• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Wondering About Forgiveness

allfoak

Alchemist
I see @Spockrates style as reminiscent of Zen Mondo.

I am interested in dialogue, not being questioned.
I fail to see how this is helping him learn anything of any value.
It is those that honestly answer the questions that he asks that are getting any real value from the whole exercise.
@Spockrates claiming that somehow he is learning something about forgiveness, something he says that he does not otherwise know how to apply in his life, is foolishness.
A child knows what the concept of forgiveness means.

If one does not know how to forgive, then i would question if they know much about any emotion, such as guilt, the motivation that often drives one to seek out forgiveness.
The word sociopath again comes to mind.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
I am interested in dialogue, not being questioned.
I fail to see how this is helping him learn anything of any value.
It is those that honestly answer the questions that he asks that are getting any real value from the whole exercise.
@Spockrates claiming that somehow he is learning something about forgiveness, something he says that he does not otherwise know how to apply in his life, is foolishness.
A child knows what the concept of forgiveness means.

If one does not know how to forgive, then i would question if they know much about any emotion, such as guilt, the motivation that often drives one to seek out forgiveness.
The word sociopath again comes to mind.
Why would guilt be a motivating factor in forgiveness unless you don't consciously understand what forgiveness is about? (I'm truly puzzled here!)
 

allfoak

Alchemist
I think you must own some of that. But who am I?
What I mean is that you might perceive it all one way when it really isn't.
I might be wrong. You might be right. But he isn't either from my point of view because he has not settled yet. Like a bird.

I will try again to ask some questions.
I have tried already, but of course no answers.

I have noticed that people come and go quickly on this thread.
There is no dialogue, nothing to keep them here.
New people come and go, like it happens in a cult.
New people come and then they go, as new people come in to replace the old, it keeps the engine going.
 

allfoak

Alchemist
Why would guilt be a motivating factor in forgiveness unless you don't consciously understand what forgiveness is about? (I'm truly puzzled here!)

Guilt is something that people seek to relieve generally.
This is done through seeking some kind of reconciliation or forgiveness.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Guilt is something that people seek to relieve generally.
This is done through seeking some kind of reconciliation or forgiveness.
I picture feeling guilt as a signal to do some soul searching, as my unconscious mind (which I consider to be waaaaay smarter than my conscious mind) understands something my conscious mind does not understand. I suppose that could be viewed as a sort of reconciliation--reconciling the conscious mind to the unconscious mind.
 

Spockrates

Wonderer.
Forgiveness is not an emotion. It is an action. The specific action is removing the hatred and resentment in connection to the event from your mind--although your heart/mind will feel different once you unburden it of the hatred and resentment, as you are creating a change in the state of mind (referred to as citta in Buddhism.)

Yes, I think I understand. Let me be sure: Would you also say that pardoning someone for doing some wrong, forgiving a debt owed to you, or otherwise not requiring someone to suffer the consequences of her actions is not an act of forgiveness, but is instead an act of compassion, which might be prompted by an act of forgiveness?

If so, then at the moment, I see no way to question the truth of that, though I also see no way to confirm its truth, either. I suppose I need to think about it.
 
Last edited:

Spockrates

Wonderer.
What I said: Yet, I still see in myself ways in which forgiveness is necessary for me.
What I also said: In reality, no one needs forgiveness.

The two aren't contradictory. Perception is a filter or veil pulled over reality. That reality is foremost about Self. And things aren't always as they seem. The reason I see forgiveness is necessary is because I perceive Self as split, separate from Self. Or perceive others as not Me. Seeing (reality of) everyone as Me, and knowing Love is complete/perfect within this Self, would render forgiveness as not necessary. Thus in reality, it is not necessary. Because I am willing to forego all that and hold conviction in an (alleged) existence of separation from Self, perceiving others, believing Love is between incomplete and not readily found, then it seems forgiveness is necessary. Emphasis on 'seems.' It is really just a desire, or offering to re-align what in reality is not out of accord, but due to my perception of reality/Self, is held in disaccord.

I do not see the two as honestly contradictory, but realize it may appear that way. From the perspective of 'forgiveness is not helpful,' and separation offers a lot more, the contradiction is a given. There is a duality at work (upholding the belief in separation) that cleverly masks itself with a broader, more superficial belief in plurality. Thus forgiveness appears to be about more (way more) than Me.



