
Forgiveness in a vengeful age - kawera
https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/4900/forgiveness-in-a-vengeful-
======
geowwy
>>> _Committing crime, any crime, was to “sin” – and it appeared that as far
as the church was concerned, so long as you were sorry, God would forgive you
your sins. For me forgiveness was the sole prerogative of the victim._

Maybe the priest didn't explain this very well, but repentance in Christianity
does actually include repaying the victims of your crimes. It's not a get-out-
of-jail-free card.

e.g.

(Matthew 5:23-26) So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there
remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there
before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come
and offer your gift. Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are
going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the
judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. Truly, I say to you, you will
never get out until you have paid the last penny.

(Luke 19:1-10) He entered Jericho and was passing through. And behold, there
was a man named Zacchaeus. He was a chief tax collector and was rich. And he
was seeking to see who Jesus was, but on account of the crowd he could not,
because he was small in stature. So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a
sycamore tree to see him, for he was about to pass that way. And when Jesus
came to the place, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, hurry and come
down, for I must stay at your house today.” So he hurried and came down and
received him joyfully. And when they saw it, they all grumbled, “He has gone
in to be the guest of a man who is a sinner.” And Zacchaeus stood and said to
the Lord, “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I
have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold.” And Jesus said to
him, “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of
Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

~~~
chiaro
It remains though that defaulting to seeking forgiveness from a third party,
rather than the aggrieved, was one of the revolutionary ideas that allowed
Christianity to spread very quickly from its inception.

~~~
c4urself
pretty sure you're referring to God as the "third party" \-- but I'm not sure
how it was revolutionary considering Judaism had a very similar system in
place where offerings were presented to God for forgiveness. Jesus is just the
ultimate offering in that sense for Christianity.

~~~
js2
For forgiveness of sins against God. For sins against another person,
forgiveness may only be granted by that person.

 _Judaism does not recognize absolution as part of the process of sin and
repentance. There is no designated authority who can dispense forgiveness of
sins after confession and penance; rather, sins between persons require the
asking and granting of forgiveness by the parties concerned while sins between
persons and God require the asking of forgiveness by the penitent and the
granting of forgiveness only by God. Finally, Judaism does not recognize
reconciliation (the whole-hearted yielding of all inner negative feeling) as a
necessary part of the process of sin and repentance. Although reconciliation
is known and even desireable, rabbinic Judaism realizes that there are other
modes of rapprochement that are fully adequate and, perhaps, more realistic._

[http://www.js.emory.edu/BLUMENTHAL/Repentance.html](http://www.js.emory.edu/BLUMENTHAL/Repentance.html)

~~~
humanrebar
I'll underscore the point that sinning against your neighbor is also sinning
against God. You actually have to ask for forgiveness from God _and_ the
victim, not use religion to skirt the responsibility to make amends.

------
Xcelerate
I think, generally speaking, society's morals have improved over the ages
(glossing over the whole "what is morality?" debate — but you get the gist of
what I'm trying to say). There's a theory known as _collective rationality_
which posits that, as individuals, we are highly irrational beings, but as a
holistic group, we eventually arrive at the most rational conclusion to an
issue (even if it takes a very long time).

Collective rationality explains why we no longer have slavery, public
executions, torture, etc. Women's rights and minority rights aren't quite
where they should be yet, but the situation is certainly a lot better than it
was a century ago.

