I Am That I Am & Those Religious Movements

[Cerise]

My apologies for applying the comment to myself,

 

I guess I don't understand why there should have to be a choice between anger, vengenance, vindication and forgiveness, as if they can't follow on from each other.

 

Hope that doesn't sound too evangelical

 

Nope. Not too evangelical.

 

Something interesting I've noticed, just through my interaction with children (you might have noticed this as well Hesitent), I had babysat a boy who had gone through some trauma. I noticed that for a significant period after the trauma, he would request the same bed time story over and over again. This, in itself, is nothing new. Children, when they like a tale, like to hear it numerous times. However, I found it strange that the particular tale he liked was Cinderella. And not just any Cinderella, but the Grimm Brother's Version of the story, with all it's cut off toes and heels and burning iron shoes.

 

I was, at first, afraid that the somewhat graphic depictions of torture included in the fairytale would give the child nightmares, but they seemed to, instead, soothe him greatly. When he became a bit older he stopped asking for that particular story.

 

I wonder if these raw fairy tales, where the villains are always put to death or turned into beggers, or have their limbs hacked off, and where the hero is always rewarded more then amply for their hardship, is a way for some children to work out feelings of retribution and vengeance. An attraction to these stories then becomes a way of acting out a scenario of justice which probably wouldn't be possible in the real world.

 

I noticed the same thing with my cousins playing barbies, in which a certain storyline would be re-enacted over and over again, where villains were tortured and heads were popped off (which I would then be required to squeeze back on for further use). If forgiveness was ever granted in these games, it was not until a suitably horrific punishment had befallen those who dared thwart the heros and heroines. If you've even worked with children who have be involved in Play Therapy methods, I think the same occurence would crop up.

 

Detective fiction, the newest wave of crime television shows, in which more often then not a villain is caught by clever and resourceful heros and punished accordingly, have become our newest brand of fairytales. A place where vengeance and social mores can be safely acted out. Bad people are always found out and punished for their bad deeds. Justice prevails.

 

Forgiveness, I think, operates within a different dialogue, where it is no longer about social mores, justice, or therapy through storytelling, but more of an attitude concerning the aftermath. What comes next? How shall I operate in this new, unjust society? What can be done that is socially acceptable? What face can I show to the world that protects me?

 

But there is no point in forcing people towards a show of forgiveness, just to comfortably place victim and perpetrator in a relation to each other which would not threaten to disrupt society. The boy who needed to hear Cinderella every night knows that he cannot feasibly punish the one who hurt him in the way that would be deserved. Outwardly, at least, the perpetrator must be forgiven (in the sense that he is dismissed from consious thought, speech, action). But by discussing Cinderella, the boy gains something I would consider more precious then forgiveness: a knowledge that even if it is only possible in fantasy worlds, harm deserves an equal punishment, and good deserves an equal reward.

[Amanda]

IMO, FWIW, forgiveness and condoning or excusing a behavior are totally different things.

 

It seems to me, one can forgive the perpetrator even on the way to the police department to file a report against them, and testify against them in court with all one's inner strength, and hopefully see justice in their sentence. Initial anger can be healthy and certainly called for also.

 

That's just my .02, and maybe not worth that.

 

BTW Cerise, I like your story, what you're saying, AND agree with you much more than I think I'm able to communicate effectively.

[crazy-tiger]

IMO, FWIW, forgiveness and condoning or excusing a behavior are totally different things.

 

It seems to me, one can forgive the perpetrator even on the way to the police department to file a report against them, and testify against them in court with all one's inner strength, and hopefully see justice in their sentence.

One question that springs to mind...

 

How many times would you forgive a person for exactly the same "offense" before realising that you're wasting your time? How often could you forgive someone for attacking you before realising that it's not stopping them?

 

Forgiving someone is fine... but meaningless if they keep on doing it!

 

 

 

 

 

Why did that spring to mind as I read your post? Because reporting them often doesn't stop them, warning them often doesn't work and, with the context that this part of the topic began with, punishment generally reinforces the attitude...

