Not to forgive her is to justify her actions and approve of them. — Agustino

A man rapes your wife. She doesn't forgive him. Does that mean she approves of his actions? And at what point should she forgive him? I would say forgiveness should only be offered when the threat a person represents dissipates. Agree of disagree? If you disagree, please explain.

(The example is more extreme but the principle seems to be the same to me.)

[Edited to be more on point.]

But to forgive her would show great magnanimity of soul, and expose her evil to herself. You do not realize that this is actually the biggest punishment that can be dealt. It's much worse than anything else I could do, for it is the only action that refuses to justify her behavior. — Agustino

So, now you do believe in punishment? So, there is a hell?

This magnanimity is a hallucination of reality because your forgiveness is irrelevant if she is not genuinely repentant, proven if she repeatedly makes the same mistake. The problem here is that you are arguing against authenticity and you need to prove why it is not relevant for a person to be honest when they apologise. So far, notwithstanding your religious position, there has been no reasonable attempt to do so.

A man rapes your wife. You don't forgive him. Does that mean you approve of his actions? — Baden

Yes, it does, because from his point of view my hatred of him and unforgiveness justifies his behaviour, because just like him, I am a bad guy who wants to harm him. That hides himself from seeing his responsibility for what he did - instead, he will conceive of himself as someone who now has to defend against the evil I want to do to him.

And at what point do you forgive him? — Baden

Forgiveness has nothing to do with taking actions to protect my wife. I can forgive him and still take actions to dissipate the threat as you say.

Yes, it does, because from his point of view my hatred of him and unforgiveness justifies his behaviour, — Agustino

So, you believe those men who don't forgive those who rape their wives approve of their wives being raped. OK. Can you take a look at the edited example? Does the woman also approve of being raped if she doesn't forgive?

So, now you do believe in punishment? So, there is a hell? — TimeLine

I've told you that there is hell back a long time ago:

I'm saying hell and heaven are just reactions to Love. — Agustino

Punishment is self-inflicted. Vice and sin are their own punishments.

This magnanimity is a hallucination of reality because your forgiveness is irrelevant if she is not genuinely repentant, proven if she repeatedly makes the same mistake. — TimeLine

My forgiveness is very relevant because I have to set myself as opposed to her actions. By setting myself on an equal footing with her - as someone just like her - I do the opposite. Setting myself as opposed to her actions is the only way to encourage repentance in her.

The problem here is that you are arguing against authenticity and you need to prove why it is not relevant for a person to be honest when they apologise — TimeLine

It is relevant for me to be honest when I apologize, but not for the other. I will assume that they are honest because we should always try to think the best of our neighbors.

So, you believe those men who don't forgive those who rape their wives approve of their wives being raped. OK. Can you take a look at the edited example? Does the woman also approve of being raped if she doesn't forgive? — Baden

Now you're equivocating on "approval". There are two kinds of approval. There is one type of approval that involves me willing the same specific action that you will. There's also another kind of approval that involves me willing according to the same nature that you will.

Now, with regards to the first kind of approval, neither my wife nor I would approve of the rape. Neither of us will want that she is raped. Obviously.

With regards to the second kind of approval, if we will not to forgive the other, if we will to punish him - that is willing in the same nature that he wills in. That would be to will under the logic of violence, which would make us approve of him by virtue of sharing in the same underlying logic that he shares in. By virtue of the very fact that we want to distance ourselves from him, we will only make ourselves approach closer to him. It is only the radical break offered by forgiveness that can tear away the logic of violence and create an abyss between us and him.

I've been developing this understanding only very lately, but it seems to be correct and to bring clarity to a lot of situations.

Punishment is self-inflicted. Vice and sin are their own punishments. — Agustino

So, there is only free-will?

It is relevant for me to be honest when I apologize, but not for the other. I will assume that they are honest because we should always try to think the best of our neighbors. — Agustino

There is this saying, Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Indeed, when a person first conveys repentance, you show this forgiveness. But, any act repeated is verification that the repentance itself was artificial. You assume honesty within reason but if you forgive an act that is repeated, you are a party to this lack of 'magnanimity' that makes one firm in virtue.

