Posts by Jerry King11

Benjamin Taylor6 said:The whole point of forgiveness is that you extend it to people who actually realize they messed up—people who truly repent for it. If there’s no repentance, then honestly, you’re just being a fool if you go around forgiving them.

But honestly, we don't forgive just for the sake of the offender. We do it for ourselves, so we aren't tethered to their toxicity or left under their thumb. It isn't that people are inherently evil; it's that evil finds a way to take root and turn them into its servant... and eventually, they'll have to answer for that. Repentance doesn't mean we should ignore the wrongdoing or skip the legal process if a crime was committed. Forgiving someone doesn't mean you have to pretend what happened didn't occur.

Sandra Parker3 said:this part:

..... Jacques Derrida (Pardon: the unpardonable and the imprescriptible) in his reflections on forgiveness first criticizes the view held by Vladimir Jankélévitch that forgiveness must be preceded by repentance, because that would reduce forgiveness to a mere market economy, where the one forgiving acts as a powerful master over the penitent.

the truth is, the person doing the forgiving is always positioning themselves above the person they are forgiving.

you don't even need to demand prior repentance, because the act of forgiving itself can serve as an implicit acknowledgment that there was a need for regret in the first place.

Have you ever been in a situation where someone tells you "I forgive you," and you have absolutely no idea why, or see any logic or reason behind it? 🤷

You can easily manipulate those words to play the victim—essentially triggering guilt or remorse in the other person while elevating yourself as this incredibly magnanimous forgiver. 🙄

And that's just one more reason why forgiveness is a total joke.

Sure, anyone can pull a "charity hero" stunt with any good deed just to feed their own ego, but it’s also possible to do something purely because you believe in the act itself, without expecting a single thing in return.

The same logic applies to forgiveness. 🤷

Sean Cruz said:I have to disagree with this specific point:

"I, too, am different from the version of me you imagine I am. To know that is to offer pardon."

It isn't just about knowing; if you ask me, the real weight lies in what you do with that realization. You can either accept yourself exactly as you are right now, or you can strive to become a "better" version of yourself. In my view, total acceptance often leads to stagnation, selfishness, and a complete lack of concern for anyone else. As long as you are actively trying—even when you stumble—you at least know you’ve given it your all. That is the only way to reach true peace with yourself. 🙂

And it goes even further in the text:

we could supplement Weil with a different perspective on oneself and others through God. God constantly gives people the chance to be different, to avoid getting stuck in hatred or vengeance, and to stop dwelling on past sins that cloud their view of God's hopeful horizons.

Now, you could argue it's not God, but humans themselves making that choice, but either way, the possibility for change remains. 🙂

Morgan Gonzalez56 said:I actually quite like this little piece, and this part could almost be flipped:

Exactly. As long as there is remorse, there is guilt.

As long as there is guilt, there is remorse. It's a two-way street.

Hypothetically speaking—why would anyone commit an evil act 🤷 unless they were mentally unwell? You might find this surprising, but personally, I view evil acts as a kind of spiritual cancer. I really wonder who is pulling the strings for a killer or any other criminal. Is it the mind? I doubt it. I don't believe a mentally healthy person is capable of causing bloodshed unless they are defending a child or acting in self-defense. All true crimes are committed in a state of madness, and in principle, there isn't much to criticize there. This isn't about equating the victim with the perpetrator or making excuses for the killer; it's an observation of their mental makeup. But if nothing can be forgiven, then we must remember, at all costs, as a preventative measure, so we don't end up in the role of the victim again.

I don't think forgiveness is such a grand or noble thing. It doesn't impress me. I am far more impressed by people who simply aren't capable of holding a grudge. Offering someone forgiveness sounds incredibly pretentious to me, like some sort of slimy, self-important superiority.

Actually, thinking about it more—I believe an extremely small number of people are truly capable of forgiving, and it’s just a word, an unreachable ideal that remains incomprehensible to most humans.

Well, evil is a spiritual sickness, and arguably more severe than physical or mental ones (which often stem from it). hagioterapija is an attempt to deal with its healing.