 

Sure, it works when refering to the stuff that the authorities deal with, and forgiveness in that regard, though hard, can be given as you take steps to stop them... but the little things that happen, like bullying, really need a different approach.

Initial anger can be healthy and certainly called for also.

Oh yes... without it, there is little impetous to do something about it. (is speaking from a lot of personal experience here)

That's just my .02, and maybe not worth that. :Wendyshrug.gif:

It's certainly worth that, if not more... you've managed to remind me that, sometimes, you can stop them and forgive them at the same time.

 

That is something that is all too easily forgotten, and the opening of my eyes is welcome...

[Ouroboros]

C-T have you forgotten it already? You have to forgive 490 times to be exact. That's in the Dribble (oops sorry, I mean the Bribel). 7x70 makes 490. *sigh* Those heretic atheists don't know anything...

[crazy-tiger]

C-T have you forgotten it already? You have to forgive 490 times to be exact. That's in the Dribble (oops sorry, I mean the Bribel). 7x70 makes 490. *sigh* Those heretic atheists don't know anything...

Is it? Damn, I thought it was 42 for some reason...

[Cerise]

IMO, FWIW, forgiveness and condoning or excusing a behavior are totally different things.

 

 

Well...alright then. What is forgiveness? If you've established that it is not 1) excusing behavior, 2) condoning behavior, 3) dismissing behavior, or 4) forgetting behavior, then what's left?

 

What is this thing you label "forgiveness"?

 

Can you put it in words or is it some abstract concept?

 

Is it just "moving on", because I wouldn't put that in the same category? Is it "being okay" with things, because that doesn't quite sound right either? What exactly do you mean when you say the word "forgiveness"?

 

I think a lot of people don't know what they mean when they say that word, and are acting on a conditioned buzzword response: i.e. "forgiveness" is good the way "tax cuts" and "puppies" are good.

 

Having a definition for the word would help me see where you are coming from.

[Ouroboros]

C-T have you forgotten it already? You have to forgive 490 times to be exact. That's in the Dribble (oops sorry, I mean the Bribel). 7x70 makes 490. *sigh* Those heretic atheists don't know anything...

Is it? Damn, I thought it was 42 for some reason...

But it's cool though, because after 490 times, you're off the hook. Now you can slam the sledgehammer in their heads instead of forgiving them!

[Cerise]

But it's cool though, because after 490 times, you're off the hook. Now you can slam the sledgehammer in their heads instead of forgiving them!

 

I prefer the hot poker approach, myself.

[crazy-tiger]

Ok... that's worthy of an

[Guest Guest]

Forgiveness is basically dropping anger directed at an individual. This does not necessitate condoning the action (as Amanda pointed out) or forgetting it. It also does not rule out telling this person off or avoiding them. However, it simply means letting go of anger towards that person. IMO, anger is a waste of time. It clouds one's perceptions and ruins one's peace of mind. It also motivates regrettable actions from time to time.

 

BTW, letting go of anger is only done by properly addressing it and understanding it. Repressing anger is an unhealthy mental habit which is basically just mentally distracting oneself or making oneself feel bad for an honest emotion. While this can sometimes be helpful in loosening the grip the emotion has on you so you can re-address it when the wounds are not fresh, generally speaking, the sooner anger is dropped the better. There is no healing until the anger is gone.

 

_/\_

[not1not2]

hmm... I apparently wasn't logged in.

 

sorry 'boot that

[Amanda]

What is this thing you label "forgiveness"?

Cerise and others, first I'd like to say that I am not directing forgiveness to anyone specifically, just generally speaking.

 

Forgiveness, as I understand the process... is understanding and letting go. There have been a couple of people that I feel were perpetrators in offending me, I was the victim. Through one method, called chair therapy, I was able to understand the life of my perpetrator and understand what brought them to do these offenses to me. Understanding more fully this life-degrading situation that brought my perpetrator to the point of doing these things to me, made me actually feel sorry for them. Through this process of forgiving them, I finally saw them as more of the victim than me, which internally released me from being the victim. (This was no easy or short process, btw.) Once I understood this and let it go... forgave them... that was for myself, not them! I no longer harbored hatred or overwhelming anger... I was free, and it felt most wonderful!