Any act often repeated soon forms a habit; and habit allowed, steady gains in strength, At first it may be but as a spider's web, easily broken through, but if not resisted it soon binds us with chains of steel.

Are you saying the law has lead us in the wrong direction? — TimeLine

If the law is meant as punishment, yes, that's the wrong direction. If it's meant to keep criminals off the street or even to rehabilitate them, that should be judged based on how effective it is.

I actually understand this, however I could be wrong. Are you attempting to convey that when any acknowledgement of wrong is formed, forgiveness is unnecessary because it has been articulated either subjectively or to the said-party and the forgiveness is really an acknowledgement of the acknowledgement itself? So it isn't really forgiveness but rather an acknowledgement? I would like you to think about building trust when you think of your response to this. — TimeLine

I think what I mean is simpler than that. Blaming someone, judging someone puts a weight on your shoulders. From what you've written, it seems like you will understand what I mean. Forgiveness takes that weight off. It's a release. You become freer. It doesn't mean you have to ever see the person again.

As for trust - as I said to Baden - that's something else you do for yourself. It's another load you take off your shoulders. I'm not saying you should trust everyone, but the decision, for me, is based on possible consequences. I've been having a conflict with my boss, whom I have been friends with for almost 30 years. There are some really hard feelings on both sides. There's an awkwardness between us now. This kind of thing has happened once or twice before. It will just take some time.

I agree, I think reconciliation is a lot clearer in that it is a mutual effort, however there needs to be meaning in this reconciliation, an honesty and authenticity that would enable it to adequately work, which requires building trust. Keeping that person out of your life is indeed not an unkind thing to do neither is it immoral, on the contrary it is a form of punishment as you attempt to articulate both your position on this said wrong and what you expect from others to be allowed to be in your personal space. — TimeLine

Alternatively, I could just decide that the love and closeness I feel for that person are more important than the hurt I feel. Or you can decide that they're not more important.

Augustino is saying that if his wife cheats on him repeatedly, he needs to represent himself as a moral person by continuously forgiving. He is being paradoxical. — TimeLine

Agustino is a pretty devout person. I think he's trying to act like he knows he should. @Agustino - I was going to say I hope you'll forgive me for putting words in your mouth, but I won't. Pope John Paul II wasn't "representing himself as a moral person" he was forgiving the way Jesus forgave. I don't see any paradox.

Geez Louise. You people are writing too fast. I can't keep up. Also, my battery is about to run out. I'll keep trying as long as I can.

No, I'm not equivocating. "To approve" of something involves believing it is good, acceptable or satisfactory. If you don't then you don't "approve" of it. That is the meaning of that word. Your garbled meaning is in your head only.

With regards to the second kind of approval, if we will not to forgive the other, if we will to punish him - that is willing in the same nature that he wills in. That would be to will under the logic of violence, which would make us approve of him by virtue of sharing in the same underlying logic that he shares in. By virtue of the very fact that we want to distance ourselves from him, we will only make ourselves approach closer to him. It is only the radical break offered by forgiveness that can tear away the logic of violence and create an abyss between us and him. — Agustino

That's not approval. And to say of a woman who is raped that she is of the same nature as her rapist because she doesn't forgive him is disgusting. A raped woman or a victim of a similar crime is a person in torment. Their nature is chaotic not evil. So, no, a raped woman does not "approve" of her rape in any sense regardless of her attitude towards the rapist (can't believe I actually have to write that on a philosophy forum).

So, there is only free-will? — TimeLine

Absolutely. How could there be anything else if God is Love?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. — TimeLine

It is of course not the one who loves who is fooled. Jesus Christ wasn't fooled when He was put on the Cross. He knew exactly what was happening. It was Satan who was fooled. That is why in Dante's Divine Comedy there is the image of Satan nailed to the Cross - because that is what happened. Through his innocence, love and non-violence, Jesus exposed Satan for the murderer and liar that he is. And a lie that has been exposed no longer works :)

Love is not fooled in its innocence and forgiveness. It is worldly wisdom which is fooled. That's also the Socratic irony that Plato tried to convey. It wasn't Socrates that was fooled for going to his death - it was those who sent him that were fooled.

