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. — Baden

I think we are doing a reasonable good job of defining our terms and understanding what we're saying . I don't think this is an issue of meanings. We have real differences in the way that we feel about this issue and I think we are putting them out there with some clarity.

And I don't "love" Agustino, I'm moved by his conviction.

Battery gone. I've really enjoyed this.

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

Okay, let's see. Approve means to have a positive opinion of something or someone. Forgive means:

to stop blaming or being angry with someone for something that person has done, or not punish them for something

With that definition, yes there is no way in which she approves of his actions. But if she doesn't forgive him she would approve of the mode of being in hatred and anger. To forgive means precisely to renounce the will to do violence to the other or punish them. If there is no forgiveness, then there is approval (ie having a positive opinion) of the mode of being that entails that violence and punishment are useful and good. That mode of being is the opposite of the mode of being entailed by forgiveness.

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. — Baden

Yes, I am getting at that, but not only at that. My point is that if there is no radical forgiveness and renunciation of violence, then there can be no peace on Earth. My point is that violence tends to spread because each party ends up seeing itself as justified to reprisal. Do you follow that?

You weren't just saying it's preferable you were saying if they don't they are guilty of approving of the horrific acts that were inflicted upon them. — Baden

No, not of the acts. I never said of the acts. In fact, I said the opposite:

To forgive someone doesn't mean you approve of their actions. — Agustino

I did say that they would be guilty in approving of the mode of being of hatred and violence, in at least some of its manifestations, if they don't forgive. This isn't "moral guilt", just "guilt" in the sense that they would be responsible for that, it would be a consequence of their actions. It shows that they think the mode of being of hatred and violence can be good - for example in punishing wrong-doers.

Not forgiving is not equal to hating — Baden

+ Not forgiving is not equal to wishing violence on someone etc — Baden

Does being angry involve hating? Not forgiving per the definition above entails wanting to punish someone and/or being angry with them. That sounds to me like hating someone or wanting to punish them (do violence to them).

No, not of the acts. I never said of the acts. — Agustino

A man rapes your wife. You don't forgive him. Does that mean you approve of his actions?
— Baden
"Yes, it does" — Agustino

I'm outside now so I'll come back to it later. Hopefully, we can move on to more sensible territory.



Good luck. I'll miss the ankle biting. ;)

the law — TimeLine

"having canceled the debt ascribed to us in the decrees [of the law] that stood against us. He took it away, nailing it to the cross!" Colossians 2:14

I'm outside now so I'll come back to it later. Hopefully, we can move on to more sensible territory. — Baden

Okay yes, I see what you mean. My apologies, I didn't mean it that way, as should have been clearer after my second reply.

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. — T Clark

I don't think it is a very high bar to want to marry someone who you can have a rational conversation with; playing games, nourishing egos, that sort of thing is not for me. I ask for that since you will be spending a lot of intimate time together and most of any relationship is based on the conversations that you will have. If that is too much to ask, then I would rather be alone and face the hardships that come with that rather than be unhappy in a relationship as long as I am not alone. Lesser of two evils.

I appreciate you telling me how you try to live your life in as much as I am doing so with me, but I think that trying to be compassionate and effective vis-a-vis your own statement that you stay silent because that is the quickest formula of ending any conflict with your wife who has hurt you a number of times is enough to say that you are conceding to prevent incidents that is compassionate and effective for you.

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. — Agustino

What is the difference between predestined and predetermined?

What is the difference between predestined and predetermined? — TimeLine

No difference. But predestination and fatalism and predeterminism are different from determinism.

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. — Cavacava

This is how I see it too; the intensity of a parent hurting you is more than a sibling, in as much as it is easier to forgive a sibling for hurting you than it is a friend. There are many factors to consider and any reasonable efforts to hold your moral ground while at the same time balancing your personal emotions can be tricky that having an absolute 'just forgive' or being completely unforgiving without really thinking things through is wrong both for yourself and for the principles in question or wherefore the wrongs have been breached.

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. — Cavacava

I don't believe in hatred, despite the last thing you say above happening to me; my siblings tormented me about my appearance that I believed I was not attractive to a point of keeping away from men entirely. I quite literally thought I was ugly and that wound was very deep, but I still managed to forgive them because I was able to reason that it was all a reaction. I have never hated anyone, I have only found an act based on a bad decision, choice, idea to be abhorrent, though there is always a part of me that desires to expose why it is bad as a way of effecting a reminder that there is meaning and value in holding to the right principles. Actions can hurt people so apologies should not be superficial, but it should be actual to remember the meaning of morality and to be altruistic enough to care. This is why acknowledgement is important. One of my favourite movies Dead Man Walking exemplifies my type of reasoning. Punishment is a way of showing the value of principles or the principle in question. When it is broken and the person genuinely feels guilt, it would be vicious not to forgive but if any admission of guilt is artificial because they know that they can get something out of it including the act repeating itself, a certain responsibility follows you that how you act becomes more complex.