And look how they've overcomplicated things here! 😁 😍

French philosophers Vladimir Jankélévitch and Jacques Derrida argue that the human condition is fundamentally fractured. They suggest that our dignity isn't preserved by the possibility of forgiveness, but rather by its impossibility. According to Jankélévitch (Pardonner?), true forgiveness requires the offender to feel genuine remorse first. But when it comes to those horrific, monstrous crimes that transcend even the concept of radical evil—think of the atrocities seen in places like Memphis—forgiveness simply cannot happen. In those cases, you can't forgive, not just for your own sake, but out of respect for the victims. To forgive would be to offer a cheap reconciliation and to wipe away what was done. Therefore, forgiveness must remain impossible: “We did not intend to reconcile the irrationality of evil with the omnipotence of love. Forgiveness is as powerful as evil, but evil is as powerful as forgiveness... Forgiveness is stronger than evil, yet evil is stronger than forgiveness. I cannot escape this.” Derrida (Pardonner: l'impardonnable et l'imprescriptible), in his reflections on the matter, initially critiques Jankélévitch’s view that remorse must precede forgiveness. He felt that such a requirement turns forgiveness into a kind of market transaction, where the one forgiving acts as a master or ruler over the one seeking it. On the other hand, Derrida also agrees with Jankélévitch that forgiveness must remain an impossibility. However, unlike Jankélévitch, Derrida doesn't think this means forgiveness doesn't exist; he believes it exists specifically *as* an impossibility. The truth and essence of forgiveness lies in this very impossibility: we must constantly forgive and constantly seek forgiveness because it persists as an unattainable ideal. It remains impossible because humans are inherently broken beings who are perpetually in debt to one another, whether through forgiving or seeking pardon: “I must seek forgiveness in order to be just... But I must also seek forgiveness because I am just, because of the fact that I am just; for in wanting to become just, I am unjust and I betray... Because it is unjust to be just. I am always betraying someone to become just; I am always sacrificing one thing for another, just as I breathe.” Thus, the impossibility of forgiveness triggers a continuous, unstoppable process of forgiving (Derrida also viewed writing as a constant way of seeking forgiveness). It is only through this impossibility of forgiveness, which dethrones the egoism of "possibility," that a person can remain true to forgiveness itself, to the other person, and to themselves.

All this to explain Christian forgiveness.

Søren Kierkegaard concludes: “Love hides a multitude of sins, because love does not allow sin to take root; it destroys it at birth.” In this sense, forgiveness—being an act of love—doesn't give sin a chance; instead, it opens the door to a new beginning. We see a similar sentiment in the work of Simone Weil (La pesanteur et la grâce), who puts it succinctly: “I, too, am different from the person you imagine me to be. To know that is forgiveness.” Forgiveness, then, allows us to think differently about ourselves. We could expand on Weil’s thought: thinking differently about ourselves and others within God. God constantly allows a person to be different, to not get stuck in hatred or vengeance, and to not dwell in the despair of a sin that clouds one's view of the horizons of Divine hope.

They also touched on the struggle of seeking forgiveness for the wrongs we have committed ourselves.

🙂

Susan Price30 said:That’s why I wrote that one shouldn't have an active memory of a committed sin. Of course, everything is stored within a part of our being—and let's not forget things like cellular memory, since it isn't just the "brain" that remembers—but it should simply be stored, transcended, and dealt with. Once we stop feeding those thoughts about past wrongs or the wrongdoers with our energy and focus, they lose all power, significance, and vitality. In a sense, they cease to exist (even if physical memory and bodily memory persist at certain levels).

When total healing and forgiveness occur, it happens automatically; it isn't something that requires any strenuous effort on our part.

Forgiveness is the liberation of the spirit first, and then everything else follows... it is primarily a spiritual "technique" that necessitates certain spiritual "actions."

Could you elaborate on what you mean by that? The reality is that when someone has endured massive suffering or loss, forgiving the perpetrator often feels impossible, no matter how hard you try. Forgiveness isn't always some spontaneous thing that just happens to you. And I certainly don't think there's any point in just "sweeping it under the rug"—suppressing it or pretending it didn't happen—and calling that forgiveness. To me, the goal should be to rise above the trauma, perhaps even transforming it into something constructive that fosters growth. In that sense, I agree that once that happens, the event no longer holds power over you.