That's not approval. And to say of a woman who is raped that she is of the same nature as her rapist because she doesn't forgive him is disgusting. A raped woman or a victim of a similar crime is a person in torment. Their nature is chaotic not evil. — Baden

I don't think you're paying attention to what Agustino is saying.

What you think isn't important. What you argue for might be. So, go ahead.

What you think isn't important. What you argue for might be. So, go ahead. — Baden

I forgive you for being snooty.

If the law is meant as punishment, yes, that's the wrong direction. If it's meant to keep criminals off the street or even to rehabilitate them, that should be judged based on how effective it is. — T Clark

When you keep people out of your life because they are hurting you, that is a form of punishment. You are conveying the same message the law is attempting to convey, which is that justice prevails by effectively keeping criminals from harming people, just like how you are saying morality prevails by effectively keeping the said-person from harming you. Any rehabilitation that developed following this act is not up to the law in as much as it is not up to you, but the attempted effect is to rehabilitate, to make them see that what they have done is wrong and to allow others to abide by these laws.

Blaming someone, judging someone puts a weight on your shoulders. From what you've written, it seems like you will understand what I mean. Forgiveness takes that weight off. It's a release. You become freer. It doesn't mean you have to ever see the person again. — T Clark

Playing the victim is entirely different when you actually are a victim; if you have experienced a wrong from someone else, that is not blaming them for the wrong, it is stating a fact. It is contrasting to moral principles, which is the fabric of our humanity. The weight of that forgiveness is established when that fact is acknowledged, because there is no longer a rigidity or halt, there is the opportunity that peace affords, the channels of communication are opened.

What you are saying is ignorance, not forgiveness.

I'm justifiably looking for a justification. My basic point here is there is no sense that a woman who is raped "approves" of the act on the basis of not forgiving the rapist. I know more or less what Agustino is trying to say but he is using words wrongly and that has consequences for his argument, which I'm trying to hold him accountable for.

This magnanimity is a hallucination of reality because your forgiveness is irrelevant if she is not genuinely repentant, proven if she repeatedly makes the same mistake. The problem here is that you are arguing against authenticity and you need to prove why it is not relevant for a person to be honest when they apologise. So far, notwithstanding your religious position, there has been no reasonable attempt to do so. — TimeLine

Marriage is really hard. No one in my life has been as cruel to me as my wife can be. I don't forgive her, it never gets that far. I know her, I see her. I know the part of her that does what she does - the things I like and the things I don't. My goal is to deal with her behavior. I know that if I don't get angry and push back, the incident will be over. That doesn't mean it doesn't really hurt. It hurts a lot. We've been married for 40 years and together longer than that. It still hurts and I still fail to react the most effective and, coincidentally, the most compassionate way.

@Agustino also seems to presume that victims of harmful acts are capable of forgiving those who have harmed them (otherwise how could it be wrong for them not to do so?). But that could only be claimed by someone ignorant of the psychological affects of trauma.

No, I'm not equivocating. "To approve" of something involves believing it is good, acceptable or satisfactory. If you don't then you don't "approve" of it. That is the meaning of that word. Your garbled meaning is in your head only. — Baden

Yes, in that sense of the word, no good person approves of it.

That's not approval. — Baden

What is it then? You're willing according to the same nature that gave birth to the other's actions. That counts as approval of that nature, what else can it count as?

And to say of a woman who is raped that she is of the same nature as her rapist because she doesn't forgive him is disgusting. — Baden

It may be disgusting if you don't separate forgiveness from approval. To forgive someone doesn't mean you approve of their actions. But it seems you do not understand the underlying logic of violence that perpetuates it, and hence the danger that Jesus's radical exhortation seeks to avoid:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. — Matthew 5:38-48

Why does Jesus give those prescriptions? Because he wants to be a nice guy? No. Rather because those are the prescriptions that are required to STOP and put an end to the logic of violence, which is otherwise interminable because it feeds off itself.

