You don't see a difference between "I understand why you did that so I can let it pass" and "there's absolutely no excuse for that whatsoever but I'm going to choose to forgive it?"
Its more like "I understand why you did that so I can let it pass" and "there's absolutely no excuse for that whatsoever but I'm going to choose to let it pass".
You’re still letting it pass either way, which to me means it’s essentially the same thing bar the semantics.
So if you want to define “excusing” as letting something pass because you understand why it happened (or even think there were valid reasons for it) and “forgiving” as letting something pass even though you know it’s completely beyond the pale and cannot be justified by any reason then I guess I really do find it incredibly difficult - if not impossible - to forgive.
So do you cross your fingers during the Lord's Prayer?
Dave, I didn't think Marvin was expecting us to play uncritical audience.
Neither did I - I think you've been doing that, as you've expressed your surprise at the reaction to something you think is no big deal. (I made that comment in response to your post, after all.)
Oh right. I imagine you may have changed your mind when you read the rest of my post and other posts I wrote, where I clarified I am used to critical discussion following such reactions, but not horrified reactions. It was the shock that surprised me. Which to me did seem knee-jerk. My response, had I been involved in the discussion, would have been to question whether Marvin would really do that, question what would be his reaction if he had a son who murdered someone, what would be his reaction if a child who was raped by this guy went on to rape someone, etc. In my experience, that is the most effective way to challenge sweeping emotional statements, and leads to interesting discussion.
You both need to note the use of an “if ... then” structure in my post.
You'll need to forgive me ignoring your attempt to straw-man your way out of providing a real answer to why you cling to your assertions of hatred, kiddo.
Eutychus, I've seen people post such things online in forums just as much as say it orally in 'real life'. The heat of the moment emotions don't necessarily dissipate by writing them.
Posting requires thought and premeditation in a way that speaking doesn't. The fact that people take the liberty of assuming their audience ought to put up with anything they decide to attribute to "visceral reaction" displays a lack of respect for the "audience". The Ship says "engage brain before posting", because all of us can.
In theory, I agree, but I suspect in this case it may not have occurred to Marvin (even if he did lots of premeditating) that such a post would cause such horror. It wouldn't have occurred to me - as I said, such expressions are common on other sites. Also, people on the Ship do often feel free to express anger, because there is a context in which certain expressions of anger are accepted and even admired. And Marvin is used to posting controversial things, and sparking debate. Obviously I can't speak for Marvin, but I think it is possible (and often happens here) for a person to express anger, feeling the anger, but also having in their mind parameters of what they think is acceptable to their audience. And this may be misjudged, based on norms they are used to elsewhere.
You don't see a difference between "I understand why you did that so I can let it pass" and "there's absolutely no excuse for that whatsoever but I'm going to choose to forgive it?"
Its more like "I understand why you did that so I can let it pass" and "there's absolutely no excuse for that whatsoever but I'm going to choose to let it pass".
You’re still letting it pass either way, which to me means it’s essentially the same thing bar the semantics.
So if you want to define “excusing” as letting something pass because you understand why it happened (or even think there were valid reasons for it) and “forgiving” as letting something pass even though you know it’s completely beyond the pale and cannot be justified by any reason then I guess I really do find it incredibly difficult - if not impossible - to forgive.
FWIW, I see forgiveness in these terms: 'What you did is utterly terrible and I feel angry and appalled, but I can't judge you as a person because I am aware as humans we all have the potential to do atrocious things, and I genuinely don't know what I myself would do if I had lived your life, had all your experiences, and your brain chemistry. And that is frightening and humbling.'
I don't know if that is the same as 'letting it pass.' If letting it pass means I am choosing not to clutch onto resentment or seek revenge, I guess so, but is that really what letting something pass means? If the person is harmful, I will adjust how/if I interact with them accordingly, to protect myself and others. Which doesn't seem to me to be letting something pass.
I think if forgiveness means anything, it has to mean abandoning all desire or intention for punishment. Which is where my difficulty with it comes in.
I think people should be punished for their wrongdoings, and I can’t think that and at the same time think they should be forgiven.
I think if forgiveness means anything, it has to mean abandoning all desire or intention for punishment. Which is where my difficulty with it comes in.
I think people should be punished for their wrongdoings, and I can’t think that and at the same time think they should be forgiven.
I can forgive you for driving my car into a building days after I cancelled the comprehensive insurance, but still want you to face the legal consequences of your actions. I can forgive my (say) child's murderer, but still want them to remain behind bars.
But seriously on your inability to distinguish between forgiving and excusing, you don't seem to be able to get over that the outcome is the same. The outcome of stealing a candy bar from the store and buying a candy bar from the store with a dollar I found on the ground is exactly the same: I have a candy bar. If all you care about is outcome then you really don't give a fuck about morality/ethics at all.
Consider the following: My friend is late to my party because although they left with time to spare, there was a horrible tangle-up on the freeway. Versus my friend is late because they don't really give a crap about my birthday party and farted around and left late. The outcome is the same -- they were late for my party. The issue of excuse versus forgive here is very stark. I hope you can see it.
