Another of my dubious imponderables: If one has guilt, what purpose is served by forgiving it? Like the Confessional Booth, wherein admitted sin is forgiven, as though to absolve the sinner and open the way to sin again. I say, if you are guilty, take your licks. If guilty of breaking a Societal Law, you will very unlikely be forgiven. (Unless someone like Bill Clinton is in office). Is forgiving good, then? Or rather a "feel-good" effort: the forgiver feels good about being generous, the forgiven secure in knowing harmful things are excusable. Frank
I suppose if one feel guilt it means one has a conscience or realizes both wrong and right exist or has done something he wishes he had not done except in the religious sense where one seeks devine forgiveness for sin whereby he can feel free to go and sin again. That, dear boy, is merely the rules we play by in the religious world. In the Catholic world its the confessional booth or non catholics can go directly to the Father his own self or I suppose, if one prefers, directly to the Son. Other than that I suppose forgiveness is rather self indulgent or a feel good action, unless you tell someone you forgive them and they mayor may not app-reciate your forgiveness and might5 tell you where you can go and what has bill clinton gotta do with it?
@Bill Boggs Bill Clinton pardoned a slew of convicted criminals who were "guilty". Not that he was alone, in such activity. Frank
Who cares who Clinton pardoned. That's a president's prerogative. Look at this smuck we've got up there now and his pardon policy.
May it please the court, such as it is. Much like a commuted sentence, a "Pardon" does not necessarily exonerate the guilty party of any guilt but is merely a measure of grace in regard to the punishment. A judge, governor, or the president can make a decision to lessen a sentence but cannot reverse a judgement in regard to guilt or innocence without due process of the law. Unlike parole or probation, a pardon simply frees the party from any encumbrances that would be normally placed upon them such as the aforementioned circumstances would normally do. i.e. reporting to parole or probation officers. Also, may it please a much higher court: In relation to a the statement regarding people asking for forgiveness in a religious setting and getting it so they can go and do it again: Romans 6:1 clearly states, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? (2) God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? In other words, whilst people may go and play some games with the act of forgiveness, it's people stuff and not the way things are really designed. Peter said it best when he wrote, "for it is like a freshly washed pig returning to it's wallow or a dog eating it's vomit". When we speak of forgiveness, it is a total act of selflessness. I believe it was Winston Churchill's wife who said that after her husband confronted her concerning an affair, he forgave her and Never brought it up again. THAT, my friends, is true forgiveness and not some washed over humanistic hocus pocus that people do just to make themselves feel better about themselves and look better to their friends and family!
Okay, so if a person admits to doing something wrong to someone, and is forgiven of that wrong, is all the guilt then removed? uh, not really...... A wrong, whether not paying a debt, stealing a car, cheating on a spouse or simple gossip is still wrong. Being forgiven doesn’t suddenly turn back the clock when the slate was squeaky clean. The person who is doing the forgiving is wiping his or her side of the slate clean and with that there comes the unsaid and unwritten statement of “don’t do it again”, or in Biblical terms “go out and sin no more”. But does that relieve any consequences that might come from the wrong? Nope. At the minimum, there is still going to be some lack of trust and if that is all a person has to pay, it’s still a pretty hefty price. As a note: “forgive and forget”, doesn’t necessarily mean that when we are forgiven that the other party is going to suddenly forget but rather the attitude will be as it is forgotten with no gossip to others or attrition expected. Simply put, there is always a price to pay for wrong doings. If a rape victim forgives her attacker, he’s still going to jail or on the other side of the spectrum, if a person doesn’t pay back a loan and is forgiven the debt, he probably won’t be getting any more loans from that person. If a person goes to God asking for forgiveness and keeps doing the same thing over and over, that’s not repentance, that’s absurd idiocy but I’ll let God be the final judge of that.
