Tagged: “Misconceptions”
The eighth of 15 criticisms I see about forgiveness is this: To forgive is to cancel the debt the other owes you and so you never get back what is due.
When you forgive, as stated several times now, you do not cancel justice. Yes, you can cancel any obligation the other person has in helping to heal your wounds, but even here your forgiving, to be more complete, involves kindness and even love (on its highest level) which goes way beyond canceling the other’s obligation to help you to heal.
The eleventh of 15 criticisms that I so characteristically see on-line is this: The self-help advice suggests that forgiving is a quick-fix, accomplished so quickly as to be a superficial and misguided way of healing from trauma.
Research consistently shows that to forgive a person for a very deep injustice that has resulted in the effects of trauma takes patience, struggle, and time. This science shows that to forgive a person for such deep injustices is definitely not a quick fix. The problem here is in the advice of quickness and not something inherent in forgiveness itself.
Can someone forgive a tornado if it destroyed his home?
Forgiveness is toward people who have been unfair. Can a tornado be unfair? No, because a tornado has no intentions to do evil. One can work on acceptance of what happened, but it would be a distortion of forgiveness if you encouraged someone to forgive an inanimate object. A goal of forgiveness, not always possible, is to enter back into a loving or respectful relationship with that person. One cannot ever enter into a loving relationship with a tornado.
My friend thinks that by my forgiving her then all is supposedly well as if the injuries never even happened. How do I explain that my forgiving does not automatically alter the relationship to something great (when at this point, it is not)?
Your friend is confusing your forgiving with reconciliation. To reconcile means that both of you come together again in mutual trust. It seems that you are not quite ready to fully trust her at this point. Yes, forgiving is an important step toward reconciliation, but she now will have to do her part to avoid injuring you as she has done in the past.
I have believed that one does not forgive unless the other person apologizes. You say differently. Can you give me at least 3 reasons why it is ok to forgive someone who does not apologize or even refuses to do so?
Yes, I can give you three reasons as follows: 1) There is no other moral virtue on the planet that has a rule connected to it that someone else must engage in a certain behavior or say certain words before you can engage in that virtue. For example, you can be patient whenever you wish. Also, you can be fair to others no matter the circumstances. Why now is forgiveness the only moral virtue that must not emerge until the other person utters those three words: “I am sorry?”; 2) Your waiting until the other apologizes gives that person tremendous power over you. You could be stuck with harmful resentment or even hatred if the other refuses to let you forgive and be free of this toxic anger; 3) Your free will as a person is hampered if you must await permission from the other (with the words, “I am sorry”) before you can forgive. Here is a fourth reason: Suppose the person passes away before saying the three words. You now are stuck with the resentment with no possibility of releasing that potentially harmful emotion for the rest of your life.