I think people should be punished for their wrongdoings, and I can’t think that and at the same time think they should be forgiven.
Think of it as a matter of bandwidth. You probably should think that people should be punished for their wrongdoings, but there is a functional limit to it - the aim of reducing future wrongdoings. Beyond that, all your doing is making your brain expend fruitless cycles over being unable to change the past. Or twisting your mind around the gruesome contemplations of revenge simply for hate's sake.
Nobody expects you to forgive immediately. Just because you can't forgive everything instantly doesn't mean you should assert that you are unwilling to forgive anything ever. Be a fucking adult, and model it for those who will be emulating you.
Honestly, painting complicated emotional concepts with simplistic black-and-while logic is a weak-ass cowardly avoidance to doing the hard work of being a considerate member of society.
You can only excuse someone who has an excuse. You can forgive anyone. Someone with a good enough excuse doesn't need to be forgiven -- they can be excused.
Semantics. What's the practical difference?
Let me take another run at this.
Excusing is something that you owe someone as a matter of justice. If a person has a really good excuse, then you do wrong if you continue to hold a grudge once you find out the excuse. (Take the example of the guy who steps on your foot--you may justly be angry at him up to the moment that you learn he was having a major heart attack, which caused the mis-step; at that point you must excuse him, or you become the jackass, and you are now in the wrong.
Forgiving is not a matter of justice, but injustice. When you forgive, you are saying in effect, "What you did to me was inexcusable. In justice, I am free to hold a grudge about it and try to pay you back indefinitely, and nobody could blame me for insisting on my rights. But freely and graciously, I am not going to do that. I am going to absorb the injustice you did me, and the pain and trouble it has cost me--and maybe still costs me--and let you go free." That is forgiveness. It cannot be demanded as a right by anybody--only freely given by the victim.
FWIW, I see forgiveness in these terms: 'What you did is utterly terrible and I feel angry and appalled, but I can't judge you as a person because I am aware as humans we all have the potential to do atrocious things, and I genuinely don't know what I myself would do if I had lived your life, had all your experiences, and your brain chemistry. And that is frightening and humbling.'
I don't know if that is the same as 'letting it pass.' If letting it pass means I am choosing not to clutch onto resentment or seek revenge, I guess so, but is that really what letting something pass means? If the person is harmful, I will adjust how/if I interact with them accordingly, to protect myself and others. Which doesn't seem to me to be letting something pass.
I don't agree at all with I am aware as humans we all have the potential to do atrocious things, and I genuinely don't know what I myself would do if I had lived your life, had all your experiences, and your brain chemistry.
Perhaps it applies to someone being angry and nasty - which are common to humanity- but I reject completely the notion that anyone of us could rape-murder children etc. There's something specially unique and awful going on within someone who does that.
It reminds of the excuse of doing something awful because of drunkenness. To which the only response I can give is that I have been drunk and I haven't done what you did and wouldn't. There's no "but for the Grace of God" involved.
Replace "drunkeness" with any form of victimization, mental illness, genetics etc. The answer is the same.
I hear your assertion there, @NOprophet_NØprofit , and do not doubt that this is functionally true for you at the moment. However, @fineline 's reference to the general potential for atrocity is well-documented by, well, history.
Strictly speaking, if you have opposable thumbs you are a potential atrocity-doer. More concretely, your understanding of your own motivations really are fundamentally tied to brain chemistry. fineline is quite correct that some drastic alteration of them could render you very much capable of things you currently would not.
These are not excuses. These are simple factual statements about the precariousness of the power we wield as tool-using sentient beings. To deny these facts does not help us to try to ensure as few atrocities as possible come to pass.
I can totally see how it might have been uncomfortable for Purgatory, but there's no way in Hell (pun intended) that this kind of expression would have been officially sanctioned during my (extremely long) term as Hellhost.
I love the word sanction. The fun is seeing how long you can go before collapsing the wavefunction.
Granted, times have changed (says the guy no longer able to be an Admin), but the purely hypothetical nature of the comment still seems obviously free and clear to me.
Poof! There it goes.
Any hypothetical parents who manage to not demand torture for their child's killer are not caring less, they are caring more about letting themselves focus on their loving memories.
Or just feeling a terrible loss that they realize wouldn’t be helped at all by torturing and killing anybody.
fineline:
I'm not expressing shock or horror, knee-jerk or otherwise. A measure of disgust, perhaps.
I think if forgiveness means anything, it has to mean abandoning all desire or intention for punishment. Which is where my difficulty with it comes in.
I think people should be punished for their wrongdoings, and I can’t think that and at the same time think they should be forgiven.
I can forgive you for driving my car into a building days after I cancelled the comprehensive insurance, but still want you to face the legal consequences of your actions. I can forgive my (say) child's murderer, but still want them to remain behind bars.
I don’t get it. What does forgiveness mean if not the negation of punishment?
Can God forgive us but still want us to go to hell?
Honestly, painting complicated emotional concepts with simplistic black-and-while logic is a weak-ass cowardly avoidance to doing the hard work of being a considerate member of society.
