Forgiveness

copperfox22 said:That's a pretty interesting way to look at the brain—sort of like a "write-erase" function.

Forgiving without forgetting—not holding a grudge, but moving on—is essentially an emotional detachment from the act itself. Emotions are just ego, by the way. Once you detach your true "self" from the ego, it becomes invulnerable, "untouchable," and indifferent, which means there isn't even a need to forgive. In other words, you forgive, but you don't forget, because in this dimension, what you are includes your physical body, which includes your brain. The brain doesn't just delete information, but the spirit forgives because, fundamentally, there is nothing to forgive when nothing was ever truly threatened or damaged at its core.

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."

Jerry King11 said: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?🤷

True, we might still recall things if we dig through the dusty corners of our minds 😁, but do you really "remember" people or events that leave you completely indifferent? Or is it just human nature that we remember mostly the things that actually stir us up, whether that's a good feeling or a bad one? 🤷

Susan Price30 said:Which ones? That Jesus was divinely beautiful, striking, and authoritative—and that his character wasn't weak or soft?🙏

It seems unlikely that spamming a thread with biblical quotes describing Jesus's personality and traits would make sense😍, regardless of how much you might want to write about it. All one needs to do is read the Book to get a real sense of who He is. The New Testament isn't exactly a difficult or lengthy read when it comes to finding quotes.🙂

You’ve made two claims about the physical aspect without providing a single shred of evidence to back up what you're citing. Come on, "put up or shut up" and point to one source that Christians actually consider authoritative for these claims... otherwise, this whole argument just sounds like a variation of idolatry... 🙂

It would be completely pointless to spam this thread with biblical quotes describing the personality and characteristics of Jesus...😍I’d love to dive deep into this, but honestly... all you really need to do is read the Book to truly understand certain things and get a complete sense of Him... New Zealand isn't actually that difficult or tedious to quote...🙂

So how on earth did you manage to forget the most basic, fundamental parts...?! 🙂

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.

Donna Lopez4 said:You’ve made two claims about the physical aspect without providing a single shred of evidence to back up what you're citing. Come on, "put up or shut up" and point to one source that Christians actually consider authoritative for these claims... otherwise, this whole argument just sounds like a variation of idolatry... 🙂

It would be completely pointless to spam this thread with biblical quotes describing the personality and characteristics of Jesus...😍I’d love to dive deep into this, but honestly... all you really need to do is read the Book to truly understand certain things and get a complete sense of Him... New Zealand isn't actually that difficult or tedious to quote...🙂

So how on earth did you manage to forget the most basic, fundamental parts...?! 🙂

Am I really expected to prove to someone what Jesus looked like, despite two millennia of documented records, descriptions, and books? Give me a break...😁😁

copperfox22 said:The ego: the absolute root of all evil.
It’s a pure narcissist.
Think of it as an ego as massive as a mansion, yet just as fragile as a thin sheet of glass.
The ego won't even let you experience forgiveness, because once you forgive, the ego dies.
Destroy that ego, and you will literally gain everything.

How on earth can the ego be the source of all evil?
The ego is the "glue" holding every other part of a person together—without an ego, there is no "you."

All this talk about denying the ego that I see floating around here is like refusing to open a single room in a house; it’s just pure delusion to think it doesn't exist while the dust and lack of airflow make the whole damn place stink.

Watching people debate whether the ego is good or evil is honestly hilarious to me... this constant demonizing of the ego is like arguing: is a knife a good tool or an evil one? Is it better if it's red or yellow? .

Instead of wasting time on why don't we focus on how to master the knife and what it's actually meant for?.

Susan Price30 said:Am I really expected to prove to someone what Jesus looked like, despite two millennia of documented records, descriptions, and books? Give me a break...😁😁

You don't have to prove anything to me. Just find one single credible Christian source that actually describes Jesuan's physical features, and then try proving to yourself that it isn't just a collection of fantasies and half-baked fairy tales you've picked up along the way...🙂

Jerry King11 said: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.

Yes, you are absolutely right... but according to Christian doctrine, we can't truly do anything (spiritually) without being enabled or inspired by the Holy Spirit, so that applies here too.

Sometimes one needs professional deliverance from a spiritual leader or a priest, while other times simple healing prayers are enough, and so on.

So forgiveness doesn't always happen spontaneously. And I especially don't think the point is to just "sweep it under the rug," suppress it, and forget about it in order to "forgive." It is vital to rise above the bad event, perhaps even transform it into something good that leads to growth... In that sense, I agree that it is no longer active.

Most often, it is a process—a process of spiritual healing.
Though it doesn't necessarily have to take forever; it can be very quick, or even instantaneous. There are no rules.