Each person involved in violence becomes - paradoxically - identical with their enemy, in their desire to harm one another. And so violence continues. It is only by surrendering violence - even if it means that you will be killed for it - just like Jesus was - that it is possible to circumvent the logic of violence. As hard as it sounds, this is the only way. All other ways lead to more violence, because violence feeds off it - both combatants end up seeing themselves as victims and desiring revenge - as being justified in their violence. It is precisely the reactions of the other that make them justified in their escalations of violent behavior.

When you hate the rapist, you become one with him in the very fact that you hate - just like him. That's the double bind you find yourself in. To disapprove of the rapist and what he stands for, you think you need to condemn him violently. So in your very violent condemnation of him, are you not approving the logic of hatred and violence? Are you not like the Pharisees here:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ sins. You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape the sentence of hell?

In your very attempt to disapprove of the rapist, you are approving of him by using the very same logic he has used - the logic of hatred and violence. Likewise, in their very rejection of their fathers, the Pharisees are approving of them. Just like their fathers did not recognise their own violence and expelled their own fathers saying they have nothing to do with their violence, so too the Pharisees go on perpetuating the same logic of violence while being unaware of it.

A raped woman or a victim of a similar crime is a person in torment. Their nature is chaotic not evil. — Baden

That is true, but just because they are suffering does not mean that they are not at risk of perpetrating and continuing evil. Many have felt that because of the injustices done to them, they are allowed to murder, pillage, torture, etc. That is wrong. An evil doesn't justify another evil.

So, there is only free-will?
— TimeLine
Absolutely. How could there be anything else if God is Love? — Agustino

Wasn't it you that said everything is determined? So, now there is only free-will? Are you shifting your beliefs to suit the argument at the given moment?

It is of course not the one who loves who is fooled. Jesus Christ wasn't fooled when He was put on the Cross. He knew exactly what was happening. It was Satan who was fooled. That is why in Dante's Divine Comedy there is the image of Satan nailed to the Cross - because that is what happened. Through his innocence, love and non-violence, Jesus exposed Satan for the murderer and liar that he is. And a lie that has been exposed no longer works :)

Love is not fooled in its innocence and forgiveness. It is worldly wisdom which is fooled. — Agustino

What has this got to do with what I asked? I said that when a person apologises more than once by repeating the same mistake, it is verification that they are being dishonest. I am happy to discuss the ethics of Jesus but this is just you floating on a cloud.

I'm justifiably looking for a justification. My basic point here is there is no sense that a woman who is raped "approves" of the act on the basis of not forgiving the rapist. I know more or less what Agustino is trying to say but he is using words wrongly and that has consequences for his argument, which I'm trying to hold him accountable for. — Baden

Again, talking about Agustino in the 3rd person. I don't agree with everything he is saying, but his beliefs seem like those of a man who is committed to his principles. I find that moving. Your argument seems very rigid, knee jerk, tangled in words. It doesn't seem as if you are sincerely trying to put yourself in his philosophical shoes.

Wasn't it you that said everything is determined? — TimeLine

No, I don't think I ever said that :s - when did I say that? Believing that everything is predestined is against my spiritual position, and I don't believe I would ever have said that.

I may have said in the context of Spinozist philosophy that everything is determined, in the sense that everything has causes for it. However, I distinguished this from fatalism which holds that everything is pre-determined.

Marriage is really hard. No one in my life has been as cruel to me as my wife can be. I don't forgive her, it never gets that far. I know her, I see her. I know the part of her that does what she does - the things I like and the things I don't. My goal is to deal with her behavior. I know that if I don't get angry and push back, the incident will be over. That doesn't mean it doesn't really hurt. It hurts a lot. We've been married for 40 years and together longer than that. It still hurts and I still fail to react the most effective and, coincidentally, the most compassionate way. — T Clark

Conceding to prevent incidents from escalation is perhaps the key difference between you and I as people since, for me, my ideal partner and I would communicate any concerns rationally and effectively. If they are unable to do this, they would not be my partner as I would hate to be in a relationship that involves this power struggle and especially playing games. It ends up hurting both parties and I refuse to be hurt.