Maybe it’s just a sign that I can’t deal with complex emotional concepts very well.
Forgiving is not a matter of justice, but injustice. When you forgive, you are saying in effect, "What you did to me was inexcusable. In justice, I am free to hold a grudge about it and try to pay you back indefinitely, and nobody could blame me for insisting on my rights. But freely and graciously, I am not going to do that. I am going to absorb the injustice you did me, and the pain and trouble it has cost me--and maybe still costs me--and let you go free." That is forgiveness. It cannot be demanded as a right by anybody--only freely given by the victim.
If all that is true then surely the people demanding that I show forgiveness are wrong.
@Marvin the Martian said -
If all that is true then surely the people demanding that I show forgiveness are wrong.
Nobody can demand that you show forgiveness. Forgiveness is a choice - freely given.
I forgive the boss who bullied me. I forgive her and it releases me from anger and bitterness and thoughts of revenge.
I don’t regret reporting her and the fact that she lost her job (after long investigations of the evidence which I had gathered). She’s not fit for management and should never have been promoted in the first place.
Of course she suffers the punishment for what she did. But I don’t gloat or take any pleasure in that - ‘tho I’m pleased she can’t do it to anyone else. She’s a sociopath and has caused a great deal of hurt to many people.
If you have been hurt by someone, you can continue to hold that anger and bitterness in your mind, wanting to hurt that person in return, or you can choose to let that anger and bitterness go and forgive the aggressor. So I could rage every morning when I put cream on my healing burn scars or each time I look in the mirror to see the (noticeable, but minor) scars. I could wish vengeance on my aggressor and want her dead or for someone to do the same to her. But it's a waste of energy, it's happened, nothing can change anything back to where we were before. Hurting her in return is not going to make anything better and might make her want to attack me more. I can consider her to be a wounded and suffering person and excuse her conduct, which is pretty inexcusable. I can also let it go because she is now in a safe place being looked after, away from me, and should be in a position where she is prevented from doing further harm to anyone else*.
But unless and until she asks for forgiveness, I do not have to try to have a relationship with her, I do not have to trust her to be stable and safe to be around. And from all reports she's still in denial.
* slight caveat here - one of the little lovelies I worked with threw boiling water over a prison officer causing severe injuries.
FWIW, I see forgiveness in these terms: 'What you did is utterly terrible and I feel angry and appalled, but I can't judge you as a person because I am aware as humans we all have the potential to do atrocious things, and I genuinely don't know what I myself would do if I had lived your life, had all your experiences, and your brain chemistry. And that is frightening and humbling.'
I don't know if that is the same as 'letting it pass.' If letting it pass means I am choosing not to clutch onto resentment or seek revenge, I guess so, but is that really what letting something pass means? If the person is harmful, I will adjust how/if I interact with them accordingly, to protect myself and others. Which doesn't seem to me to be letting something pass.
I don't agree at all with I am aware as humans we all have the potential to do atrocious things, and I genuinely don't know what I myself would do if I had lived your life, had all your experiences, and your brain chemistry.
Perhaps it applies to someone being angry and nasty - which are common to humanity- but I reject completely the notion that anyone of us could rape-murder children etc. There's something specially unique and awful going on within someone who does that.
It reminds of the excuse of doing something awful because of drunkenness. To which the only response I can give is that I have been drunk and I haven't done what you did and wouldn't. There's no "but for the Grace of God" involved.
Replace "drunkeness" with any form of victimization, mental illness, genetics etc. The answer is the same.
Saying that we are capable of great evil is hardly an excuse for it. It is not saying people aren't responsible for their actions. It is the humility of recognising human capacity for atrocity potentially lurks in us all.
But okay, let's say there are a special select few who have the ability to rape and murder children, while the rest of us are completely incapable of it. How is that not also a 'there but for the grace of God' issue? Whether we are rendered incapable of it by life circumstances that teach us love, kindness and compassion, or whether we are simply inherently incapable of it because we are not one of those terrible people who are capable of it, is surely irrelevant. If such people exist as a special type, then in theory, we could have been one of those specially unique and awful people.
Forgiving is not a matter of justice, but injustice. When you forgive, you are saying in effect, "What you did to me was inexcusable. In justice, I am free to hold a grudge about it and try to pay you back indefinitely, and nobody could blame me for insisting on my rights. But freely and graciously, I am not going to do that. I am going to absorb the injustice you did me, and the pain and trouble it has cost me--and maybe still costs me--and let you go free." That is forgiveness. It cannot be demanded as a right by anybody--only freely given by the victim.
If all that is true then surely the people demanding that I show forgiveness are wrong.
In this thread, you mean? I'm not sure the issue of forgiveness applies here. You are not the person who was wronged. It's surely not your place to be forgiving the hurt someone has afflicted on someone you don't know.
So if you forgive someone you can still punish them, just as long as you don’t enjoy it?
You love your child, you forgive your child, but you still *remove iPad rights (*insert sanction here) to teach them not to *break the tv remote (insert misdeed here).
Punishment should be for the offender, not the offendee. It should help to teach them and rehabilitate them to live in civilised society.