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. — Cavacava

This is absolutely right and a lack of dialogue is the very source of grief, where you hurt the most. When you can't communicate to them either because they escape you or hide from you or they just simply don't hear a word that you are saying, that is where you feel the most pain. If you can't communicate with them, you have to let it go otherwise you will end up hurting yourself.

Have I forgiven her because of my own experiences that enabled me to understand her better or have I forgiven her because she acknowledged her wrongdoing? — TimeLine

Can't it be both? Perhaps neither?

Forgiveness is an act of a victim. Do you feel victimized? Do you feel a wrong was done to you? Or did you realize that you were mistaken and that you were never a victim?

Forgiveness is an act of a victim. Do you feel victimized? Do you feel a wrong was done to you? Or did you realize that you were mistaken and that you were never a victim? — TheMadFool

The wrongs did happen, that is clear, however what changed was my level of altruism, my capacity to feel compassion and appreciate the vulnerability that caused those wrongs. The idea of being a victim dissipated with reason and forgiveness became an entirely subjective phenomenon. This is why I don't hate anyone, because I hold firm the Socratic notion that evil is ignorance. Reconciliation, however, is different because it is a mutual effort and so while I can do the above mentioned, I nevertheless refrain from any physical contact as I slowly rebuild and communicate from afar. This is really just a way of protecting myself from being hurt, but no, I was hurt and there is no mistake in that.

No difference. But predestination and fatalism and predeterminism are different from determinism. — Agustino

Gracious, I think I may need an explanation for this one. :-O However I must admit that I had always held in my mind that you believed in determinism, so it is good to know that is not the case.

Does being angry involve hating? Not forgiving per the definition above entails wanting to punish someone and/or being angry with them. That sounds to me like hating someone or wanting to punish them (do violence to them). — Agustino

That violence is called seeking revenge, an entirely different subject to one being unforgiving; punishment is not always about hurting people for doing wrong but about upholding values.

"having canceled the debt ascribed to us in the decrees [of the law] that stood against us. He took it away, nailing it to the cross!" Colossians 2:14 — Agustino

If you continue to read the Colossians, it also states in 3:9: "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds." If you prefer to exegete in that language, biblical hermeneutics is more than fine by me. The teachings are all about love, about oneness but this is sourced in the virtues and moral principles that we adhere to and its about our dedication to righteousness. The importance of authenticity was a source that would drive Jesus to anger, Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. And don't forget, there is nothing wrong with be passionate about right and wrong, as it is rather lukewarm to simply just accept an artificial apology of one consistently making the same errors; I know your deeds, that you are neither cold or hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. I'm going to sleep now. Sweet dreams :-d

Have I forgiven her because of my own experiences that enabled me to understand her better or have I forgiven her because she acknowledged her wrongdoing? — TimeLine

Those things and because you love her.

the intensity of a parent hurting you is more than a sibling, in as much as it is easier to forgive a sibling for hurting you than it is a friend. — TimeLine

That is because a child takes the parent as a model of imitation. Even when the parent hurts the child, the child is still attached to the parent, because the very hurt signals a superior sufficiency of being in the parent that the child is shown to lack, so the child paradoxically seeks to imitate and become even more like the parent. This double bind is painful. The more violent the parent, the more attached the child becomes. The interiorized sense of lack always propels the child forward in seeking dominating models - the masochistic desire of course isn't because the child takes pleasure in pain, but rather because the proximity of the pain signals a self-sufficient model that the child can imitate and hence achieve the same self-sufficiency of being. The child cannot forgive the parent easily because the parent as model becomes rival - it is precisely in its rivalry that the parent is shown to have superiority of being. And the child wants this superiority of being. It is propelled by the desire to become invincible - of course a desire which is impossible and self-defeating.

A different view of forgiveness:

"ONE year ago today, a shooter entered a one-room Amish school in Nickel Mines, Pa., dismissed all but 10 girls, and fired at them execution-style, killing five before shooting himself.

Within hours, the Amish community forgave the killer and his family. "

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/2007/1002/p09s02-coop.html

Something truly inspiring really.

However I must admit that I had always held in my mind that you believed in determinism, so it is good to know that is not the case. — TimeLine

Well it is the case that I am a determinist of the Spinozist kind in the sense that I take that things are determined, things have causes to be what they are. But there is no predeterminism/fatalism and the like because you yourself are part of the causal chain. Determinism isn't incompatible with free will.

