Forgiveness is necessary?

[VonNoble]

My father was Roman Catholic. 

He believed that the practice of confession as outlined by Catholicism was necessary.

 

Is it? 

Is actually telling someone out loud you did wrong/committed a sin ...and hearing

them forgive you.....is that component (verbal declaration and verbal forgiveness) 

necessary for human balance?

 

What role does the need to seek forgiveness play in our human experience?

 

von

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

The person who has been wronged needs to release anger over the wrong.  This is not the same as forgiveness.

 

Asking the wronged person for forgiveness, also serves emotional health.  This is why A.A. asks the recovering drunk to make amends.  

 

The Catholic confessional  regards God as an injured party.  Obviously, I don't agree.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2017 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Songster]

Is Forgiveness necessary? ABSOLUTELY!!!

 

My spiritual/religious beliefs are based on immutable universal laws, the two most important being the "Law of Karma" and the "Law of Forgiveness".  Most people are familiar with the concept of Karma (stated simply as "What comes around, goes around.") but not all are aware of the dire consequences for their actions.  Karma demands payment in kind ("an eye for and eye...") for any spiritual or physical offense against anyone or anything.  A Karmic debt not only effects the offender, but binds the souls of the offended and offender together, and is carried beyond the bonds of this life into the next, and the next, and the next.... until the wrong is righted, or the offender forgiven. Only by the application of the Law of Forgiveness can the offender be pardoned and released him from the retribution demanded by the Law of Karma.

 

Is Forgiveness necessary?  POSITIVELY!!!

 

Not just forgiveness for our own sins but (more importantly) forgiveness of others for their offenses against you.

Forgiving another person (for their sins against you) may be done for purely selfish reasons.... Forgiveness releases you from the Karmic bond that would otherwise require you both to deal with the unresolved issue in the next life.  Finally, Forgiveness need not be sought to be given... A willful offender, ignorant of Karmic penalties, may not even regret their act. Forgive them anyway. For YOUR sake.

 

 

 

Edited September 18, 2017 by Songster

[VonNoble]

5 hours ago, Songster said:

Is Forgiveness necessary? ABSOLUTELY!!!

 

My spiritual/religious beliefs are based on immutable universal laws, the two most important being the "Law of Karma" and the "Law of Forgiveness".  Most people are familiar with the concept of Karma (stated simply as "What comes around, goes around.") but not all are aware of the dire consequences for their actions.  Karma demands payment in kind ("an eye for and eye...") for any spiritual or physical offense against anyone or anything.  A Karmic debt not only effects the offender, but binds the souls of the offended and offender together, and is carried beyond the bonds of this life into the next, and the next, and the next.... until the wrong is righted, or the offender forgiven. Only by the application of the Law of Forgiveness can the offender be pardoned and released him from the retribution demanded by the Law of Karma.

 

Is Forgiveness necessary?  POSITIVELY!!!

 

Not just forgiveness for our own sins but (more importantly) forgiveness of others for their offenses against you.

Forgiving another person (for their sins against you) may be done for purely selfish reasons.... Forgiveness releases you from the Karmic bond that would otherwise require you both to deal with the unresolved issue in the next life.  Finally, Forgiveness need not be sought to be given... A willful offender, ignorant of Karmic penalties, may not even regret their act. Forgive them anyway. For YOUR sake.

 

 

 

 

FASCINATING!  Thank you very much for this posting.

It will take me awhile to fully absorb it but it was a most captivating read.

 

Again, my thanks

 

von

[VonNoble]

On 9/16/2017 at 8:10 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

The person who has been wronged needs to release anger over the wrong.  This is not the same as forgiveness.

 

Asking the wronged person for forgiveness, also serves emotional health.  This is why A.A. asks the recovering drunk to make amends.  

 

The Catholic confessional  regards God as an injured party.  Obviously, I don't agree.

 

 

 

 

Release anger?  I don't follow.

I have been wronged and felt no anger at the situation or the person.

At times I have felt compassion (at times anger too) but often it is more 

feeling sorry for them ....often...not every wrong was intentional....and

certainly many happen because of ignorance of the facts. 

 

I am not sure how many people feel anger over being wronged.  I don't 

think I quite get that. 

 

I rather agree with Songster  - I have an option to forgive regardless of 

receiving a request for it, no?