@Curiosity killed said - But unless and until she asks for forgiveness, I do not have to try to have a relationship with her, I do not have to trust her to be stable and safe to be around. And from all reports she's still in denial.
The person may never ask forgiveness, but can still be forgiven.
My scars are mental, not physical. The person who hurt me doesn’t know I’ve forgiven her - I’ve never seen her since she was asked to leave the building.
I don’t think forgiveness requires a further relationship.
I think Marvin is getting caught up in the message to forgive seventy times seven times and the instruction to turn the other cheek*. However, this interpretation suggests that we have to keep forgiving the same sin forever. But wasn't there also a repeated message of going and sinning no more, which applies to everyone.
*although there are other interpretations there too
I would add that even if person A asks person B for forgiveness, that doesn't necessarily mean person B is obliged to have a relationship with them, even if they doforgive them. The cycle of abuse, which so often happens in domestic violence, involves the abuser begging for forgiveness after each episode of abuse. It is actually not healthy for the abuser or the abused for that to continue. Leaving the situation, ending the relationship, is not an act of unforgiveness in that situation - the abused person may or may nor forgive, but forgiveness doesn't entail staying and being abused.
I don’t get it. What does forgiveness mean if not the negation of punishment?
Can God forgive us but still want us to go to hell?
One of the problems is that forgiveness means a score of different things. It's one word but like 'love' or 'hate' has a multitude of applications and meanings.
A relative hurt me badly last year. I'll spend the rest of my life forgiving them. But I will keep making the effort because they love me, I love them, and I don't want to spend the rest of my life living as a hostage to the negative feelings I feel when I give in to un-forgiveness. I think it would drive me insane.
If a stranger did something to hurt me or mine, I would feel very differently. The route to attempting forgiveness would be very different, would feel very different. My motivations entirely on another level.
As for God. Not entirely sure what 'forgiveness' means for him. But its result would appear to be reconciliation with his creation, repaired relationship, and mutual enjoyment of said relationship. I imagine there are numerous processes involved!
Forgiving is not a matter of justice, but injustice. When you forgive, you are saying in effect, "What you did to me was inexcusable. In justice, I am free to hold a grudge about it and try to pay you back indefinitely, and nobody could blame me for insisting on my rights. But freely and graciously, I am not going to do that. I am going to absorb the injustice you did me, and the pain and trouble it has cost me--and maybe still costs me--and let you go free." That is forgiveness. It cannot be demanded as a right by anybody--only freely given by the victim.
If all that is true then surely the people demanding that I show forgiveness are wrong.
Correct!
But here's the point where, if you are a Christian, God becomes a Butt-in-ski. Let's see if I can explain this in a way that actually makes some sense. If I don't, forgive me. I'm still not caffeinated enough.
Ah-hem.
So far we've been talking about forgiveness as a matter between the victim and the perp, pure and simply. But things start to get tangled when we realize that there's a third party to any ... well, let's use the technical term "sin," okay? harm. Wrongful act. Crime. Bad behavior.
That third party is God, who made both of you, cares about both of you, and hates what has happened between both of you as a result. (He also has a stake in the matter because the whole notion of right and wrong derives from his personal character, flows out of his being, if that makes sense.)
So there's God, and he complicates things. Because the perp doesn't just owe you, the victim, for what he did. He also owes God--first, for messing around with you (God's dearly loved creation, who belongs to him still). Second, for damaging/destroying himself (also God's creation which still belongs to him) by doing something shitty that deforms his own mind and spirit. Third, for fucking around with the basic moral law of the universe, which leads to consequences as surely as the law of gravity does.
So the perp owes both of you--victim and God.
But then there's you. Assuming that you are a Christian (for if you're not, none of this will make any sense to you), you also have a certain "outstanding balance" with God. And that's because unless you are a newborn, you yourself have been the perp in other situations. Maybe none of them are as grave as this one. Maybe you never did it as often as this guy. Doesn't matter. You aren't lily-white pure across the whole of your life. And you've done things for which there is no excuse--only the hope of forgiveness.
To the perp God says, "You have done evil, and you are under judgment. You are in deep shit. For God's sake ask your victim for forgiveness and make all the reparation possible, and then come talk to me about forgiveness too. If you don't, bad shit is going down, whether sooner or later. Turn while you have a chance."
To you, the victim, God is first of all tender and merciful. You may have suffered greatly, and if so, you are still in a position of great weakness. He knows that. And he knows how difficult what he's about to say is going to sound.
To you he speaks as a father or mother who has seen one of their kids injure the other. He grieves for you. He doesn't want to see you do additional damage to yourself by holding onto a grudge forever, which deforms the spirit and keeps you locked in an ever-repeating emotional hell. If possible (and sometimes it's NOT possible, which he knows perfectly well, not being an idiot), he would like to see the relationship between you and the perp restored.