Sean Cruz said:Based on this, the only effective recipes for lasting happiness involve amnesia or a lobotomy.

I don't have the full Borgesian context here, but I doubt we're taking any of this baggage with us to the afterlife. 😁 🤷

Susan Price30 said:This is interesting, 😁 though the tricky part is—how do you remember without harboring resentment? How do you actually separate the two? It’s incredibly difficult.

In my view, as long as we remember, we haven't truly forgiven. We might say the right things or mean well, but unless we forgive from the depths of our soul as Jesus taught, we haven't achieved it.

The true sign is when we stop dwelling on it—when there is no longer an active memory of the sin inflicted upon us. Only then have we found peace with ourselves and everyone else.

Even in the New Testament, the focus is on the memory of Christ's suffering, but not for the sake of pitying Him 😁, rather as a precursor to celebrating His resurrection. 🤷

the real sign that we've made it is when we stop ruminating—when we no longer have that (active) mental loop of the offense. Only then have we truly found peace with ourselves and everyone else.

Maybe memory just stops being "active." It doesn't mean we can't recall what happened; it just means we aren't constantly revisiting it and picking at the wound. By forgiving, we liberate ourselves from the evil so we can finally move forward, you know?🤷

"We need to understand our history, but we have to view it through the lens of the Gospel to remember without losing ourselves to resentment."

Father Edward Peric

"Memory is necessary, but forgiveness is vital; if I cling to a grudge, I’m only destroying myself. That doesn't mean forgetting—Christianity isn't about being oblivious. The goal is never vengeance. Those who committed atrocities during the American Civil War didn't truly grasp the sheer scale of the evil they were unleashing; if they had understood the consequences, they never would have done it. Most injustices are committed under the guise of righteousness."

Father Edward Peric

Honesty is what sets you free.

@ Susan Price30, what’s your take on this?

Could you expand a bit on how you see it?

Sandra Parker3 said:Yeah, that’s an interesting and pretty vital point. It happens where we end up blaming ourselves for why something bad happened to us in the first place, wondering if we somehow deserved it...[/I]

if we're blaming ourselves for some evil done to us when we aren't actually at fault, then we need to deal with that "imposed" guilt through logic, rather than relying on some imaginary act of forgiving the other person (which is supposed to forgive ourselves in the process)😲

First, you have to realize for yourself that you aren't guilty; after that, if someone wants to forgive the other person, they can do whatever they want—forgive or let go, it doesn't matter much

that bolded part above is honestly pathetic, and I'm trying to keep my language civil here, but it's just a desperate attempt to equate the victim with the perpetrator

anyway, where did that post go? 🤷
if we're blaming ourselves for some evil done to us when we aren't actually at fault, then we need to deal with that "imposed" guilt through logic, rather than relying on some imaginary act of forgiving the other person (which is supposed to forgive ourselves in the process)😲

First, you have to realize for yourself that you aren't guilty; after that, if someone wants to forgive the other person, they can do whatever they want—forgive or let go, it doesn't matter much

that bolded part above is honestly pathetic, and I'm trying to keep my language civil here, but it's just a desperate attempt to equate the victim with the perpetrator

anyway, where did that post go? 🤷
if we're blaming ourselves for some evil done to us when we aren't actually at fault, then we need to deal with that "imposed" guilt through logic, rather than relying on some imaginary act of forgiving the other person (which is supposed to forgive ourselves in the process)😲

First, you have to realize for yourself that you aren't guilty; after that, if someone wants to forgive the other person, they can do whatever they want—forgive or let go, it doesn't matter much

that bolded part above is honestly pathetic, and I'm trying to keep my language civil here, but it's just a desperate attempt to equate the victim with the perpetrator

anyway, where did that post go? 🤷
I don't know, maybe Susan Price30 thought otherwise and just deleted it. 🤷 Personally, I've often wondered if, even when you're the victim of a crime, you might ask yourself why it happened to you "karmically"—what drew that suffering or that specific person into your life in the first place... I can't shake the feeling that nothing happens by pure accident. Even though the perpetrator remains the perpetrator and their evil stays with them, why did you find yourself in the position of the victim to begin with? People ask "Why me?" all the time. Maybe it has nothing to do with the culprit; maybe they were just the medium through which evil reached you. Perhaps your own lifestyle or choices triggered that landslide, or maybe it's a way for you to change yourself. That doesn't absolve the perpetrator of their guilt, obviously... It's just a question of meaning.