 

I am not entirely sure making amends (restitution for example) is exactly 

the same as forgiveness....(doing penance is not the same thing as 

rendering unconditional acceptance or love) ...maybe

 

Even though I had some trace amounts of Catholic doctrine floating around

an otherwise pretty liberal home growing up - I am not entirely sure

that the Catholic Church regards God as the injured party but I get your

drift. 

 

I think (one of the Catholics can help me out here) - I think the notion was

more that YOUR ACTION might have damaged YOUR character or 

for want of a better word your relationship with God.  You cut yourself 

off from being part of the good guy club to a greater or lesser extent

and you had to KNOW that you screwed up and say so to get back in. 

 

Maybe that is half-baked but that is what I got out of what I heard. 

 

It was more for you having a way to regain grace and set yourself

on the right path anew.   How do you avoid doing the same stupid thing

unless you take a break and recognize the folly of your actions?

 

Oh well - I am on very think ice at this point so I will yield the floor

to someone who can shed some actual verification of beliefs in 

this regard. 

 

von

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

51 minutes ago, VonNoble said:

Release anger?  I don't follow.

I have been wronged and felt no anger at the situation or the person.

At times I have felt compassion (at times anger too) but often it is more 

feeling sorry for them ....often...not every wrong was intentional....and

certainly many happen because of ignorance of the facts. 

 

I am not sure how many people feel anger over being wronged.  I don't 

think I quite get that. 

 

I rather agree with Songster  - I have an option to forgive regardless of 

receiving a request for it, no?

 

I am not entirely sure making amends (restitution for example) is exactly 

the same as forgiveness....(doing penance is not the same thing as 

rendering unconditional acceptance or love) ...maybe

 

Even though I had some trace amounts of Catholic doctrine floating around

an otherwise pretty liberal home growing up - I am not entirely sure

that the Catholic Church regards God as the injured party but I get your

drift. 

 

I think (one of the Catholics can help me out here) - I think the notion was

more that YOUR ACTION might have damaged YOUR character or 

for want of a better word your relationship with God.  You cut yourself 

off from being part of the good guy club to a greater or lesser extent

and you had to KNOW that you screwed up and say so to get back in. 

 

Maybe that is half-baked but that is what I got out of what I heard. 

 

It was more for you having a way to regain grace and set yourself

on the right path anew.   How do you avoid doing the same stupid thing

unless you take a break and recognize the folly of your actions?

 

Oh well - I am on very think ice at this point so I will yield the floor

to someone who can shed some actual verification of beliefs in 

this regard. 

 

von

 

 

It is good to be high minded.  Throughout my life, I have often found the releasing of anger and resentment to be challenging.  Then again, I lack sainthood.  

 

 

If I have wronged you, it is nothing to be forgiven by God -- unless God is the injured party.  How then can God forgive, if you are the injured party?

 

[Dan56]

3 hours ago, VonNoble said:

I am not sure how many people feel anger over being wronged.  I don't 

think I quite get that. 

 

I rather agree with Songster  - I have an option to forgive regardless of 

receiving a request for it, no?

 

von

 

I think that most people, when punched in the face, would not feel joy or happiness, but anger.

 

Anyone has an option to forgive, but forgiving someone who has done you wrong, and who intends to continue to do you harm, seems foolish to me, even dangerous.

[VonNoble]

6 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

If I have wronged you, it is nothing to be forgiven by God -- unless God is the injured party.  How then can God forgive, if you are the injured party?

 

Thanks for hanging with me on this one. 

 

If you have wronged me (which you have not) ...but if you did

and neither of us are believers in God....then there is really no issue. 

Each of us forgives the other because it is the normal flow of keeping our own life in order. 

 

For a God-Believer - some sects, as a matter of doctrine, believe that God DOES 

forgive them if and when they ask God to do so.  He does not withhold forgiveness, as I 

understand it - but grants it upon request. 

 

I sort of am confused by "God" as a supernatural being - ever being the injured party.

There may be a rule for a believer to come and state that the sinner "gets" that they 

broke a rule ....but I am confused that God needs to hear it.   It is more that the human

needs to say it for the human's benefit.  God doesn't need to hear it.   The human grows

if he says it.     

 

Or did I take a wrong turn here (I sometimes do) - help me out and run it by me one more time

please and thank you. 