It is not necessary for you to overlook the errors perceived in others. As in it is not a requirement from outside of you, placed upon you as if it is a burden, and salvation rests on you intellectually grasping this. In reality, you are, I am, we all are fine/perfect. If perfection currently strikes you as too high of a bar for you to see that in anyone, much less yourself, and you desire to see that, then forgiveness is the path to re-alignment. From the spiritual perspective, and answering the question of "why I am I here," then I see forgiveness as the only sane function. I hesitate to say that, due to my own desire to engage in other functions (namely to engage in what I perceive as enjoyment within the separation). Thus, if I say "forgiveness is your/my only function," I do get what this means, but also realize I am hypocritical in relation to that, for it is not the only function I engage in.

Wrapping one's head around what forgiveness is, as I said before, a lifelong process. I find it is really really obvious and very very simple to grasp intellectually. Seemingly too easy to understand. To apply, and apply consistently in all situations, is where the challenge comes. And seemingly never stops and also seemingly gets harder and harder.

Because of how simple it is to convey in words, and because I do recognize it as unnecessary in reality, I have high conviction that perfect knowledge of what forgiveness is, is known to all. To whatever degree that is presented as 'not true' to me, say by you claiming, "no really, I have no idea, please help me," is an intellectual exercise that may or may not show up as fruitful to me. I may never realize (intellectually) that you do understand. I do believe everyone practices actual forgiveness at least some of the time. As in, do you constantly focus on the errors of say Hitler and not allow yourself to live your life knowing the alleged horrors attributed to his persona? Or do you find yourself able to enjoy life, in your own way, by overlooking Hitler's errors, not to mention literally all errors by everyone, including own self, at least some of the time? Knowing you are able to find joy at any moment, and make that last, is partially how forgiveness is at work, and certain in its inevitable outcome (thus not really necessary). But understanding that today may be a day where you feel so at odds with another that death to them, or death to own self, suddenly seems rational, is the day where forgiveness suddenly becomes the most sane defense and 'necessary' for proper alignment of your Self.

That went over my head. Let me find a latter and try again, later.

[emoji4]
 

Spockrates

Wonderer.
I find the Socratic-style of questioning quite helpful for bringing things up out of the unconscious mind and clearly into the conscious mind where they can be carefully examined for errors and inconsistencies, as well as translated into concise, descriptive language. Some people might not like the process. (Hmm, perhaps people being uncomfortable with it might have had something to do with Socrates being sentenced to drinking hemlock? He was cutting into the Kool-Aid business by "corrupting the youth" into questioning the ingredients of Kool-Aid!)

Yes, in Theatetus, Socrates described his method using the analogy of a midwife helping a woman give birth. His mother was a midwife, he said, explaining that he helped men give birth to ideas, and then helped them examine those ideas to see if they were living truth, or lies better off taken to the wilderness to be exposed and die.

Yet, he admitted that, like a midwife, he was himself barren, never giving birth to any truth himself. So the truths he helped others bring to life, he adopted and loved as though they were his own, being careful to take no credit for giving birth to them. I guess I'm like him in that respect.
 
Last edited:

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Yes, I think I understand. Let me be sure: Would you also say that pardoning someone for doing some wrong, forgiving a debt owed to you, or otherwise not requiring someone to suffer the consequences of her actions is not an act of forgiveness, but is instead an act of compassion, which might be prompted by an act of forgiveness?
I would go a step further to to say that to qualify as a compassionate act, the act would require skillfulness--in that the other person becomes awakened to the unskillfulness of the act which caused resentment/hatred, and is given and/or made conscious of ways to transform the unskillful act into one that is more skillful.

Out of forgiveness, you might forgive a debt (and the person) without helping the person develop skills to not repeat it. However, this instance might be more properly called detachment or apathy, rather than compassion, as it may or may not help the other person become more skillful.

If so, then at the moment, I see no way to question the truth of that, though I also see no way to confirm its truth, either. I suppose I need to think about it.
:)
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
Yes, in Theatetus, Socrates described his method using the analogy of a midwife helping a woman give birth. His mother was a midwife, he said, explaining that he helped men give birth to ideas, and then helped them examine those ideas to see if they were living truth, or lies better off taken to the wilderness to be exposed and die.

Yet, he admitted that, like a midwife, he was himself barren, never giving birth to any truth himself. So the truths he helped others bring to life, he adopted and loved as though they were his own, being careful to take no credit for giving birth to them. I guess I'm like him in that respect.

There are aspects of socratic wisdom that I find easy to turn on itself and see (or contemplate) on how that is actually working.

Like the notion of: never giving birth to any truth himself, is a good example. Is this not written as a 'truth?'
 

