Treasure Hunter
Well-Known Member
I posted this in another thread. I suspect it will be rejected by many - the idea that full forgiveness requires not just acceptance of what you experienced but also a level of allowance / condonance.The biggest stumbling block is the idea that you are condoning the oppression you experienced, and by condoning you, you’re opening yourself to be victimized by it again in the future.
It’s important to untangle accepting it from condoning it, while at the same time realizing they can’t be completely untangled. Accepting it will always have a little bit of condoning it, just like how a little bit of the virus is in the inoculation. This is why accepting and forgiving is a faith move.
The idea means that in order to fully reconcile the pain inflicted on you by another person, you must also reconcile it with the Creator. It’s related to the idea that each of us is a co-author with God. If you didn’t authorize the painful event in your story, then that means God wrote it.
To fully forgive the painful experience is to allow / authorize God to write it in your story as a co-author. A story in which your name is on the cover as a co-author. This means you are condoning it to some degree, which is why it’s a faith move. To deny the event is to not accept it. You cannot forgive that which you cannot fully accept.
The question then follows: can a self-identifying atheist fully forgive someone? They can if they believe pain is redeemable, if they don’t fully believe suffering is meaningless. They can if they are willing to authorize the pain they’ve experienced.
In my view, these actions are a better determiner of belief in God. If someone confesses a belief in God, but sees suffering as irredeemable, and doesn’t allow it to be co-authored into their story, do they actually believe in God? I would tend to answer in the negative.
On the other hand, if someone who identifies atheist is able to fully forgive someone by authorizing the painful event, then in my view that person has faith in God.