 

von

[VonNoble]

3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I think that most people, when punched in the face, would not feel joy or happiness, but anger.

 

Anyone has an option to forgive, but forgiving someone who has done you wrong, and who intends to continue to do you harm, seems foolish to me, even dangerous.

 

I see the point. 

I think it is different than the one I was attempting to make.

 

Granted there are instances when a person CAN and will feel anger.

I am noting that often the offense is not extreme.

Therefore one can be wronged without feeling anger.  

 

Anger certainly is NOT a requirement for every wrong done to you. 

 

By the way I have been punched in the face, did not feel anger.

So it can happen.

 You can be punched accidentally - not everything is a deliberate affront. 

It hurt.   But I was not damaged.   I understood it was not intentional. 

It is NOT a perfect world.   Accidents happen.  

 

Not every wrong requires a person to rile up.

We must factor in that sometimes people just over-react for a bevy of reasons.

 

This Forum demonstrates continuously that even when we FEEL an emotional reaction

to an idea we see.....that we fundamentally disagree with - we often choose to try

understanding BEFORE anger as a reaction, no?

So too in real life.   

 

I would venture that hitting back is actually NOT most people's response to getting hit.

What the hell happened... is probably more likely.  Most of us are not walking around

doing things we expect to be hit over.    I don't think I have ever advocated people 

be a doormat or punching bag.  

 

You can choose a range of options, even when angry.  You can strike back.

it could be necessary.  Most often it would not be.   But that is

one option, when necessary.    For some revenge is a dish best served cold. 

For some - walking away is also an option.  

 

Not every wrong is an extreme, ongoing or even justified.   

Some are.  Some very much are not.

Understanding is the best first step to determine if you need to

bob, weave or run. ...or pick up a bigger stick to respond.   

 

If you note my comment was in response to this statement:

The person who has been wronged

needs to release anger over the wrong

 

Which indicated a premise I did not grasp as true. 

A person wronged does NOT need to release anger - if they have no anger.

Not every wrong results in anger.

 

von

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

46 minutes ago, VonNoble said:

Thanks for hanging with me on this one. 

 

If you have wronged me (which you have not) ...but if you did

and neither of us are believers in God....then there is really no issue. 

Each of us forgives the other because it is the normal flow of keeping our own life in order. 

 

For a God-Believer - some sects, as a matter of doctrine, believe that God DOES 

forgive them if and when they ask God to do so.  He does not withhold forgiveness, as I 

understand it - but grants it upon request. 

 

I sort of am confused by "God" as a supernatural being - ever being the injured party.

There may be a rule for a believer to come and state that the sinner "gets" that they 

broke a rule ....but I am confused that God needs to hear it.   It is more that the human

needs to say it for the human's benefit.  God doesn't need to hear it.   The human grows

if he says it.     

 

Or did I take a wrong turn here (I sometimes do) - help me out and run it by me one more time

please and thank you. 

 

von

 

 

For the sake of making a point, I'm going to indulge in a bit of fantasy.

 

I have plans to rob a bank, and now I go into the bank to execute those plans.  Things go wrong.  My plans do not go as I intended.  The bank guard gets shot.  I take hostages.  Some of them die.  When the police show up, more hostages die in the confused shooting, and some of the police are injured.

 

The next day, my lawyer issues a statement on my behalf.  I deeply regret my lack of judgement, which was caused by emotional distress.  I have repented and God has forgiven me.

 

None of the injured, or their grieving survivors, wants to hear about my forgiveness from God.  It's an insult to everyone.  Truly, rubbing salt into the wounds.

 

Now my point.  God is a third party.  It is for the injured to forgive.  Not the third party.  Unless we think that any wrong, done to anyone, is an injury to God.  In which case, God is an injured party.  This also makes God the representative of the injured, in which case God forgives on their behalf.  To be clear, I think this is the worst kind of theological BS.  

 

The need to confess to God is an interesting one.  God doesn't already know?  If, as you say, the confession is for the sake of the miscreant -- God is the wrong party to ask for forgiveness.  

[VonNoble]

2 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

For the sake of making a point, I'm going to indulge in a bit of fantasy.

 

I have plans to rob a bank, and now I go into the bank to execute those plans.  Things go wrong.  My plans do not go as I intended.  The bank guard gets shot.  I take hostages.  Some of them die.  When the police show up, more hostages die in the confused shooting, and some of the police are injured.