 

Now, this in no way suggests that I condone or excuse the offense. In my case, there was no charge or going to court. But should the offense had warranted it, I would have! It still justified me keeping a distance from these people, limiting association with these people as was appropriate. They win as long as I continue to harbor hate and vendictiveness, as that never hurts them, it hurts only me and those that care about me! Being released into freedom of that is like getting rid of tons of garbage that wasn't even mine to begin with all along. People can, and it may be appropriate to go through this process of forgiveness, as one demands a jail sentence for their perpetrator for their particular offensive behavior! But why should one continue to allow the perpetrator to continually hold one as a victim forever when one can change that through forgiveness? We're only a victim of the perpetrator during the act itself, and then it's the fault of the perpetrator... however, if I allow them to keep me as the victim when I'm now the only one who holds the capability of being released as the victim through forgiveness, even after they may be in jail... whose fault is it then?

 

 

Thanks Not1not2! I was busy working on this long explanation, while you so effectively summarized it wonderfully in such a concise manner, and posted it ...while I'm still working away!

[Alice]

I have a slightly different slant on anger/forgiveness ... but I'm writing this with my morning cup of tea before going off to work - I'll post later.

 

Your comments about the way children deal of feelings of vengenance are spot on in my view Cerise.

 

Just to say ... I may have found forgiveness an essential balance in my life as one of my driving forces is 'vengence'.

 

Have you come across the Reiss Profile?

[Cerise]

Forgiveness is basically dropping anger directed at an individual. This does not necessitate condoning the action (as Amanda pointed out) or forgetting it. It also does not rule out telling this person off or avoiding them. However, it simply means letting go of anger towards that person. IMO, anger is a waste of time. It clouds one's perceptions and ruins one's peace of mind. It also motivates regrettable actions from time to time.

 

BTW, letting go of anger is only done by properly addressing it and understanding it. Repressing anger is an unhealthy mental habit which is basically just mentally distracting oneself or making oneself feel bad for an honest emotion. While this can sometimes be helpful in loosening the grip the emotion has on you so you can re-address it when the wounds are not fresh, generally speaking, the sooner anger is dropped the better. There is no healing until the anger is gone.

 

_/\_

 

You mean for you personally, there is no healing until anger is gone. Right?

 

Or is this supposed to be yet another universal truth upon which everyone must agree...

 

That is my main objection to this kind of language regarding forgiveness (which I refer to as forgiveness policing). The assumption that is implied in these "fact" statements that rolls off the tongue as easily as "God is real and he loves you" for some people. It's harder to swallow without some sugared evidence to back it up.

[Cerise]

What is this thing you label "forgiveness"?

Cerise and others, first I'd like to say that I am not directing forgiveness to anyone specifically, just generally speaking.

 

Forgiveness, as I understand the process... is understanding and letting go. There have been a couple of people that I feel were perpetrators in offending me, I was the victim. Through one method, called chair therapy, I was able to understand the life of my perpetrator and understand what brought them to do these offenses to me. Understanding more fully this life-degrading situation that brought my perpetrator to the point of doing these things to me, made me actually feel sorry for them. Through this process of forgiving them, I finally saw them as more of the victim than me, which internally released me from being the victim. (This was no easy or short process, btw.) Once I understood this and let it go... forgave them... that was for myself, not them! I no longer harbored hatred or overwhelming anger... I was free, and it felt most wonderful!

 

Now, this in no way suggests that I condone or excuse the offense. In my case, there was no charge or going to court. But should the offense had warranted it, I would have! It still justified me keeping a distance from these people, limiting association with these people as was appropriate. They win as long as I continue to harbor hate and vendictiveness, as that never hurts them, it hurts only me and those that care about me! Being released into freedom of that is like getting rid of tons of garbage that wasn't even mine to begin with all along. People can, and it may be appropriate to go through this process of forgiveness, as one demands a jail sentence for their perpetrator for their particular offensive behavior! But why should one continue to allow the perpetrator to continually hold one as a victim forever when one can change that through forgiveness? We're only a victim of the perpetrator during the act itself, and then it's the fault of the perpetrator... however, if I allow them to keep me as the victim when I'm now the only one who holds the capability of being released as the victim through forgiveness, even after they may be in jail... whose fault is it then?