I stumbled upon this little snippet from Jorge Luis Borges: "Abel and Cain meet on the other side. Cain asks Abel, 'Have you forgiven me?' — 'What does it matter?' Abel replies. 'But I killed you,' says Cain. 'I don't really remember,' answers Abel."

Susan Price30 said:Choosing to be free—to break away from those kinds of chains—is a massive decision. It’s crucial to realize that when someone sins, the victim often ends up judging not just the evil itself, but their own reaction to it too... by forgiving others, we are essentially granting ourselves that same mercy. 🙂

And we have to understand that forgiveness isn't saying, "It's fine that you hurt me". It’s never about justifying evil; it’s simply about finding freedom from it, both for ourselves and for those around us.

Yeah, that’s an interesting and vital point. We often find ourselves blaming ourselves for why someone would act maliciously in the first place, wondering if we somehow invited it or deserved it...

Susan Price30 said:Of course, but if that person isn't mindful of their actions—if they are doing it intentionally or simply making no effort to change their behavior—then it is best to create some distance🙂 because Jesus' teaching applies here...why would we cast our pearls before swine?...

If we are talking about someone we share our lives with and love, yet we constantly experience being hurt by them—what does that actually say about their character?🤷

Maybe that approach works for part of your private life, but there are political situations and other scenarios where you can't just walk away from the perpetrator. If we didn't step in when people tried to gloss over historical atrocities, we wouldn't be able to learn from them, protect ourselves, or even evolve ourselves... as you put it, finding forgiveness within ourselves...

Even in our own lives, there are people who cause us pain sometimes, but they also have qualities that make us unwilling to cut them out entirely. So, we have to stay guarded and keep our wits about us... and then there are those situations where avoidance isn't an option, leaving us with nothing but the choice to create some internal distance...

Susan Price30 said:

Ultimately, a mother cannot be expected to embrace the tormentor who ordered her son to be torn apart by dogs. She shouldn't have to forgive him. If she chooses, she may forgive him on her own behalf, perhaps to ease the weight of her own immense suffering—but the loss of her child? No one can demand she forgive that, nor should she, even if the child themselves were capable of such mercy. If we accept that some things are unforgivable, where does that leave harmony? Is there truly any being in this entire world who possesses the right to grant forgiveness?
Fyodor Dostoevsky (The Brothers Karamazov)

Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names.

John F. Kennedy

To forgive an evil act is to become an accomplice to it.."
Voltaire Quote

Drew Flores3 Asks:
Forgive me, but please don't forget.

That isn't Christian doctrine—it sounds more like something from Islam or a similar faith. An eye for an eye—a tooth for a tooth. But that is nothing more than an ego game; such a way leads neither to true victory, nor to spiritual liberation, nor to the overcoming of evil.

All of this can only be achieved through Christian means. Forgiveness. I don't mean to sound pretentious; it is simply the truth. This is the only ultimate spiritual law that sets the sinner free.

Forgive, let go, forget... It’s done and dusted—as if it never even happened.

Of course, just like any other unwritten spiritual laws, one can certainly follow them. Through the cultivation of the spirit.I am not seeking anything else—not our emotional biases or our own resonances, such as the deceptions of the ego.

But don't you think that if you truly forget, you might just end up reliving the exact same experience? Speaking from my own life—and I'm not usually one to hold a grudge—I've found myself forgiving someone and forgetting their insults and betrayals, only to have them pull the same stunt again. Wouldn't it be better to simply accept people for who they are, while remaining aware of their nature? They might change, sure, but the experience should still teach us something. Isn't it enough to refuse to bind ourselves to the evil done to us, while letting go of the bitterness, the hurt, and the urge for revenge?