Sakeenah

Well-Known Member
Thank you for joining the conversation.

[emoji4]



I appreciate your explanation.



Interesting how the prophet appears to state there is a one-to-one correspondence between forgiving and being forgiven.

Also you mentioned:

"- I believe forgiving means not carrying a grudge in your heart for the person that wronged you.And it means that if you were given the chance to retaliate you would choose not to. To me it also means not wishing any bad, even if secretly upon the person."

You also said:

"- I always try to forgive .To me forgiving doesnt mean the person didn't do anything wrong .If they betrayed my trust it doesnt mean I have to trust them again."

So I wonder if not trusting someone can in some cases be a form of retaliation. What do you think?

I mean, consider an example: A man is married to a woman he loves deeply and trust completely. In a moment of weakness, she has a sexual affair. The man finding this out plans to divorce her.

"Please forgive me!" she pleads, "Do not divorce me. I was so wrong to hurt you. I love you and will never betray you again!"

He responds, "I still love you and forgive you completely, but I cannot ever trust you, again. I'm going through with the divorce."

"You don't love me or forgive me!" she responds in tears. "If you did, you'd find it in your heart to trust me and wouldn't divorce me."

Would you say she is in error?

Yw : )

In regards to your example imo she is in error.I don't think giving a second chance is something you have to do in order to truly forgive. Forgiveness means letting go of the hurt and not having a grudge against that person. I think forgiveness is a process that is necessary for your own hapiness and growth.But a second chance is you doing a favour for the other person. Some people can forgive and give another chance while others choose to forgive and move on..one isn't less forgiving than the other.
Hopes this makes sense #strugglesofnonnativespeaker : )
 

Spockrates

Wonderer.
There are aspects of socratic wisdom that I find easy to turn on itself and see (or contemplate) on how that is actually working.

Like the notion of: never giving birth to any truth himself, is a good example. Is this not written as a 'truth?'

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. How does the self-observation that he never comes up with any original ideas himself contradict the idea that he's had success helping others come up with original ideas of their own?
 

Spockrates

Wonderer.
Yw : )

In regards to your example imo she is in error.I don't think giving a second chance is something you have to do in order to truly forgive. Forgiveness means letting go of the hurt and not having a grudge against that person. I think forgiveness is a process that is necessary for your own hapiness and growth.But a second chance is you doing a favour for the other person. Some people can forgive and give another chance while others choose to forgive and move on..one isn't less forgiving than the other.
Hopes this makes sense #strugglesofnonnativespeaker : )

Well, if what you say is true, then giving someone a second chance never is forgiving! You might be right, but I'd still like to be more convinced.

Would you say giving someone a second chance is an act of love?
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. How does the self-observation that he never comes up with any original ideas himself contradict the idea that he's had success helping others come up with original ideas of their own?

Seems like the language of what was stated before changed in what you are conveying here. I could work with the new goalpost, but curious which one you wish to go with?
 

Spockrates

Wonderer.
Seems like the language of what was stated before changed in what you are conveying here. I could work with the new goalpost, but curious which one you wish to go with?

Oh, sorry for being clear as mud! What I mean to convey is that this statement,

"Yet, [Socrates] admitted that, like a midwife, he was himself barren, never giving birth to any truth himself. So the truths he helped others bring to life, he adopted and loved as though they were his own, being careful to take no credit for giving birth to them."

actually means this,

"Socrates made a self-observation that he never came up with any original true ideas himself, but he had success helping others come up with original true ideas of their own. These he adopted as his own, but gave credit to others for coming up with them."

That is I think my second comment clarifies, rather than changes the subject of the first. But do you disagree?
 

Spockrates

Wonderer.
So the upshot is that the Socratic method, if used with sincere motives to understand, is a superior way to learn, compared to debate. I agree with Socrates:

"For the partisan, when he is engaged in a debate, cares nothing about the truth of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. So the difference between him and me...is only this: That whereas he seeks to convince his hearers what he says is true, I'm instead trying to convince myself! Convincing my hearers is not as important to me."
(Phaedo)
 

allfoak

Alchemist
"Socrates made a self-observation that he never came up with any original true ideas himself, but he had success helping others come up with original true ideas of their own. These he adopted as his own, but gave credit to others for coming up with them."

Very strange.
He either had to take the others word that the truth that they had come upon was an original idea, or he had to be connected to the originator of truth in order to recognize the truth himself when he heard it.
Knowing what questions to ask means you are already in possession of the truth and are aware of this truth.