I've tried to imagine how society will be different in the far future, and my
best guess is that _forgiveness_ will be of tantamount importance to society.
The whole notion of "getting revenge" will be considered an ancient and
barbaric concept, along with the whole prison system (punishment vs
rehabilitation). The death penalty will almost certainly be gone. I think
crime will be considered more of a mental illness or a physical brain defect
that can be fixed rather than something that makes someone inherently evil (if
someone is born with a damaged amygdala, is it really their fault that they
turn out to be a sociopath?). I also think a lot of things that are currently
considered taboo will no longer be considered as such, barring anything that
brings harm to others.

~~~
waynecochran
While we may not have reached the depraved depths of some past civilizations,
the 20th century was _by far_ the bloodiest century in human history (Lenin,
Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim il-sung, Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong-un, ...) The
vector is not towards any higher morals.

"There are more slaves today than were seized from Africa in four centuries of
the trans-Atlantic slave trade."
[http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0309/feature1/](http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0309/feature1/)

Torture is alive and well.

Forgiveness is the key for all of us. But this does not bypass justice.
Forgiveness can not simply be sweeping atrocities under the rug. A price has
to be payed. Fortunately it was and forgiveness is offered freely to whoever
wants it. But generally few seem to care.

~~~
jdc
One big problem with using these stats as a morality vector is that they are
not adjusted for population growth.

~~~
waynecochran
Its difficult to measure if brutality, genocide, tortures is waxing or waning,
but its _long way_ from being non-existant.

------
erdojo
Great. Murderers lecturing victims on forgiveness. That's it. We're all
officially victims now!

Forgiveness is certainly a valid path for some in some cases, but a person
doesn't have to forgive to move on. We simply hold on to the light in our
lives and forget the broken, narcissistic individuals who hurt us. No
forgiveness to the perp needed. You're already forgotten.

Indeed, how narcissistic for a perp to believe he/she has any remaining power
over us, and can "help" us? What New Age hogwash. Of course the perp wants
forgiveness. But they're really only thinking of themselves.

And if you're a murderer, there is no forgiveness until somehow you get let
off the hook by your victim. Since they're dead, methinks you'll have to wait
a while.

~~~
rogeryu
> Forgiveness is certainly a valid path for some in some cases, but a person
> doesn't have to forgive to move on. We simply hold on to the light in our
> lives and forget the broken, narcissistic individuals who hurt us. No
> forgiveness to the perp needed. You're already forgotten.

Forgiveness in Marshall Rosenberg's view is all about moving on. It means
letting go. If you keep on hating the criminal who stole your money or killed
your kid, you keep feeding it energy. That energy can be used for other
things, and it keeps you from living your own life. It doesn't mean that you
should forget that it happened. It doesn't mean that you approve of what the
other did. It just means - in his view - that you let go.

Forgetting - as you say - will not work. Well that's what I think. It depends
on what has happened of course. If you were called a bad name in school (not
systematically mentally beaten down but occasionally called stupid or
something), then forgetting is a real option. When your kid is killed,
forgetting is not a real option that allows you to move on. Forgiving can be.
It will mean a lot of work, especially in saying goodbye to what once was.

~~~
erdojo
So, let's say someone kills a close friend. Does moving on require forgiving
them for that crime?

Of course not. You can choose to let go of anger and have a good life,
celebrating your friend. But that doesn't require you to say "it's okay" to
the individual who did it and "forgive them". You can be relieved that the
person will rot in jail til the end of their days. And you can forget them.

Maybe Marshall Rosenburg needs to forgive to move on, but luckily we're all
different and I'm perfectly content with my friend's killer living with the
consequences of his crime. I'm not angry - I honestly haven't even thought of
him for well over a year. I'm perfectly content not thinking about his
circumstances but thinking about my beautiful friend and carrying on his
legacy.

------
kawera
Related: [https://aeon.co/essays/we-all-agree-forgiveness-is-
healthy-b...](https://aeon.co/essays/we-all-agree-forgiveness-is-healthy-but-
why-is-it-so-hard)

------
kevindeasis
This reminds me of a book:

Insert the last chapter of Alexandre Dumas' book called The Count of Monte
Cristo.

Assuming you were Edmond Dantes and have read the book by Dumas, would you
still be on the path of vengeance or would you heed the advice of the article
and the last chapter of that book? That is given the scenario that you were in
Edmond's shoes and just beginning your journey again right after you escaped
your falsely convicted time in prison?