Every injustice forces us to remember. Forgetting would be an act of betrayal against those who suffered. The real challenge, however, isn't remembering—it's resisting the urge to settle the score. Revenge is a dead end; it kills any chance of a fresh start and keeps the perpetrator tethered to their crimes and the wreckage they left behind.

By choosing to forgive, we actually protect ourselves from the rot of hatred and the slow suicide of holding onto bitterness. It’s about mental survival. We forgive so our enemies don't get to finish us off spiritually; we refuse to let their toxicity become our identity. Forgiveness lets us turn our gaze toward something better and move away from the darkness. It provides a certain kind of spiritual freedom. You can't extinguish hate with more hate, and you can't erase an insult with another insult. Only forgiveness works. Our worst enemies are actually our own malice and inhumanity, and the only way out is through mutual forgiveness—accepting and granting it. Evil can only be defeated if we start forgiving one another. We can clear our consciences by finding peace, even if it's only in our hearts, while leaving the actual judgment of the enemy and their actions to God.

Of course, all this sounds like hollow rhetoric if we can't actually pull it off in the real world. It’s easy enough to overlook a petty slight, but there are some intentional evils out there that stay with you, making true forgiveness feel almost impossible no matter how hard you try.

What’s your take on this?

Here are a few quotes, though they certainly don't all agree:

"When someone hurts us deeply, we only truly recover once we have forgiven."
Alan Paton

"If you're going to strike a child, let it be in a fit of rage, even if it leaves them bruised. A cold, calculated blow is neither forgivable nor should it ever be."
George Bernard Shaw

"I hope the work of the Commission will open wounds just enough to clean them, preventing them from festering. We can't be superficial and pretend the past is buried, because it isn't; it follows us. True reconciliation is never cheap, because it's built on forgiveness, which is costly. And forgiveness depends on remorse, which relies on acknowledging wrongdoing and uncovering the truth. You cannot forgive what you do not know."
Desmond Tutu (From Tutu's speech upon his appointment as Chairman of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on November 30, 1995)

"When I hate, I lose something of myself; when I love, I am enriched by what I love. Forgiveness is reclaiming lost property—misanthropy is just a slow form of suicide; egoism is the greatest misery a soul can endure."
Friedrich von Schiller

"Ultimately, I won't have a mother embrace the tormentor who ordered the dogs to tear her son apart! She must not forgive him! If she chooses to, let her forgive him for her own sake, to forgive the tormentor for the immense maternal suffering he caused. But she has no right to forgive the suffering of her torn child, and she shouldn't forgive the tormentor even if the child themselves were to offer it! If that is the case, and they cannot forgive, where is the harmony? Is there anyone in the whole world who could or should have the right to forgive?"
Fyodor Dostoevsky (The Brothers Karamazov)

"Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names."
John F. Kennedy

"He who forgives a crime becomes an accomplice to it."
Voltaire

It reminds me of something Jacques Prévert once said:

"God created man in His own image,
But now the Exhibitionist is returning the favor!" 😁

wearyowl29 said:The three major monotheistic religions all try to make sense of the world and our specific role within it by pointing toward what they call God or God.
Some people will tell you we’re just God's servants. It implies our influence over our own lives is basically zero because we're just subjects. In that view, rights are a luxury a servant can't afford, meaning we spend every breath living under someone else's thumb.
For a servant, life is just one long grind of obligations. You live strictly to fulfill the "master's voice."
Then there’s the other camp—they say we are God's children. Suddenly, life feels like playing in a sandbox because we’re the eternal toddlers of an invisible Father who speaks through official church "announcements." Being a kid is great! You never get tired of playing, though school always stinks worse than anything in hell. We tend to be a bit infantile and well-meaning, maybe a little irresponsible; just like any kid, we’d much rather be out playing than sitting in a classroom. Once a child, always a child—it's like we never actually grow up while an omnipotent Father watches over His earthly kindergarten...

Being either Allah's servant or God's eternal child doesn't feel like much of a choice. Either way, your status is set in stone until the day you die.
But is that actually true? Or is it just a fantasy cooked up by people who organized these religious systems? What if we have the potential to be something much more than that???