I did say that they would be guilty in approving of the mode of being of hatred and violence. — Agustino

Do you not acknowledge that we can be in an emotional state without approving of it? So, for example, we can be angry without approving of (the mode of being of) hatred and violence (we may simply wish we weren't angry, for example), and we can be unforgiving without wanting to apply an unjust punishment to the one who harmed us. To me, what's important, morally speaking, is not the emotional state, which is often beyond our control, but our reaction to it. Do we allow it to overcome us so that we also act unjustly or will unjust acts? Or do we stick to our moral precepts regardless? It's only in the former case that we can be accused of "approving" or "approving of" immorality (and therefore being immoral) in any sense.

My point is that if there is no radical forgiveness and renunciation of violence, then there can be no peace on Earth. My point is that violence tends to spread because each party ends up seeing itself as justified to reprisal. Do you follow that? — Agustino

Yes, and I agree with the spirit of it, but responsibility for violence must be laid at the feet of the violent (and their enablers) not at those of their victims regardless of whether those victims forgive the violent or not. Ideally they would forgive those of the violent who sincerely repented, but I see no moral obligation to do so provided they refrain from unjust acts themselves or support of unjust acts by others against their former oppressors. And even if I were to accept that that's not what tends to happen that would make no difference to my argument.



I imagine it takes a very different approach to life to be able to be that strong psychologically. More power to them.

Do you not acknowledge that we can be in an emotional state without approving of it? — Baden

Yes, we can be in an emotional state without wanting to be. That experience is quite common.

To me, what's important, morally speaking, is not the emotional state, which is often beyond our control, but our reaction to it. — Baden

Sure. Forgiveness and love are not emotional states, they are precisely choices. Jesus always presents it as an alternative choice between violence and love.

but responsibility for violence must be laid at the feet of the violent (and their enablers) not at those of their victims regardless of whether those victims forgive the violent or not. — Baden

It's not so much of where responsibility must be laid - responsibility cannot be laid, it exists. It must only be revealed to be at the feet of the violent.

Yes, we can be in an emotional state without wanting to be. That experience is quite common. — Agustino

Sure. Forgiveness and love are not emotional states, they are precisely choices. Jesus always presents it as an alternative choice between violence and love. — Agustino

It's not so much of where responsibility must be laid - responsibility cannot be laid, it exists. It must only be revealed to be at the feet of the violent. — Agustino

Love is not an emotional state? What is then? Also, do you agree we can be unforgiving without wanting to unjustly punish the one who harmed us? If so, can you explain how this is violent? (If that's what you are claiming). If not, why is it at least immoral?

Love is not an emotional state? What is then? — Baden

I already told you - a choice.

Also, do you agree we can be unforgiving without wanting to unjustly punish the one who harmed us? — Baden

Oh, of course you won't want to "unjustly" punish the one who harmed you. That's precisely how the logic of violence works - the victim always deserves it. "The woman asked to be raped", and so on. What Jesus reveals is precisely that "the victim deserves it" is a lie, but it is precisely this lie which gets the logic of violence working and sustains it in motion.

I already told you - a choice. — Agustino

You misunderstand. I mean name an emotional state.

Oh, of course you won't want to "unjustly" punish the one who harmed you. That's precisely how the logic of violence works - the victim always deserves it. "The woman asked to be raped", and so on. What Jesus reveals is precisely that "the victim deserves it" is a lie, but it is precisely this lie which gets the logic of violence working and sustains it in motion. — Agustino

This makes zero sense. I am the one saying the victim should not be blamed. You are the one claiming they should be if they don't forgive. Now, can you answer my actual question?

Do you agree we can be unforgiving without wanting to unjustly punish the one who harmed us? — Baden

In other words is not forgiving someone for harming you and seeking a just punishment somehow immoral?

(I realize you wrote before it's not "moral" guilt but if so then they cannot be blamed, right? I find it hard to square your pronouncements on this.)

I mean name an emotional state. — Baden

Meaning? Anger is an emotional state for example.

In other words is not forgiving someone for harming you but seeking a just punishment somehow immoral? — Baden

And I go back to the phenomenology of the experience. If you seek an unjust punishment you're never going to think the punishment is unjust are you?! You'll be 100% sure it is just, like how the rapist feels 100% sure that the woman really wants to be raped. Then you'll go ahead with your punishment thinking it is the most just thing in the world. You're never going to think "Ah I want this really unjust punishment for he who harmed me".

