. A few thoughts - forgiveness has more to do with emotions and psychology than intelligence. It has more to do with oneself than with the other whom you are 'forgiving'.

Going back a little further than this, it presumes that people commit acts that upset us (our emotions)...which acts are normally (not always) interpreted as right or wrong depending on our emotional response to them.


Well some actions are usually considered wrong, hence we came up with laws against said actions that are common to most all functioning societies. Murder/Rape/mugging/extortion/drink spiking/torturing/gang attacks etc for example?


Left it to help the next make sense.

This paragraph is rather unclear. It's unclear if you 'don't need' forgiveness, or don't need your interpretation of it (in the quote above). And to which issue (unintelligent or simplistic) are you referring to with the words after 'simplistic'? Unintelligent is in no way linked to simplistic, which can be very 'intelligent'.

Also a question in relation to forgiveness - what makes it a 'nice social tool'?



Were you trying to say "If you understand that actions have complex reasons, then there is no need to..."? Because one would think that everyone tries to understand any action that influences/moves/changes their world enough. The problem being people very rarely havehave the necessary information to deal with an action they consider wrong (ie an action that has upset them emotionally).

Complicating this view of something that upsets people emotionally as being 'wrong' is the fact most times (not all times) 'emotional upset' is caused by what the person has told themselves in their head.

Pentacle queen

I am glad to hear that you don't need forgiveness. It means that you are at peace with who you are what you do to yourself and others.

But would this peace last through grudges and dissapointments, when they come? Sometimes we need to forgive ourselves for whatever reason, and sometimes the obligation of the love we feel towards our closest prevents us from putting something behind us before we get confirmation from whoever we need it from that it is time to do so.
That is forgiveness, as I see it.

I conclude I've got an armchair argument. You're right, Cyracuz.

I am pretty happy at the moment- it's very easy to see the world as a mesh of objects on different paths when you're happy.
I guess if someone had just cut my leg off then my 'plural' take on the world would descend into anger no matter how hard I tried to be... and then I'd need forgiveness.
I don't know.

The argument that all actions must have a contextual element that makes them good or evil was argued by Nietzche: as in "that which is done out of love is beyond good or evil."
However Nazism destroyed this argument: no one can argue that genocide is a good thing
I think forgiveness is important: its message is, I still love you even though you do bad things: it allows people to move on.
Forgive them father they know not what they do, were I believe Jesus' last words as part human. Certainly a message that not many follow,sadly.

Yet god is all knowing.
So he knew he was going to send an incarnation of himself to be killed to save us from something he created, then talks to himself about how "they know not what they do".

The problem isn't the message, it's the messenger, he sounds like a godly fruitcake.

Based on faith, wouldn't those killed in the genocide be all snug in their heaven houses right now? Is that not a favor?
We know the holocaust was a horrendously negative event and that the reason it was, is because deep down we KNOW that religion is a load of baloney.
We KNOW those massacred aren't cruising in heaven on their god boats relaxing in the healing rays of light emitted by their contradictory, self loathing, ego centric, callous, balls up, many among us assume to be god when in actual fact is no more real than the other thousands of saviors and supposed omni-whateveryalike beings that since died when their followers disappeared from the face of the Earth.

Logically, the idea that we can define our own ideas holds some logical merit, however some acts,such as the holocaust can not be defended, the basic existentialism of the original questioner has therefore shown to be impractical if not illogical. This is, as far as possible, accepted in philosophical circles.
You seem to misunderstand the nature of a logical debate. To invent things that I didn't state and then argue against them is, in fact, lunacy.
Jesus certainly preached forgiveness. I would suggest that the worst that can be said about forgiveness is that it is naive: as it does no harm, it is probably a better thing than most.
I forgive you for your stupid personal attack, because I am a nice person, something you should strive to be.