Maybe the answer lies in the innate ability we're born with. Beyond being servants or kids, we possess the power of creation. We are creative beings, even if we soothe our egos by claiming we're just servants or mere children of someone more powerful. Now, a servant can be creative, and we don't even need to talk about children, but what if both groups are missing the point? What if the servant and the child only see one single ROLE—serving or playing—while completely ignoring their own creative spark?

If we are truly creative, it means we can reshape the world around us and ourselves. It means we can create on multiple levels. It means we aren't just static rubber dolls, but beings that evolve through the process. If we are creative, we are partially crafting our own destiny, making us co-creators in the grand unfolding of what we call REALITY.

A servant isn't a co-creator; they're too busy fearing the boss or dreading punishment. A child is only a partial creator, and often gets grounded because they stepped outside the boundaries the Father set for them...😲

Is our fundamental purpose actually to develop our potential—not just for ourselves, but for everyone around us? Is it to collaborate with the Source to build the world we see, perhaps even influencing the things that remain invisible to the naked eye???

So, what are we really? Just ordinary servants, eternal children, or co-creators...???

Look, Ivančić mentioned on his last segment on CNN that everything within a person is part of creation—that man is fashioned from the Earth and everything God made in those six days. But that’s just the physical shell. For a person to truly become human, God breathed an immortal breath (creativity, transcendence, freedom) into them. We are essentially everything created on Earth, yet we belong to Heaven. God created man in His own image, which means we reflect Him. The snake told Adam, "You will be like God," but it was actually playing a trick, because man already is like God. Anyway, that's just how a Catholic priest interprets it. 🙂

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Every single time I drift off, I feel like I’m slipping into absolute nothingness. My entire sense of "self" just... evaporates. Then, when the dreaming starts, this weird, surreal world begins to take shape. It makes me wonder—when would someone actually *want* to cease to exist? It wouldn't be out of boredom, obviously. No one hits that metaphorical reset button just because they're restless. But if you were sitting under the interrogation lights at a black site, or facing some unimaginable physical or mental agony? That’s different. That’s what drives people to the edge—the idea that it's better for the "I" to simply vanish than to endure a lifetime of hellish pain.
Existence, on its own, isn't really enough. It's what we *do* while we exist that matters. Think about this hypothetical scenario: imagine that right before you die, scientists extract your brain and plug it into some high-tech cyborg—a state-of-the-art android or something. You’re still "you," and you can technically do everything you used to do, just through a mechanical interface. Now, picture an earthquake hitting, burying you deep underground. They never find you. Your brain is still alive and functioning inside that machine, but you're trapped. You can't move, you can't feel anything from the outside world. There’s no pain, but there’s also no input. You’re just a consciousness trapped in a loop, thinking about nothing but itself. In that situation, would you hit the switch to end it all? Or would you choose to keep existing for the next two thousand years, as long as the tiny nuclear reactor powering your robotic shell keeps your brain ticking?

It’s a vibe very similar to how Hemingway's *The Possibility of an Island* wraps up, where the protagonist is left drifting in a warm pool in the distant future—completely alone, with nothing to interact with, no way to reclaim a real life, no way to experience anything, and no way to die for a very, very long time... 🙏 And we all had such grand plans, didn't we?

"....the first sign of true awareness is waking up to an unspoken doubt about humanity itself:
the illusion, the magic of the sensory world—as Plato puts it—is ultimately non-existent.
The physical world is just a spell cast by a dream shared by every living soul.
Once you start looking past your senses, you begin to sense something existing beyond nature.
That metaphysical connection is the starting point of being awake..."

"Being awake doesn't mean indulging in the magic; it means seeing right through it. It isn't about pleasure, but about seeking
clarity. The world of gratification and charms is actually just a world of perception...
Consciousness enjoys the magic. You could call that enjoyment art,
indulgence, gluttony, or knowledge—call it whatever you want. Regardless,
it's all just sinking into the illusion. A deliberate dive into
that magic is what we call consciousness. And the stakes? Life or death within the dream."

B.H.

Every single one of us is a universe unto ourselves. 🙂 But at the end of the day, we’re all just one more speck in the crowd.