That is why there is a forced choice between love and violence, and why I cannot answer your question. If I say "yes" (to seeking a just punishment) all the criminals in the world will think they're justified in punishing their victims, because their punishment is just (in their minds) - hence more violence. If I say "no" then it will seem like there is no justice in the world, hence again more violence. So I cannot answer your question and subvert the logic of violence. I can only outline that logic and force you to choose between violence and love.

Meaning? Anger is an emotional state for example. — Agustino

Does anger not have in common with love the fact that is an emotional state though an opposing one? Can we not talk of anger vs acts of anger as well as love vs acts of love?

Does anger not have in common with love the fact that is an emotional state though an opposing one? Can we not talk of anger vs acts of anger as well as love vs acts of love? — Baden

We can absolutely talk like so, and there is a sense in which love is an emotion. I fell in love with a girl, there is a certain emotion associated with it.

But Christian love as recommended by Jesus - love your neighbor as yourself - isn't a feeling, it's a choice. Even if you feel like hating your neighbor, you should put your hatred to one side and love your neighbor. This propagates further on in other relationships such as your relationship with your wife or partner.

I remember the story of Bertrand Russell on his bike one day, when he realised he no longer felt attracted to his wife. So he divorced her. He failed to see that there is anything more to love than feeling. So when the feeling was gone, so was his love. That's also why life-long marriage vows are hard to conceive in our Western society today - because the conception of love given to us by our society is no longer the Christian one.

You'll be 100% sure it is just, like how the rapist feels 100% sure that the woman really wants to be raped. — Agustino

This is completely backwards. Rapists are not "punishing" women for something the woman did to them. The rapist is abusing the woman and should themselves be punished. And I doubt most rapists can convince themselves the woman wants to be raped any more than someone who punches you in the face can convince themselves you wanted them to do it.

And I go back to the phenomenology of the experience. If you seek an unjust punishment you're never going to think the punishment is unjust are you? — Agustino

Let's presume the punishment is just. For example, the woman hopes the rapist will be sent to prison for a period of time as outlined under the law. So, what then?

But Christian love as recommended by Jesus - love your neighbor as yourself - isn't a feeling, it's a choice. Even if you feel like hating your neighbor, you should put your hatred to one side and love your neighbor. This propagates further on in other relationships such as your relationship with your wife or partner. — Agustino

If it's fully a choice, it relates fully to an act. We don't get to fully choose our feelings. Would that we did. That makes love (of whatever sort) and anger commensurate in terms of state and action.

I remember the story of Bertrand Russell on his bike one day, when he realised he no longer felt attracted to his wife. So he divorced her. He failed to see that there is anything more to love than feeling. So when the feeling was gone, so was his love. — Agustino

He was a dodgy bugger, I'll give you that.

And I doubt most rapists can convince themselves the woman wants to be raped any more than someone who punches you in the face can convince themselves you wanted them to do it. — Baden

Well many of them do cite that the woman really wanted it as justification for their actions. That the woman seduced them, etc. So either we believe that they think that and then we can understand why they did what they did, or we disbelieve them, and then evil becomes somewhat of a mystery. Of course by believing that this is what they think we are not also entailed to thinking that what they think is true (because it's not).

Evil always involves some sort of self-deception, in the case of the rapist, this would be the self-deception that the victim, for whatever reason, wanted it or somehow deserved it.

As for someone who punches me in the face, it's not difficult for them to convince themselves that I deserve it. Maybe they start thinking that I've stared at their wife for too long. Who knows - violence always finds reasons and justifications when it needs them.

Let's presume the punishment is just. For example, the woman hopes the rapist will be sent to prison for a period of time as outlined under the law. So, what then? — Baden

If the punishment is really just, then obviously that wouldn't be wrong.

If the punishment is really just, then obviously that wouldn't be wrong. — Agustino

Ok, so in this case being unforgiving would not be wrong. So, it seems to me it's not being unforgiving per se that you consider wrong but wishing harm, violence, unjust punishment etc on others. That's a different issue as far as I'm concerned.

Ok, so in this case being unforgiving would not be wrong — Baden

Asking for the just punishment isn't necessarily being unforgiving though. And in either case from unforgiving not being morally condemnable, it doesn't follow that unforgiving is morally laudable (or right).

Asking for the just punishment isn't necessarily being unforgiving though. — Agustino

I didn't say it was, but the example we were discussing specified someone who doesn't forgive and asks only for a just punishment.

In other words is not forgiving someone for harming you and seeking a just punishment somehow immoral? — Baden

it doesn't follow that unforgiving is morally laudable (or right). — Agustino

Sure.