Good post Bobby...absolutely as always a whole load of sense. One question tho' which has always puzzled me which you raised in your last post..was the act of forgive and forget!!... I've always struggled with this.. I find it easy to forgive people....that is,.. people who do things to upset ME personally..I couldn't possibly forgive anyone on another persons' behalf... . I find it difficult to understand why people act badly towards me in the first place, but I'll almost always forgive them ( depending of course on the severity of their actions in the first place) ...no big announcement , no holier than thou actions from me... just a silent ok..I'll let that pass as you've apologised .....however.. I never give anyone a second chance...ever!! The old adage Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me...applies very much in my life . My point is this.. Although initially when I ''forgive' someone.. and we move on.. I never forget!!...Now in no way do I say I forgive and then carry the grudge of their actions or even the memory of their actions on a daily basis and use it a a bat to beat them with...I just quietly never can trust them again.. and therefore if I'm not forgetting...am I really 'forgiving''? ....rhetoric question , I suppose, but it's just something I've always wondered about!!
Forgiving someone is perhaps one of the most selfless acts a person can perform, and also one of the grandest gifts that can be given. Who, in their right mind, could ever truly forget giving such a gift or why she or he gave it? Now, is it right that after an act of forgiveness is given, that we should drop our guard believing that someone shall hold onto that forgiveness so tightly that they will never again repeat the initial act again? There’s a lot of personal questions that must be answered in order to trust someone not to do a repeat performance. Someone dealing with some vague philosophy dealing with ethics might disagree with me, but no, trust must be earned and not lightly given in the first place, and then if that trust has been proven in error, it should be even harder to earn it back.
I have read some theologian that wrote that Biblical forgiveness is as much for the "forgiver" as for the "forgivee". The act of forgiveness itself releases the forgiver from being consumed by the issue at hand, which sometimes develops into hatred. "Seventy times seven" or however that is translated is a LOT of forgiveness, and it is allowing people to continue abusing others. Christ didn't really address that. I think he wanted us to control what we could--our own behavior and thoughts and not worry so much about what others do/did.
Actually, He did. Matthew 18:15 and on gives us a pretty good recipe for dealing with someone who just doesn't get it. In short, He said that if someone sins against you, go to him privately and tell him about it and if he listens, forgive him. If he does it again, take one or two others with you and consult with him and again, if he listens forgive him. But if he does it again......the whole congregation needs to be included and then if the guy doesn't listen...….separate him from the whole.
Trust can neither be bought nor transferred (except in the lawyers' minds, with a different meaning). The number of individuals over my lifetime that I could trust completely, unequivocally, is less than I have fingers. We can sense it, we can run sublime tests which are undetectable, but in the final run, only time proves the worthiness of our gamble........ Frank
Forgiving is a choice one makes...forgetting is also a choice one decides to make or not make. We are all humans and since we also are each different from one another, we will hurt each other even when it is not intentional. Hurt can come by thought, word, or deed. Love helps us to forgive and with time love will help us forget too. But trust is a whole separate concept...and has to be earned by the person who has shown you they could not be trusted. Trust is a choice too...but restoring trust depends on the person who broke it proving they are worthy of you placing your trust in them again.
The single word “forget” is more of a figurative word in the context of forgive and forget. No one, lest he or she has a terrible problem with the hippocampus part of the brain, can truthfully forget. I rather liken it to taking a boiling pot of water off of the stove. As it sits, it cools until there is no longer any heat left and no reason to pay any attention to it. The water is still there but as it is, there is no longer any real harm or sting to it.
When I asked God to heal me of the pain and memories of abuse...He did just that...in His perfect timing. One day I woke up and realized that I could not even remember most of the abuse anymore...and although I see my ex for Holidays and other Family get togethers I have no more hurt or anger towards him for that abuse either. With man it is not possible...but with God nothing is impossible.
My purpose here was to expose the many "crutches" used by humans to support their particular beliefs, crutches as in ways and means to lead to proving their "rightiousness" of position in life, which in turn supports their belief of acceptance at the "Pearly Gates", given that their lives have been lived cleanly, helpfully to others, and free of wickedness. "Guilt or forgiveness" I used as a ploy to draw out feelings regarding such intangible things. Calling myself a "provocateur" would be going too far. My interest is to "draw out" deep-seated feelings related to the norms experienced every day in our normal dealings with folks around us. The store check-out girl: the homeless guy looking up at us, the managerial types officiating in our lives, the cops,........ Should a cop give a minor law-breaker a pass to inspire mutual trust? Or, should he emphasize to that poor devil the need to remain within the law, an emphasis which is bound to fail? Or, is he generating needed revenue for his department, meeting "quotas", ensuring a raise in pay? Or is this a non-sequitur? Frank