You are also correct on that last point, which is why someone undergoing healing is often given what is essentially talk therapy, or similar methods when circumstances allow—much like seeing a therapist—so that they can close that problematic or painful chapter on a mental level as well, helping the victim of the sin find wholeness.

Donna Lopez4 said:You don't have to prove anything to me. Just find one single credible Christian source that actually describes Jesuan's physical features, and then try proving to yourself that it isn't just a collection of fantasies and half-baked fairy tales you've picked up along the way...🙂

Christianity is built upon Revelation and Tradition—if we set aside the theological treatises of great theologians and the Holy Fathers throughout history. Therefore, based most heavily on oral Tradition, early Christians knew what Jesus looked like. They knew he had green eyes, long dark hair, was tall, athletic, and had a darker complexion. Then there is the Shroud of Turin, or perhaps relevant historical books from the historians of Jesus's era and his contemporaries who wrote about him. For instance, the works of ancient Roman historians like Flavia or Josephus are quite interesting.

(I recall someone sharing links to some modern books regarding the historical aspect and life of Jesus here, but I can't find the thread right now because I can't remember the title.)

I am not sure what you are asking me or what you are insisting on. Are you questioning the existence of Jesus, or do you simply believe that all the paintings, icons, and even the Raphaels aren't a faithful representation of the image of Jesus as we consider him to be through Tradition?

And why is this so important here and now, in this specific thread? I truly don't understand... is it because you got the impression that I worship Jesus? Of course I worship Him 🤣 and love Him with all my being; it's no secret.

Honestly, nuns actually have the privilege of being officially wed to Him.😁 Personally, I would love nothing more than to retreat to a monastery and spend the rest of my days in communion with God and nothing else, but that isn't my calling...

Donna Lopez4 said:How on earth can the ego be the source of all evil?
The ego is the "glue" holding every other part of a person together—without an ego, there is no "you."

All this talk about denying the ego that I see floating around here is like refusing to open a single room in a house; it’s just pure delusion to think it doesn't exist while the dust and lack of airflow make the whole damn place stink.

Watching people debate whether the ego is good or evil is honestly hilarious to me... this constant demonizing of the ego is like arguing: is a knife a good tool or an evil one? Is it better if it's red or yellow? .

Instead of wasting time on why don't we focus on how to master the knife and what it's actually meant for?.

The ego is nothing more than vanity. 🙂

It isn't actually about self-love; it’s more of a narcissistic obsession with oneself.
Essentially, it acts as a brake on a person's ability to grow and move forward through life.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:I had a run-in with this exact thing once. I lent $17 a guy from my office enough cash for some cigarettes. Well, the guy quit the very next day and I never saw his face again. He basically vanished into thin air. I forgave him, $17 I guess. But it would have been a much bigger headache if I’d lent him $167. Forgiveness is one thing, but how and when and to whom do you actually apply it?
In the Bible, in the story of the adulteress, it says that Christ said: "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone," and ended with: "Go, and your sins are forgiven."
But imagine if someone brought a murderer to Christ—someone who had just killed and robbed an elderly couple that very evening. I highly doubt he would have just said, "Go, murderer, and promise not to kill or rob anyone else anymore." 😲😍😁

Here’s a story about how a friend of mine "forgave" a thug after getting a beating:

Seriously, did Christ leave behind any specific guidelines on how to handle robbers, murderers, thieves, or people like them? Or are we supposed to use this one single case as our universal blueprint for forgiveness, telling everyone who wrongs us or commits an injustice: 'Go, I have forgiven you'?
Because looking at the example of the adulteress, one thing is perfectly clear: forgiveness implies total amnesty.
Which would mean that, in practice, there is no prosecution and no punishment.
And that is absolutely not how secular society functions. In short, if we aren't headed for hell, we're all guaranteed a trip through purgatory in the long run. 😲

Jerry King11 said:I don't have the full Borgesian context here, but I doubt we're taking any of this baggage with us to the afterlife. 😁 🤷

Fine, here is the complete text. To be blunt, I’m not a fan. Setting aside the logical fallacies, the whole thing seems to push this idea of equating the victim with the perpetrator. Would it truly be "just" for a victim to simply forget what was done to them, effectively absolving the criminal of any guilt or remorse? Hypothetically speaking, if that were the case, I see zero incentive for anyone to refrain from committing evil acts.

As for an afterlife, I'm not buying it. Based on this—even if such a place exists, I certainly won't be remembering a thing. 😁

Susan Price30 said:Christianity is built upon Revelation and Tradition—if we set aside the theological treatises of great theologians and the Holy Fathers throughout history. Therefore, based most heavily on oral Tradition, early Christians knew what Jesus looked like. They knew he had green eyes, long dark hair, was tall, athletic, and had a darker complexion. Then there is the Shroud of Turin, or perhaps relevant historical books from the historians of Jesus's era and his contemporaries who wrote about him. For instance, the works of ancient Roman historians like Flavia or Josephus are quite interesting.