There is a big difference between holding onto principles and holding onto beliefs. You could also potentially be moved by a neo-Nazi, unless what you are really trying to say is that Augustino's beliefs align with yours and you find that moving?

also seems to presume that victims of harmful acts are fully capable of forgiving those who have harmed them (otherwise how could it be wrong for them not to do so?). But that could only be claimed by someone ignorant of the psychological affects of trauma. — Baden

No, I don't think @Agustino presumes this. Someone may be unable to forgive for psychological reasons, but this doesn't change what it would be preferable that they do. These things can take time. It can take time to forgive your enemies. I never said it's easy.

I'm not going to continue to give you English lessons and I'm not going to let you away with that comment. If you remain confused, quickly grab a dictionary.

There is no sense in which a raped woman approves of her rapist's actions because she doesn't forgive him.

Are you ready to agree to that yet?

(+Not forgiving is not equal to hating. + Not forgiving is not equal to wishing violence on someone etc.)

What you seem to be getting at, which I understand, is the idea that we should eventually get past our negative emotions towards those who have done us harm as that is psychologically healthy. That, I presume, was what Jesus was getting at too. I don't necessarily accept that that is a moral obligation but at least I understand it. But you need to stop using the wrong vocabulary if that is what you want to say.

Someone may be unable to forgive for psychological reasons, but this doesn't change what it would be preferable that they do — Agustino

You weren't just saying it's preferable, you were saying if they don't, they are guilty of approving the horrific acts that were inflicted upon them. Again, you need to adjust your language.

When you keep people out of your life because they are hurting you, that is a form of punishment. — TimeLine

I don't see it that way at all. It seems like it may be an effective way of avoiding the trouble and pain that person causes you.

You are conveying the same message the law is attempting to convey, which is that justice prevails by effectively keeping criminals from harming people, just like how you are saying morality prevails by effectively keeping the said-person from harming you. — TimeLine

It has nothing to do with morality. I have smoke alarms and a fire extinguisher to prevent my house from burning down. I keep that person out of my life to prevent the pain and damage they bring to my life.

What you are saying is ignorance, not forgiveness. — TimeLine

Not ignorance, .... equanimity. Not sure about that.... yeah, I'll stick with equanimity.

Conceding to prevent incidents from escalation is perhaps the key difference between you and I as people since, for me, my ideal partner and I would communicate any concerns rationally and effectively. If they are unable to do this, they would not be my partner as I would hate to be in a relationship that involves this power struggle and especially playing games. It ends up hurting both parties and I refuse to be hurt. — TimeLine

Yes, that is a very big difference. You have set a very high bar for yourself.

Also - I don't "concede to prevent incidents." I try to act with compassion and effectiveness. Very often I fail.

I don't expect you to change how you are and what you feel and believe. I'm just telling you how I see it, how I try to live my life.

Yes, yes, I love @Agustino too. Look at it as me helping him not to say stuff that may result in grievous bodily harm against him. Besides which, we are not going to get anywhere unless we clarify that we are using words in the same way.

I see forgiveness as a processes on an interpersonal basis, a processes that varies greatly depending on who all are involved. There is a difference in forgiving a child, a parent, a friend, a lover, or a stranger. It has to do with fairness, harm, and pain.

How many times have we heard a child or adolescent say to a parent "I hate you", and we discount it because we understand that they really don't understand what it means to hate, how deeply this word can cut. It is quite another thing for a parent to tell a child or adolescent that they are worthless, or no good. I was reading a poem by Philip Larkin the other day. Here are the lines that caught me:

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra just for you.

To forgive you have to feel hurt. I don't event think you necessarily have to understand why you feel hurt, but you do have to feel it or act in a way that demonstrates to others that you are hurt. A friend you count on, or some one you love, may inadvertently hurt you and be quite unaware of the pain they have caused you, unless you tell them. In a lot of ways, I think dialogue is the source of openness, from which honest reconciliation, and forgiveness (healing) are possible.

A business relationship is in some ways like a marriage of sorts. One business partner may act in a way that the other deems unfair, but they try to work it out for the sake of their relationship. They talk, they try to find common ground, a way to proceed, because they both need each other. In time, on a new basis of understanding they can move past the prior hurt, the wound heals, and the relationship may grow and even become stronger. It is not the event that counts, it is how the event is handled and what it means to the parties involved, how it is understood and handled, that determines how the hurt heals, and what scars if any remain.