Forgiveness in Full

[Treasure Hunter]

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.

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 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.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

I am anticipating a pushback. Can you not believe in God but still fully forgive someone by allowing that other person who hurt you be a co-author of your story? In my view, this cannot be done unless you view the pain experienced as redeemable, which implies faith in God.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

I had to endure much for the truths I share on this forum. I’m driven by my desire to redeem suffering by sharing what I know with others so that they may suffer less and be strengthened by it. To view pain as irredeemable and thus deny it - doing this only perpetuates suffering in my experience.

Again, forgiveness and acceptance depend on redemption. As a co-author, when practicing forgiveness you are making a vow of redemption that your future self must deliver on. I am trying to keep my word.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Again, forgiveness and acceptance depend on redemption.

I think this is the sticking point on the path for those in the no-judgment mindset. When you realize the necessity for redemption, the desire for redemption and justice gets stolen away from you in exchange for a glimpse into and assurance of a redeemed world. This assurance is like an intoxicant; if we hold onto it, then we relieve ourselves of the burden of actually seeking redemption. Insidious thoughts and beliefs like “Who are you to judge and be the arbiter of redemption” keep us frozen and complacent.

The Son of Man sacrifices up this assurance, allowing himself to regain the desire for justice + redemption and continue on to complete his mission.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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 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.

Here is the irony about forgiveness, as you forgive, so in turn you are forgiven for some past sin you have committed, so the good feeling one sometimes feels when they forgive another is that some negative karma one has earned in the past for some sin is forgiven by God. So imagine how wonderful it must be if you could forgive absolutely anyone and everyone for any hurt/sin you have ever committed throughout your whole life, that is what we are being asked to do by God. Oh...and then go and sin no more.

 

[Nakosis]

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 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.

I suppose I agree since, as a atheist, I never felt the need to forgive.

Forgiveness seems to me to belong with religious idealism. You commit "sin" place blame, seek forgiveness. Without God there is no sin, no need to call out people for being evil, no need to cast blame for other people's transgressions, no need to forgive or be forgiven.

 

[wellwisher]

I am anticipating a pushback. Can you not believe in God but still fully forgive someone by allowing that other person who hurt you be a co-author of your story? In my view, this cannot be done unless you view the pain experienced as redeemable, which implies faith in God.

It is easier to forgive, if you feel justice has been served. If someone stole $10, and they give it back to you, this is easier to forgive. If you are forever behind $10; stolen or your friend borrows money, you can suppress the resentment, but like a giving up a habit, it will come back. But if you think about balance of the loss and the gain; friend eventually pays you back, then the forgiveness of justice feels good. Faith in others is restored.

Also, if the other person, who stole or borrowed the money does not feel balanced; their gets ego inflated so they feels ahead of the game, they risk losing their soul; loss of the litmus test for justice. You can help them by shifting their math back to the middle. The mistake made, is the Christians are told to hold the crap end of the stick and the others always get the clean end. Over time, we have the predator and prey in favor of the Atheist ego. If balanced early, both are equal, you both get along better.

There is an addendum. Say your ego was hurt due to being embarrassed. This does not cause any tangible or objective harm like the $10. Jesus would call this type of hurt, the enemy of your own household. In this case, this type of hurt is not the same for all. It is based on your own psychological or emotional baggage, connected to your ego.

We have freedom of speech. When this is taken to the limit, it can impact one's own household; baggage. This can be due to simple name calling. These type of hurts are not the same for all; different buzz words, since not everyone is playing by the same set of baggage rules. It is not quantitative like $10. It is often more subjective and individual. This makes the justice balancing approach tough. Any action can become under or over, if your baggage and their baggage is different. This baggage is the enemy of your own household; ego.

I have had childhood friends, who were really funny, and could dump on you with funny insults. It was part of boys toughening each other to handle insults. If you were too sensitive you were in trouble. Some would try to insult back, but those class clowns would not feel it. The same equal dump, that hurt you, was not the same to him. They would come up with something even funnier and make you even madder. The best approach was for you to desensitize to your baggage; laugh, stay quiet and move on, or turn the other cheek.

It is not easy to ever feel equalized in such subjective situations, that hurt each ego in qualitatively different ways. You may look for a different attack point, and then over do justice. Now you feel guilty and out of balance. But $10 taken and give back is fair and square.