And so he says to you gently, "You know I love you. I believe you love me. I have gladly forgiven whatever you have done against me, and I am glad that you are my child. Now I am asking you to do something very difficult, which is to do the same thing I have done. Release the bitterness, the craving for revenge, the fantasies about how you can hurt that person. Let it all go. Leave the matter in my hands (and possibly the hands of law enforcement, one of God's representatives on earth). I know it's going to take time to do this. I will help you. I live within you. You may have to "let it go" a thousand times before it actually sticks. But I'm asking you to begin the process--or rather, to let me begin it, working inside of you."
As victims, we still have a choice. We can say "no" to God and hold on to our righteous anger. Or we can say, "Lord, I have no idea how to do this, and I really don't want to. But I'm willing to let you do your thing inside me to make it happen, if that's what you want. For your sake."
If we chose the second option, it can take fucking YEARS to carry it out. It took me about 30 years to forgive a certain relative, and then that very same week someone did something so horrible that I couldn't help thinking, "Oh fuck. This is going to take 30 years more!" I don't think it matters if I don't make it to the end of the working-on-forgiving cycle before I die. The point is that I'm on it. The healing process has begun, even if it isn't finished or anywhere near finished.
I hear your assertion there, @NOprophet_NØprofit , and do not doubt that this is functionally true for you at the moment. However, @fineline 's reference to the general potential for atrocity is well-documented by, well, history.
Strictly speaking, if you have opposable thumbs you are a potential atrocity-doer. More concretely, your understanding of your own motivations really are fundamentally tied to brain chemistry. fineline is quite correct that some drastic alteration of them could render you very much capable of things you currently would not.
These are not excuses. These are simple factual statements about the precariousness of the power we wield as tool-using sentient beings. To deny these facts does not help us to try to ensure as few atrocities as possible come to pass.
I agree that the capacity for atrocity when humans are subject to a power structure, like with Milgram's experiment (getting people to shock other people), Zimbardo's experiment with role playing prisoners at Standford, and in real life with the 'just following orders' and going along with murder and atrocities of genocidal regimes. None of that applies to an individual determining a course of action within their own behaviour, even if they are interacting with other online perverts. None of the social and power structure pressure is present.
I remember well the social pressure of bullies at boarding school when I was young, and what it was like to be targetted. There's no claim to moral high ground; for a period of my life I probably would have enjoyed tormenting others. But again, there's a line between those who succumb in the context of other-influence - which is probably most or all of us - and those who create within themselves the conditions such that they do their extreme acts. The example which started this, the rape-murderer of a child or serial killers come to my mind as distinctly "other" and not fitting into the generalized idea of the human capacity for violence and atrocity.
I agree that the capacity for atrocity when humans are subject to a power structure...
Sure, the social pressure mechanism established by Milgram et al is one kind of motivational skewing. But so is neurological trauma, both physical and chemical. The scary truth is that who we are is largely circumstantial. It is entirely feasible to extrapolate that with the right covert dosing of PCP and hormones, we could have seen Ghandi shiv a motherfucker.
On the topic of Marv's inability to parse how forgiveness and punishment are neither absolutes nor opposites of each other: consider these functional definitions.
pun·ish·ment
A mechanism of deterrence of future wrongdoing by observant sentient beings. It should be noted that it has no value to undo past wrongdoings, even though the connection to past wrongdoings is a necessary trigger to allow correct function.
for·give·ness
A mechanism by which a sentient being allows itself to move the fuck on after suffering a wrongdoing. It does not undo past punishments to the wrongdoer, nor does it prevent the learning of lessons about past wrongdoings.
I agree that the capacity for atrocity when humans are subject to a power structure...
Sure, the social pressure mechanism established by Milgram et al is one kind of motivational skewing. But so is neurological trauma, both physical and chemical. The scary truth is that who we are is largely circumstantial. It is entirely feasible to extrapolate that with the right covert dosing of PCP and hormones, we could have seen Ghandi shiv a motherfucker.
This gets us to nature and nuture. I write "and" deliberately. The understanding being that genes may be switched on and off by life experiences. Some lack some of the genes such that there's nothing to switch on. Thus I suspect Gandhi would not shiv a motherfucker. His life experience and pattern of behaviour suggests not. Though I think "Ghandi shiv a motherfucker" either is or should be a rap song lyric.
Yeah, I meant to say, my aggressor is sectioned in a secure psychiatric unit for treatment - which probably is not something Marvin would regard as punishment.
Let's see if I can explain this in a way that actually makes some sense. If I don't, forgive me. I'm still not caffeinated enough.
Dammit LC, why do you have to be so eloquent and reasonable and shit? You’ve got a way with words that somehow I can’t argue logically against even while the emotional part of my mind/psyche/soul screams its dissent. Do you realise how much that fucking hurts?
And before the rest of you start gloating, consider this: none of you other motherfuckers could get me to that point. Not even RooK, who I love like a brother even though I’ve never met him and he keeps shoving spider pictures in my face. The bastard.
Let's see if I can explain this in a way that actually makes some sense. If I don't, forgive me. I'm still not caffeinated enough.
Dammit LC, why do you have to be so eloquent and reasonable and shit? You’ve got a way with words that somehow I can’t argue logically against even while the emotional part of my mind/psyche/soul screams its dissent. Do you realise how much that fucking hurts?