This impression that is being given that Socrates was not in possession of the truth himself prior to the realizations of others that he questioned is foolishness.
In order to question like it is claimed he did, one must have a goal in focus at all times.
This goal that one is focused upon is what allows for the questioning to be so effective.
This goal is the kernel of truth that is already known by Socrates prior to the questioning.

And this sir, is the reason that the impression is given that you are trying to lead us to your own answer.
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
Oh, sorry for being clear as mud! What I mean to convey is that this statement,

"Yet, [Socrates] admitted that, like a midwife, he was himself barren, never giving birth to any truth himself. So the truths he helped others bring to life, he adopted and loved as though they were his own, being careful to take no credit for giving birth to them."

actually means this,

"Socrates made a self-observation that he never came up with any original true ideas himself, but he had success helping others come up with original true ideas of their own. These he adopted as his own, but gave credit to others for coming up with them."

That is I think my second comment clarifies, rather than changes the subject of the first. But do you disagree?

I don't see it is clarifying as much as changing goal posts. The addition of the word "original" is the significant change. Or could just be incidental, as I'm not sure why it would matter who originated the true ideas.

So the upshot is that the Socratic method, if used with sincere motives to understand, is a superior way to learn, compared to debate. I agree with Socrates:

"For the partisan, when he is engaged in a debate, cares nothing about the truth of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. So the difference between him and me...is only this: That whereas he seeks to convince his hearers what he says is true, I'm instead trying to convince myself! Convincing my hearers is not as important to me."
(Phaedo)

I like this quote. But if going with the socratic method, would not the Socratic seeker be partisan to their own self? Therefore also a partisan, who possibly cares nothing about the truth of the question, but gets to claim they do as a way to superficially win the debate of who is better at arguing, the Socratic or the non Socratic?

*This is what I meant earlier by turning Socratic wisdom on itself.
 

Spockrates

Wonderer.
Very strange.
He either had to take the others word that the truth that they had come upon was an original idea, or he had to be connected to the originator of truth in order to recognize the truth himself when he heard it.
Knowing what questions to ask means you are already in possession of the truth and are aware of this truth.

This impression that is being given that Socrates was not in possession of the truth himself prior to the realizations of others that he questioned is foolishness.
In order to question like it is claimed he did, one must have a goal in focus at all times.
This goal that one is focused upon is what allows for the questioning to be so effective.
This goal is the kernel of truth that is already known by Socrates prior to the questioning.

And this sir, is the reason that the impression is given that you are trying to lead us to your own answer.

blade_runner___roy_batty_by_encore-d3b2rqg.jpg


In one of the dialogs, Socrates discussed with a friend the difference between having the truth and possessing it. He used the analogy of a birdcage filled with birds to describe the thoughts of our mind, and together they came up with something like this:

Imagine each thought is a different kind of bird. We have many of them in our minds. But we don't really possess them till we grasp them and examine them closely. So if you were to ask me about a bird in my cage, I might reply, "Oh, that thing? It's a pigeon I call Forgiveness. Nothing but a 'rat' with wings!" But you, knowing that I'm not really seeing Forgiveness might ask me to take hold of her, grasping her gently, and remove her from the cage so we can get a closer look at her. After I do so, you might point out certain features she has that make her more than just a common "rat bird" but instead a beautiful dove. Once I see the bird the way you see her, only then will I possess the truth about this bird I have, but haven't really understood.

So in response to your premise that one must possess the truth before he can ask about it, I'd say this: While one must have an idea before he may ask his teacher about it, one who asks to be taught doesn't have to already possess the answers to the questions one is asking. It's entirely possible, and often is the case, that the one asking the questions does not possess the truth about the ideas he has. In this case that one is me.
 
Last edited:

Spockrates

Wonderer.
I don't see it is clarifying as much as changing goal posts. The addition of the word "original" is the significant change. Or could just be incidental, as I'm not sure why it would matter who originated the true ideas.

I like this quote. But if going with the socratic method, would not the Socratic seeker be partisan to their own self? Therefore also a partisan, who possibly cares nothing about the truth of the question, but gets to claim they do as a way to superficially win the debate of who is better at arguing, the Socratic or the non Socratic?

*This is what I meant earlier by turning Socratic wisdom on itself.

Not sure what you mean when you say, "partisan to their own self." Please explain. Also, I can't speak for anyone else but me, but I'd add that I'm genuinely not trying to win some kind of debate. I really want to possess the truth about what forgiveness is and why I should believe that idea about what it is, is really true.
 
Last edited:
Top