Sticks and stone can break bones; objective things, but names; noises, should not be allowed to harm you; ego. This line in the sand is where apples and oranges; subjective baggage, can replace apples to apples; objective values, since we all have different subjective push points.

Back at the time of Jesus, people tended to clan up and use identity politics that created another layer of super ego baggage; Jews and Gentiles. Enemies of your own household, would then extend to your clan group family, If Joe the Jew called your friend Mark the Men-tile, this may hurt you, since he is part of your clan; household; clan super ego is merged to your ego. You then attack Joe, who had liked you, but now he feels angry at you. You threw the first punch; identity politics and superego baggage.

The political Left melts down this way. They never learned or were never taught the power of sticks and stones; objective versus subjective. This was done on purpose, to help control subjective language, leading to censorship of objective things; harm free speech. Turn the other cheek, is needed if we want free speech, since the enemies are inside of you based on your own baggage. Leave the baggage at home.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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 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.

As an atheist I forgive people all the time. I don't know why a god is required. It is up to me not anyone else. But there are limits to forgiveness, people that to heinous things do not deserve my forgiveness.

 

[wellwisher]

One of the problems with forgiveness and turn the other cheek, to objective violations, is the feeding of the bullies, who will often escalate and prey on others beside you.

As a scenario, say you start a new school year and someone targets you. You turn the other cheek, to diffuse the situation. Since the bully got an ego boost, at your expense; he likes being the big shot buzz, so he comes back for more, the next day. If you turn the other cheek, again, he gets his ego buzz, again, that makes him feel even stronger. Your conscience is clean. But an evil is growing that is reflecting by your good. Good and Evil, like magnets, come in connected pairs.

Say he comes to shake you down the third day. Now for the bully to get a similar or better buzz; the old threat and buzz is getting tired, so he escalates and demands your lunch money. You are now at the crossroads of strike three. Should I strike out and submit, or should I hit a home run and get even with the pitcher?

Say you decide to strike out; turn the other cheek. Now he starts to notice how the other children, are now afraid of him, since you allow this esculation. They see your inability to act and they empathize. The bully sees more easy targets, by their empathetic but fearful their body language. More potential victims can add to his ego buzz. You may have helped create a monster, that is now let loose on the village.

The next day, the guard of the bully is down, since he knows you will do nothing; strike three and you are out; you are easy prey. So he boldly escalates, and starts to slap you. He then goes after another child. Now, it is not just about you, but also about the monster in the village, that you have helped to create, by your inaction and by the reflection of his evil off your good. You start to feel justified by a need to protect others. In your mind, what looked like strike three, was just a foul tip. You still have another at bat, to make it right. You go postal and beat the crap out of the bully and take out the monster.

I remember in school, most people never enjoyed watching someone being bullied, yet nobody does anything, less they draw the bully to themself. One exception was when I was bullied in the first grade, by a second grader. A third grader, who was considered the toughest kid in school and the brother of a friend, stuck up for me. After that I was bully proof in that school. I could influence that bully by just staring at him and making friends with potential victims. They were all protected and all the bullies were gone. I also learned, from that day, to make friends with the toughest kids in each grade school, as I got older, and use that political leverage, to avoid fighting, while also being protected. Even in high school, I was teflon, able to move like a lamb, among the lions and jackals. Tough guy friends, from younger grades, became the older tough guys and we had a history as friends.

Historically, many passive creed religions; Jesus and turn the other cheek, like Christianity, had what could be described as Knights, whose job was to take out the village monsters. They did not have to turn the other cheek. Rather they were there to prevent and/or eliminate the monsters, in the mirror of good and evil, from terrorizing the passive village. This is why in Western movies, the gun fights between good and evil, reflect this and there is a certain satisfaction in the knights winning.

If the political left wonders why the Evangelicals would still like Trump, even though he could be called a sinner, he takes on the monsters of good, as defined by religion, so the flock can remain passive, and not have to sin, by fighting the monsters or suffer from the monsters. Eastern religions had their Ninja's and Buddhist Monks to fight evil, by the rules of evil, but on the side of good. The West had its Knights, who fought like demons, on the side of good, so most of the good people, could remain gentle as the lamb.