I'll give LC top marks for that - I miss this sort of talk amongst all the other intellectual gobbledegook PhD stuff.
...If we chose the second option, it can take fucking YEARS to carry it out. It took me about 30 years to forgive a certain relative, and then that very same week someone did something so horrible that I couldn't help thinking, "Oh fuck. This is going to take 30 years more!" I don't think it matters if I don't make it to the end of the working-on-forgiving cycle before I die. The point is that I'm on it. The healing process has begun, even if it isn't finished or anywhere near finished.
Thank you, @Lamb Chopped. That was a beautiful post.
Comments
You both need to note the use of an “if ... then” structure in my post.
Oh right. I imagine you may have changed your mind when you read the rest of my post and other posts I wrote, where I clarified I am used to critical discussion following such reactions, but not horrified reactions. It was the shock that surprised me. Which to me did seem knee-jerk. My response, had I been involved in the discussion, would have been to question whether Marvin would really do that, question what would be his reaction if he had a son who murdered someone, what would be his reaction if a child who was raped by this guy went on to rape someone, etc. In my experience, that is the most effective way to challenge sweeping emotional statements, and leads to interesting discussion.
You'll need to forgive me ignoring your attempt to straw-man your way out of providing a real answer to why you cling to your assertions of hatred, kiddo.
In theory, I agree, but I suspect in this case it may not have occurred to Marvin (even if he did lots of premeditating) that such a post would cause such horror. It wouldn't have occurred to me - as I said, such expressions are common on other sites. Also, people on the Ship do often feel free to express anger, because there is a context in which certain expressions of anger are accepted and even admired. And Marvin is used to posting controversial things, and sparking debate. Obviously I can't speak for Marvin, but I think it is possible (and often happens here) for a person to express anger, feeling the anger, but also having in their mind parameters of what they think is acceptable to their audience. And this may be misjudged, based on norms they are used to elsewhere.
FWIW, I see forgiveness in these terms: 'What you did is utterly terrible and I feel angry and appalled, but I can't judge you as a person because I am aware as humans we all have the potential to do atrocious things, and I genuinely don't know what I myself would do if I had lived your life, had all your experiences, and your brain chemistry. And that is frightening and humbling.'
I don't know if that is the same as 'letting it pass.' If letting it pass means I am choosing not to clutch onto resentment or seek revenge, I guess so, but is that really what letting something pass means? If the person is harmful, I will adjust how/if I interact with them accordingly, to protect myself and others. Which doesn't seem to me to be letting something pass.
I think people should be punished for their wrongdoings, and I can’t think that and at the same time think they should be forgiven.
I can forgive you for driving my car into a building days after I cancelled the comprehensive insurance, but still want you to face the legal consequences of your actions. I can forgive my (say) child's murderer, but still want them to remain behind bars.
But seriously on your inability to distinguish between forgiving and excusing, you don't seem to be able to get over that the outcome is the same. The outcome of stealing a candy bar from the store and buying a candy bar from the store with a dollar I found on the ground is exactly the same: I have a candy bar. If all you care about is outcome then you really don't give a fuck about morality/ethics at all.
Consider the following: My friend is late to my party because although they left with time to spare, there was a horrible tangle-up on the freeway. Versus my friend is late because they don't really give a crap about my birthday party and farted around and left late. The outcome is the same -- they were late for my party. The issue of excuse versus forgive here is very stark. I hope you can see it.
Think of it as a matter of bandwidth. You probably should think that people should be punished for their wrongdoings, but there is a functional limit to it - the aim of reducing future wrongdoings. Beyond that, all your doing is making your brain expend fruitless cycles over being unable to change the past. Or twisting your mind around the gruesome contemplations of revenge simply for hate's sake.
Nobody expects you to forgive immediately. Just because you can't forgive everything instantly doesn't mean you should assert that you are unwilling to forgive anything ever. Be a fucking adult, and model it for those who will be emulating you.
Let me take another run at this.
Excusing is something that you owe someone as a matter of justice. If a person has a really good excuse, then you do wrong if you continue to hold a grudge once you find out the excuse. (Take the example of the guy who steps on your foot--you may justly be angry at him up to the moment that you learn he was having a major heart attack, which caused the mis-step; at that point you must excuse him, or you become the jackass, and you are now in the wrong.
Forgiving is not a matter of justice, but injustice. When you forgive, you are saying in effect, "What you did to me was inexcusable. In justice, I am free to hold a grudge about it and try to pay you back indefinitely, and nobody could blame me for insisting on my rights. But freely and graciously, I am not going to do that. I am going to absorb the injustice you did me, and the pain and trouble it has cost me--and maybe still costs me--and let you go free." That is forgiveness. It cannot be demanded as a right by anybody--only freely given by the victim.
Perhaps it applies to someone being angry and nasty - which are common to humanity- but I reject completely the notion that anyone of us could rape-murder children etc. There's something specially unique and awful going on within someone who does that.