 

 

I see a couple problems with this approach:

 

1) it assumes that there can be an understanding for each and every trespass commited. Sometimes, that's just not possible. Sometimes people harm people without have a trauma-filled background, without being disadvantaged in any way, without having a cruel childhood, or scarred visage, or abusive parents.

 

2) It assumes that angry people are not free. And apparently, this is just one of those universal truths that we are supposed to just accept because it's said so often. Maybe I really am a rejectionst. I am naturally suspicious of things that "everybody knows" or "everybody says". I hate truisms with passion.

 

3) It assumes that angry people are victims. Again, a truism I reject.

 

4) It assumes that forgiveness is a cure-all that magically releases you from ever having to think about the pain and helplessness you went through. As if such things can ever truly be forgotten. Somewhat of a misconception, because eighteen years later a photograph can still bring you to your knees and a shadow to your bedside.

 

5) You say that you can move on while still seeking punishment or retribution for an act? How is this possible? Even your God finds that he must eshew punishment in order to forgive tresspasses (sins). Why is human forgiveness different?

[Vigile]

I think Cerise is making some good an interesting points here. If forgiveness is nothing but letting something go, why argue dogmatically that this is something we all should do? Some may enjoy letting things go and moving on while others may not. I occurs to me that a lot of the points in favor of forgiveness amount to nothing more than Dr. Phil-type sweeping brush stroke assessments about how to best live one's life. Since we know there are no absolutes it is good to challenge this thinking.

 

I would argue that there is a vast difference between someone that is harboring bitterness to the point of self destruction and someone else who may be experiencing a healthy burn of anger that may possibly motivate strength and even action under the right conditions. Personally I harbor anger and unforgiveness towards xtianity and I make no apologies for it. It doesn't debilitate me but it does make me speak out and challenge the system that enslaved me. This can be empowering. If others wish to live and let live and leave it all behind, then that is their business. I don't want to at this point and I argue that this does no violence to my satisfaction or enjoyment with life in general.

 

Arguing dogmatically that forgiveness is something that will raise your consciousness to a higher level or that it will help you achieve Maslow's level of self actualization is just fluffy bunny syndrome if applied to anyone else's life but your own.

[Amethyst]

Although I find it quite mystifying how most people unconditionally accept as a given "truth" that forgiveness is a balm that is not only healing but required for each and every offense that peppers the earth, lest you bear for the brunt of your days the horrfying label of "bitter, rage-filled cunt". I also notice that it is women who are more often then not required to forgive for their own good. Remember, nice girls don't get angry. It conflicts with their Victorian domestic angel image and disrupts the happy household. God forbid you hold an "unhealthy" disgust for injustice and its perpetrators. Then you might gain enough power to actually stop it from happening again, and we can't have that.

 

I would agree for the most part. Especially with women, we are expected by society to somehow never have any "negative" emotions. We are expected to be happy, cheerful, kind, loving and agreeable towards everyone, even people who are complete and total moronic jerks.

 

I would disagree that there is no healing. Anger can be a part of healing. Saying that everyone should somehow magically stop being angry, even if they aren't ready to, doesn't help the healing process because then people don't deal with those emotions.

 

1) it assumes that there can be an understanding for each and every trespass commited. Sometimes, that's just not possible. Sometimes people harm people without have a trauma-filled background, without being disadvantaged in any way, without having a cruel childhood, or scarred visage, or abusive parents.

 

Right. I will never understand bullies. I just cannot comprehend a mentality that says "Okay, I feel crappy, so I will pick on someone else to make myself feel better." How do we know for sure that they are like that and don't have some other reason for bullying? How do we know for sure that they aren't just being jerks for the sake of being jerks? Just because psychologists think so? Some people do have personality tendencies that make them jerks.

 

I would argue that there is a vast difference between someone that is harboring bitterness to the point of self destruction and someone else who may be experiencing a healthy burn of anger that may possibly motivate strength and even action under the right conditions.