 

The next day, my lawyer issues a statement on my behalf.  I deeply regret my lack of judgement, which was caused by emotional distress.  I have repented and God has forgiven me.

 

None of the injured, or their grieving survivors, wants to hear about my forgiveness from God.  It's an insult to everyone.  Truly, rubbing salt into the wounds.

 

Now my point.  God is a third party.  It is for the injured to forgive.  Not the third party.  Unless we think that any wrong, done to anyone, is an injury to God.  In which case, God is an injured party.  This also makes God the representative of the injured, in which case God forgives on their behalf.  To be clear, I think this is the worst kind of theological BS.  

 

The need to confess to God is an interesting one.  God doesn't already know?  If, as you say, the confession is for the sake of the miscreant -- God is the wrong party to ask for forgiveness.  

 

Thank you so much.    The fantasy version actually DID help me to get the point. 

Good illustration for the purpose.    Well played and much appreciated. 

 

von

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

22 minutes ago, VonNoble said:

 

Thank you so much.    The fantasy version actually DID help me to get the point. 

Good illustration for the purpose.    Well played and much appreciated. 

 

von

 

Thank you.  Now we can carry the thought one step further.  

 

Should my victims forgive me for what I have done to them?  Some will.  Some won't.  For the mental and emotional health of the victims -- whether they choose to forgive or not -- it is in their interests to release their rage and resentment.  If they can not release their anger, they will be doing great harm to themselves.  The stress will lodge in their muscles and they will have pain.  Their sleep will be disturbed.  Their digestion will be impacted.  They may develop heart trouble.  Their blood pressure will be elevated.  None of this harms me -- the criminal.  They must let go of their rage for their own well being.

 

This is the distinction between "releasing" and "forgiving".

 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2017 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, VonNoble said:

 

I see the point. 

I think it is different than the one I was attempting to make.

 

Granted there are instances when a person CAN and will feel anger.

I am noting that often the offense is not extreme.

Therefore one can be wronged without feeling anger.  

 

Anger certainly is NOT a requirement for every wrong done to you. 

 

By the way I have been punched in the face, did not feel anger.

So it can happen.

 You can be punched accidentally - not everything is a deliberate affront. 

It hurt.   But I was not damaged.   I understood it was not intentional. 

It is NOT a perfect world.   Accidents happen.  

 

Not every wrong requires a person to rile up.

We must factor in that sometimes people just over-react for a bevy of reasons.

 

This Forum demonstrates continuously that even when we FEEL an emotional reaction

to an idea we see.....that we fundamentally disagree with - we often choose to try

understanding BEFORE anger as a reaction, no?

So too in real life.   

 

I would venture that hitting back is actually NOT most people's response to getting hit.

What the hell happened... is probably more likely.  Most of us are not walking around

doing things we expect to be hit over.    I don't think I have ever advocated people 

be a doormat or punching bag.  

 

You can choose a range of options, even when angry.  You can strike back.

it could be necessary.  Most often it would not be.   But that is

one option, when necessary.    For some revenge is a dish best served cold. 

For some - walking away is also an option.  

 

Not every wrong is an extreme, ongoing or even justified.   

Some are.  Some very much are not.

Understanding is the best first step to determine if you need to

bob, weave or run. ...or pick up a bigger stick to respond.   

 

If you note my comment was in response to this statement:

The person who has been wronged

needs to release anger over the wrong

 

Which indicated a premise I did not grasp as true. 

A person wronged does NOT need to release anger - if they have no anger.

Not every wrong results in anger.

 

von

 

 

You're right.  If there is no anger, there is nothing to release.  So much the better.  If, on the other hand, we take emotional inventory and discover that we do have anger -- it's like discovering a fly in the soup.  We are not obligated to digest it.  We can get rid of Anger instead of letting it sicken us.

 

[VonNoble]

2 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

You're right.  If there is no anger, there is nothing to release.  So much the better.  If, on the other hand, we take emotional inventory and discover that we do have anger -- it's like discovering a fly in the soup.  We are not obligated to digest it.  We can get rid of Anger instead of letting it sicken us.

 

 

Agreed.  It took awhile (thanks for your patience) but I am getting the point distinguishing between forgiveness

and releasing.    