It reminds of the excuse of doing something awful because of drunkenness. To which the only response I can give is that I have been drunk and I haven't done what you did and wouldn't. There's no "but for the Grace of God" involved.
Replace "drunkeness" with any form of victimization, mental illness, genetics etc. The answer is the same.
Strictly speaking, if you have opposable thumbs you are a potential atrocity-doer. More concretely, your understanding of your own motivations really are fundamentally tied to brain chemistry. fineline is quite correct that some drastic alteration of them could render you very much capable of things you currently would not.
These are not excuses. These are simple factual statements about the precariousness of the power we wield as tool-using sentient beings. To deny these facts does not help us to try to ensure as few atrocities as possible come to pass.
fineline:
I'm not expressing shock or horror, knee-jerk or otherwise. A measure of disgust, perhaps.
I don’t get it. What does forgiveness mean if not the negation of punishment?
Can God forgive us but still want us to go to hell?
Maybe it’s just a sign that I can’t deal with complex emotional concepts very well.
If all that is true then surely the people demanding that I show forgiveness are wrong.
Nor does forgiving everyone who commits one.
Nobody can demand that you show forgiveness. Forgiveness is a choice - freely given.
I forgive the boss who bullied me. I forgive her and it releases me from anger and bitterness and thoughts of revenge.
I don’t regret reporting her and the fact that she lost her job (after long investigations of the evidence which I had gathered). She’s not fit for management and should never have been promoted in the first place.
Of course she suffers the punishment for what she did. But I don’t gloat or take any pleasure in that - ‘tho I’m pleased she can’t do it to anyone else. She’s a sociopath and has caused a great deal of hurt to many people.
But unless and until she asks for forgiveness, I do not have to try to have a relationship with her, I do not have to trust her to be stable and safe to be around. And from all reports she's still in denial.
* slight caveat here - one of the little lovelies I worked with threw boiling water over a prison officer causing severe injuries.
Saying that we are capable of great evil is hardly an excuse for it. It is not saying people aren't responsible for their actions. It is the humility of recognising human capacity for atrocity potentially lurks in us all.
But okay, let's say there are a special select few who have the ability to rape and murder children, while the rest of us are completely incapable of it. How is that not also a 'there but for the grace of God' issue? Whether we are rendered incapable of it by life circumstances that teach us love, kindness and compassion, or whether we are simply inherently incapable of it because we are not one of those terrible people who are capable of it, is surely irrelevant. If such people exist as a special type, then in theory, we could have been one of those specially unique and awful people.
In this thread, you mean? I'm not sure the issue of forgiveness applies here. You are not the person who was wronged. It's surely not your place to be forgiving the hurt someone has afflicted on someone you don't know.
You are no more compelled to forgive than you are to exact revenge. It's a choice you have to make. Each holds their own perils.
You love your child, you forgive your child, but you still *remove iPad rights (*insert sanction here) to teach them not to *break the tv remote (insert misdeed here).
Punishment should be for the offender, not the offendee. It should help to teach them and rehabilitate them to live in civilised society.
The person may never ask forgiveness, but can still be forgiven.
My scars are mental, not physical. The person who hurt me doesn’t know I’ve forgiven her - I’ve never seen her since she was asked to leave the building.
I don’t think forgiveness requires a further relationship.
*although there are other interpretations there too
One of the problems is that forgiveness means a score of different things. It's one word but like 'love' or 'hate' has a multitude of applications and meanings.
A relative hurt me badly last year. I'll spend the rest of my life forgiving them. But I will keep making the effort because they love me, I love them, and I don't want to spend the rest of my life living as a hostage to the negative feelings I feel when I give in to un-forgiveness. I think it would drive me insane.
If a stranger did something to hurt me or mine, I would feel very differently. The route to attempting forgiveness would be very different, would feel very different. My motivations entirely on another level.
As for God. Not entirely sure what 'forgiveness' means for him. But its result would appear to be reconciliation with his creation, repaired relationship, and mutual enjoyment of said relationship. I imagine there are numerous processes involved!
Correct!
But here's the point where, if you are a Christian, God becomes a Butt-in-ski. Let's see if I can explain this in a way that actually makes some sense. If I don't, forgive me. I'm still not caffeinated enough.
Ah-hem.
So far we've been talking about forgiveness as a matter between the victim and the perp, pure and simply. But things start to get tangled when we realize that there's a third party to any ... well, let's use the technical term "sin," okay? harm. Wrongful act. Crime. Bad behavior.
That third party is God, who made both of you, cares about both of you, and hates what has happened between both of you as a result. (He also has a stake in the matter because the whole notion of right and wrong derives from his personal character, flows out of his being, if that makes sense.)
So there's God, and he complicates things. Because the perp doesn't just owe you, the victim, for what he did. He also owes God--first, for messing around with you (God's dearly loved creation, who belongs to him still). Second, for damaging/destroying himself (also God's creation which still belongs to him) by doing something shitty that deforms his own mind and spirit. Third, for fucking around with the basic moral law of the universe, which leads to consequences as surely as the law of gravity does.
So the perp owes both of you--victim and God.