 

Yes, I'll agree with that. I read a scientific study somewhere that said that anger can be an effective emotion in some situations.

[Amethyst]

Funny, I was bullied by words in my home all the time, I never wanted to make anyone feel low like that. I'm guessing that is probably how it is for most.

 

Same here. Well, at home and school. I wouldn't do that to anyone else because I know how it feels.

[Guest Guest_SerenityNow_*]

Funny, I was bullied by words in my home all the time, I never wanted to make anyone feel low like that. I'm guessing that is probably how it is for most.

 

Same here. Well, at home and school. I wouldn't do that to anyone else because I know how it feels.

 

We should do an unscientific poll because right now we have two people that were bullied who never saw fit to do the same to others, that goes against the whole "The bullied turns to bullying theory".

[not1not2]

Just thought I'd mentioned that I was talking about healing on a personal level. Letting go of anger helps us to judge an appropriate response and lessens our own personal suffering. But letting go of anger cannot be forced & doesn't just happen. You have to stay with than anger and figure out what it's all about and find a creative solution for it. This can mean a lot of things, but it is important that you try to either get the offender to understand their harm and/or figure out the best course of action to prevent it from happening again. It also involves figuring out what the heck is wrong with that person for them to have done such a thing. And there are even occassions when our anger is completely unjustified due to misunderstanding.

 

Beyond this lies a lot of my personal beliefs which justify forgiveness as a habitual response, but this is no fluffy bunny form of forgiveness. It is quit hard work but it is well worth it to me.

 

Additionally, there are times where forgiveness can actually deepen the harm/suffering of the victim.

 

This is a very vast subject when it comes down to it, and there are many statements which on a general level are good guidelines, but when we get down to the specifics of the situation, then the issue is much more tricky to resolve.

 

take care

_/\_

[Amanda]

Cerise, I am no guru of anything. I'm just looking and learning here, and offering my perspective and appreciate contributions that broaden my view. BTW, let's take forgiveness out of the scope of religion, as it in no way needs to be the exclusive source in which we understand it, IMO. Look through many secular psychology books and you will see a great emphasis on this process there. Chair therapy has nothing to do with religion.

1) it assumes that there can be an understanding for each and every trespass commited. Sometimes, that's just not possible.

It seems to me there has to be a path that brought them to that mindset. This can be a process that requires a lot of searching for understanding, IMO. It may not be total understanding, but even a hint of understanding may go a long way.

2) It assumes that angry people are not free.

Are they free of anger?

3) It assumes that angry people are victims.

Could you give me an example where you'd be angry and nothing is a victim?

4) It assumes that forgiveness is a cure-all that magically releases you from ever having to think about the pain and helplessness you went through. As if such things can ever truly be forgotten. Somewhat of a misconception, because eighteen years later a photograph can still bring you to your knees and a shadow to your bedside.

Nothing is forgotten, it is just a different way of looking at it... therefore, a different way it affects the person, IMHO.

5) You say that you can move on while still seeking punishment or retribution for an act? How is this possible? Even your God finds that he must eshew punishment in order to forgive tresspasses (sins). Why is human forgiveness different?

Again, it is my understanding that I can understand and let it go, forgive, while still holding the perpetrator accountable and responsible. These two are very important for the perpetrator to be motivated to seek a way to change their behavior, and to validate the value of their victim, IMHO.

 

 

I would argue that there is a vast difference between someone that is harboring bitterness to the point of self destruction and someone else who may be experiencing a healthy burn of anger that may possibly motivate strength and even action under the right conditions.

 

Vigile del fuoco1, good point!

[Cerise]

Cerise, I am no guru of anything. I'm just looking and learning here, and offering my perspective and appreciate contributions that broaden my view. BTW, let's take forgiveness out of the scope of religion, as it in no way needs to be the exclusive source in which we understand it, IMO. Look through many secular psychology books and you will see a great emphasis on this process there. Chair therapy has nothing to do with religion.