 

The original posit was aimed at my father's understanding that noting to someone else - out loud - that you have

done wrong (and hearing someone  - even if it it was someone completely independent of the events) just hearing 

from another human that you were forgiven.....is it necessary.  He contended that it was necessary - on a psychological

level.  He based that on what he learned at church.   Not from anything else.   

 

I am wondering if people agree you NEED to say it and hear SOMEONE validate in the instance of forgiveness. 

 

(On the subject of release - I agree with you...failing to release it IS biologically as well as psychologically harmful to us.

 

von

[Dan56]

5 hours ago, VonNoble said:

  Anger certainly is NOT a requirement for every wrong done to you. 

 

By the way I have been punched in the face, did not feel anger.

So it can happen.

 You can be punched accidentally - not everything is a deliberate affront. 

It hurt.   But I was not damaged.   I understood it was not intentional. 

It is NOT a perfect world.   Accidents happen.  

 

Not every wrong requires a person to rile up.

We must factor in that sometimes people just over-react for a bevy of reasons.

von

 

Certainly true.... I was not advocating the necessity to lash-out in a violent range whenever a person feels wronged. If someone accidentally steps on your toe, its obviously an over-reaction to have a tantrum and throw a hissy fit.. But I believe 'anger' is a natural reaction when intentional harm is directed your way, e.g; someone steals your car, or burns down your house.

 

I don't believe God is a neutral third party when one person harms or trespasses against another either. That's like saying that if someone shoots your dog, its between the shooter and your dog., and your unaffected by the incident.. In a scenario where an aggressor creates victims via his harmful and deliberate actions, God promises vengeance.  Jesus said; "For I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Matthew 9:13). From a biblical pov, forgiveness requires repentance.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, VonNoble said:

 

Agreed.  It took awhile (thanks for your patience) but I am getting the point distinguishing between forgiveness

and releasing.    

 

The original posit was aimed at my father's understanding that noting to someone else - out loud - that you have

done wrong (and hearing someone  - even if it it was someone completely independent of the events) just hearing 

from another human that you were forgiven.....is it necessary.  He contended that it was necessary - on a psychological

level.  He based that on what he learned at church.   Not from anything else.   

 

I am wondering if people agree you NEED to say it and hear SOMEONE validate in the instance of forgiveness. 

 

(On the subject of release - I agree with you...failing to release it IS biologically as well as psychologically harmful to us.

 

von

 

 

I suspect that your father's rules are the rules of the confessional.  My foundation is more influenced by Buddhism than Christianity.  I am not a Buddhist, but this has been an influence on my thinking.

 

[Songster]

12 hours ago, Dan56 said:

..... forgiving someone who has done you wrong, and who intends to continue to do you harm, seems foolish to me, even dangerous.

Dan.....   In your reading of the Bible, did you skip Matt. 18:21-22?

 

From the KJB....

 

²¹ Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

²² Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

 

The Christ's whole ministry was based upon the necessity of forgiving others...

[Dan56]

6 hours ago, Songster said:

Dan.....   In your reading of the Bible, did you skip Matt. 18:21-22?

 

From the KJB....

 

²¹ Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

²² Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

 

The Christ's whole ministry was based upon the necessity of forgiving others...

 

No.. I just think there's a presumption of repentance with forgiveness.. "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins" (1 John 1:9). The 'IF" denotes a condition. We are instructed to forgive others even as our Father in heaven has forgiven us.. But God does not automatically forgive everyone, and neither should we. We confess our sins to God and ask for forgiveness (repent).  Luke explains it a little better than Matthew; "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him." (Luke 17:3&4). So the way I look at it is that if someone regrets their transgression against you and ask for forgiveness, a Christian is obligated to forgive them. Or if a person unknowingly sins against you, you forgive the debt. But I don't believe we are expected to forgive deliberate unrepentant sin, even as God does not forgive it.

[cuchulain]

i sure hope the example above didn't contain a scribal error where the word if is...

[Songster]

OK. If you prefer Luke....  Chapter 23, verse 34- "Father, forgive them. They know not what they do."

Those guilty of His death were ignorant of the enormity of their offense, were unrepentant, and yet they were FORGIVEN anyway.

The Christ did not say, "Ask me for forgiveness, and it will be granted."

He gave the guilty absolution without hesitation and without prerequisite pleas for forgiveness..

Shouldn't His example be followed by His followers?

Edited September 20, 2017 by Songster