(I recall someone sharing links to some modern books regarding the historical aspect and life of Jesus here, but I can't find the thread right now because I can't remember the title.)

I am not sure what you are asking me or what you are insisting on. Are you questioning the existence of Jesus, or do you simply believe that all the paintings, icons, and even the Raphaels aren't a faithful representation of the image of Jesus as we consider him to be through Tradition?

And why is this so important here and now, in this specific thread? I truly don't understand... is it because you got the impression that I worship Jesus? Of course I worship Him 🤣 and love Him with all my being; it's no secret.

Honestly, nuns actually have the privilege of being officially wed to Him.😁 Personally, I would love nothing more than to retreat to a monastery and spend the rest of my days in communion with God and nothing else, but that isn't my calling...

I don't know, no offense intended, but he's always just looked a little scrawny to me in all those paintings.
And that whole "exceptionally attractive" thing—where did that even come from?

I'd honestly love to just head off to some monastery and spend the rest of my day in communion with God and nothing else, but that's just not my calling...

Just the rest of one day? Honestly, looking at your posts, I'd say you'd probably want to devote way more time to Him🤷

Susan Price30 said:Christianity is built upon Revelation and Tradition—if we set aside the theological treatises of great theologians and the Holy Fathers throughout history. Therefore, based most heavily on oral Tradition, early Christians knew what Jesus looked like. They knew he had green eyes, long dark hair, was tall, athletic, and had a darker complexion. Then there is the Shroud of Turin, or perhaps relevant historical books from the historians of Jesus's era and his contemporaries who wrote about him. For instance, the works of ancient Roman historians like Flavia or Josephus are quite interesting.

(I recall someone sharing links to some modern books regarding the historical aspect and life of Jesus here, but I can't find the thread right now because I can't remember the title.)

I am not sure what you are asking me or what you are insisting on. Are you questioning the existence of Jesus, or do you simply believe that all the paintings, icons, and even the Raphaels aren't a faithful representation of the image of Jesus as we consider him to be through Tradition?

And why is this so important here and now, in this specific thread? I truly don't understand... is it because you got the impression that I worship Jesus? Of course I worship Him 🤣 and love Him with all my being; it's no secret.

Honestly, nuns actually have the privilege of being officially wed to Him.😁 Personally, I would love nothing more than to retreat to a monastery and spend the rest of my days in communion with God and nothing else, but that isn't my calling...

🙂 🎉

I’d happily retreat to some quiet monastery just to spend the rest of my days in communion with God—nothing else, just that. But, alas, that isn't quite my calling...

Well, you could always approach it this way 😍—you don't strictly need a monastery 👍
.
If your calling isn't communion with God, then what on Earth is it?

I certainly wasn't aware that Jesus was Divinely beautiful 😍
.
I feel a bit embarrassed even saying it, 🙂
.
It feels a bit silly—one might even end up implying that Jesus was some sort of player 😂😂
.

Drew Flores3 said:Ouch... that "Christian" forgiveness of yours actually hurts.

Well, ha, ha, ha. 😂😂

The hair on my neck stands up just the same 🙄—the moment I hear this endless rambling about forgiveness 🙂--🙂I find myself thinking, please, just go jump in a lake; if anyone ever laid a hand on someone I love, I couldn't imagine forgiving them for a second 🙄, let alone praying to my dear God to let me pay them back. I’m certain they’d hear me, both on Earth and in Heaven.

Grace is right, along with anyone else who claims that forgiveness brings peace—after all, a blessed man is usually a peaceful one.

But for me, justice itself seems to demand a different kind of order—one where even God doesn't offer absolution. If you forgive a crime, you become an accomplice to it. God can be just as merciless as He is merciful. I wonder, when you see a person without arms or legs, would you call that a merciful God? Or would you say that God always forgives?

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.

🙂

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. 🙂

Jerry King11 said: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.

🙂

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.

Nathan Cook4 said:Perhaps because reaching that level of maturity is required, forgiveness is an ongoing process. How long it takes depends entirely on the depth of the scar and one's readiness and ability to accept it.

Exactly. There aren't many truly mature people out there, even if everyone is getting older.

Jerry King11 said: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

This hits hard 🙏 I'm actually glad I stumbled upon a thread like this. Sometimes certain words can be a real wake-up call.

To be honest, looking at myself, I’d say I’m a good person. I always forgive... I always move on. But I can't quite bring myself to agree that I have a totally clear conscience or a completely free spirit...

I can't help but feel that when I forgive, my enemy somehow wins—like they managed to humiliate me all over again.

But then I catch myself thinking that maybe I really am a good person and that I deserve good things because I don't cause harm. Except, I suppose my enemy feels the exact same way about themselves....