 

I'm quite certain it doesn't. However, you will have noticed that I put very little stock in secular psychology as much as any Dr. Phil-type wooly therapy. Why is there such an emphasis on this process? Can we assume that it works for everyone? If it doesn't work for everyone, are those that it does not work for considered the defective ones, or must the process be thrown out as defective?

 

 

It seems to me there has to be a path that brought them to that mindset. This can be a process that requires a lot of searching for understanding, IMO. It may not be total understanding, but even a hint of understanding may go a long way.

 

Then perhaps you have not seen truly meaningless violence and harm done. Your assertion, that there must be a path, is it backed up with evidence? Is it inevitable that with understanding comes pity? Because I would reject that truism as well.

 

2) It assumes that angry people are not free.

Are they free of anger?

 

Is anger a chain that one needs to be free from? Think carefully when you answer this.

 

3) It assumes that angry people are victims.

Could you give me an example where you'd be angry and nothing is a victim?

 

Could you give me an example where lack of anger about an act magically leads to the act never happening? Self-esteem buzzwords are what I hear when people talk about "victimization". I'm not a victim, I'm a survivor. What does that mean? Does it mean that nothing happened to me? No. Something happened. So what changed? The word I chose to label myself changed to make me feel better about my status. Perfectly acceptable, but it doesn't mean anything towards the act itself.

 

Again, it is my understanding that I can understand and let it go, forgive, while still holding the perpetrator accountable and responsible. These two are very important for the perpetrator to be motivated to seek a way to change their behavior, and to validate the value of their victim, IMHO.

 

If you were truly "letting go" what reason would you have for holding them accountable? If "letting go" means nothing more then "living your life" then everyone who doesn't off themself does that, anger or no, forgiveness or no.

[Cerise]

Funny, I was bullied by words in my home all the time, I never wanted to make anyone feel low like that. I'm guessing that is probably how it is for most.

 

Same here. Well, at home and school. I wouldn't do that to anyone else because I know how it feels.

 

We should do an unscientific poll because right now we have two people that were bullied who never saw fit to do the same to others, that goes against the whole "The bullied turns to bullying theory".

 

I would like to point out that if the theory that abused children grow up to abuse other children is true, then the whole world is pretty much screwed.

 

Fortunately, I think that theory is cracked.

 

This is a very vast subject when it comes down to it, and there are many statements which on a general level are good guidelines, but when we get down to the specifics of the situation, then the issue is much more tricky to resolve.

 

take care

_/\_

 

That's probably true about a lot of things.

 

I hope people understand that I'm not bashing forgiveness as a method of healing here. If it works for you, great! Forgive 70 x 70 and more. Whatever it takes.

 

I just don't like it when personal solutions turn into maxims that are wagged in the faces of those who aren't inclined to view things the same way.

[not1not2]

I have heard this analogy:

The mind is like water. Add sugar, you get sugar-water; add salt, you get salt-water; add shit, you get shit-water.

 

Any emotion or perception changes our state mind on some level. Anger happens to shape our perception greatly, as it is by nature a volitile emotion. When our thoughts our colored by anger, our thoughts take on the nature of that volitility. Additionally, a lot of our thoughts and emotions as to what would be a satisfying course of action do not relieve the anger or resolve the external situation very well.

 

So anger, when one is not conscious of how it affects your train of thought, is a negative emotion, generally speaking. However, if one is conscious of it, they can keep their rational mind functioning to balance out the emotion, and decide the most effective response.

 

Basically, this whole issue comes down to personal choice. Letting go of anger is a conscious decision that may or may not be made. It is important not to push it away, as it is telling you something important that you need to figure out. Perhaps it is prompting you to some action of social justice or personal assertiveness.

 

The key for me is to keep my eyes open, not shrink away from negative experiences, and learn from them, rather than being lead around blindly by them.

 

take care

 

_/\_

[Vigile]

_/\_

 

Do you feel the world would be a better place if no one ever got angry about the Holocaust, about Stalin's purges, about Jim Crow laws?

 

What I am saying, and I think what Cerise is saying is that it's not so black and white. Your analogy of the mind, while a great image inducer is just not necessarily true. It is certainly not provable. There are times when anger can be a positive.