But then there's you. Assuming that you are a Christian (for if you're not, none of this will make any sense to you), you also have a certain "outstanding balance" with God. And that's because unless you are a newborn, you yourself have been the perp in other situations. Maybe none of them are as grave as this one. Maybe you never did it as often as this guy. Doesn't matter. You aren't lily-white pure across the whole of your life. And you've done things for which there is no excuse--only the hope of forgiveness.
To the perp God says, "You have done evil, and you are under judgment. You are in deep shit. For God's sake ask your victim for forgiveness and make all the reparation possible, and then come talk to me about forgiveness too. If you don't, bad shit is going down, whether sooner or later. Turn while you have a chance."
To you, the victim, God is first of all tender and merciful. You may have suffered greatly, and if so, you are still in a position of great weakness. He knows that. And he knows how difficult what he's about to say is going to sound.
To you he speaks as a father or mother who has seen one of their kids injure the other. He grieves for you. He doesn't want to see you do additional damage to yourself by holding onto a grudge forever, which deforms the spirit and keeps you locked in an ever-repeating emotional hell. If possible (and sometimes it's NOT possible, which he knows perfectly well, not being an idiot), he would like to see the relationship between you and the perp restored.
And so he says to you gently, "You know I love you. I believe you love me. I have gladly forgiven whatever you have done against me, and I am glad that you are my child. Now I am asking you to do something very difficult, which is to do the same thing I have done. Release the bitterness, the craving for revenge, the fantasies about how you can hurt that person. Let it all go. Leave the matter in my hands (and possibly the hands of law enforcement, one of God's representatives on earth). I know it's going to take time to do this. I will help you. I live within you. You may have to "let it go" a thousand times before it actually sticks. But I'm asking you to begin the process--or rather, to let me begin it, working inside of you."
As victims, we still have a choice. We can say "no" to God and hold on to our righteous anger. Or we can say, "Lord, I have no idea how to do this, and I really don't want to. But I'm willing to let you do your thing inside me to make it happen, if that's what you want. For your sake."
If we chose the second option, it can take fucking YEARS to carry it out. It took me about 30 years to forgive a certain relative, and then that very same week someone did something so horrible that I couldn't help thinking, "Oh fuck. This is going to take 30 years more!" I don't think it matters if I don't make it to the end of the working-on-forgiving cycle before I die. The point is that I'm on it. The healing process has begun, even if it isn't finished or anywhere near finished.
I agree that the capacity for atrocity when humans are subject to a power structure, like with Milgram's experiment (getting people to shock other people), Zimbardo's experiment with role playing prisoners at Standford, and in real life with the 'just following orders' and going along with murder and atrocities of genocidal regimes. None of that applies to an individual determining a course of action within their own behaviour, even if they are interacting with other online perverts. None of the social and power structure pressure is present.
I remember well the social pressure of bullies at boarding school when I was young, and what it was like to be targetted. There's no claim to moral high ground; for a period of my life I probably would have enjoyed tormenting others. But again, there's a line between those who succumb in the context of other-influence - which is probably most or all of us - and those who create within themselves the conditions such that they do their extreme acts. The example which started this, the rape-murderer of a child or serial killers come to my mind as distinctly "other" and not fitting into the generalized idea of the human capacity for violence and atrocity.
Sure, the social pressure mechanism established by Milgram et al is one kind of motivational skewing. But so is neurological trauma, both physical and chemical. The scary truth is that who we are is largely circumstantial. It is entirely feasible to extrapolate that with the right covert dosing of PCP and hormones, we could have seen Ghandi shiv a motherfucker.
pun·ish·ment
A mechanism of deterrence of future wrongdoing by observant sentient beings. It should be noted that it has no value to undo past wrongdoings, even though the connection to past wrongdoings is a necessary trigger to allow correct function.
for·give·ness
A mechanism by which a sentient being allows itself to move the fuck on after suffering a wrongdoing. It does not undo past punishments to the wrongdoer, nor does it prevent the learning of lessons about past wrongdoings.
I just want it put on record that this is my favourite sentence in the entire history of written communication.
This gets us to nature and nuture. I write "and" deliberately. The understanding being that genes may be switched on and off by life experiences. Some lack some of the genes such that there's nothing to switch on. Thus I suspect Gandhi would not shiv a motherfucker. His life experience and pattern of behaviour suggests not. Though I think "Ghandi shiv a motherfucker" either is or should be a rap song lyric.
Dammit LC, why do you have to be so eloquent and reasonable and shit? You’ve got a way with words that somehow I can’t argue logically against even while the emotional part of my mind/psyche/soul screams its dissent. Do you realise how much that fucking hurts?
And before the rest of you start gloating, consider this: none of you other motherfuckers could get me to that point. Not even RooK, who I love like a brother even though I’ve never met him and he keeps shoving spider pictures in my face. The bastard.
It’s not a competition.
I know exactly what you mean. This is what I regularly yell at God about. And yes, it bloody HURTS.
I'll give LC top marks for that - I miss this sort of talk amongst all the other intellectual gobbledegook PhD stuff.
Not sure I can forgive that.