Don't you love asynchronous conversations. :-)

Huh? what?

Forgive me.

Uber geek speak (sorry one of my hats is software engineering). Term from networking protocols. Asynchronous = not synchronized - i.e. there isn't a good way to make sure that actions happen in the proper order. If we were talking face to face, you would pause to respond. I would read your body language to see that you were thinking a response and wait until you spoke. Only then would I speak. And so on back and forth.

Here we have no way of signaling that a response is in progress so our thoughts and our postings get all jumbled up and collide like bumper cars.

Term from networking protocols. Asynchronous = not synchronized. Here we have no way of signaling that a response is in progress so our thoughts and our postings get all jumbled up and collide like bumper cars.

Everytime I come back to this thread, I am overwhelmed by emotions that I have a difficult time identifying. However, I have no problem identifying one overwhelming emotion: rage. Something inside of me finds the whole idea of forgiveness insulting to a survivor of rape, for me anyway.

I feel like, as Survivors, we are forced to forgive our offenders in some form or fashion. Our culture will have it no other way. So, we try to rephrase the word forgiveness or find new philosophical meaning to the act of forgiving. Possible replacement words for "Forgive"? Why? Why must I come up with replacement words to mask the ridiculousness in asking a rape survior to forgive? Forgive what? What exactly am I forgiving if not the rapist?

To forgive traditionally means one thing and one thing only. It means to pardon, to give up resentment of or claim to requital for, to cease to feel resentment against an offender, and to excuse. This is how Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines this term. The Bible defines the term "forgive" this way as well. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew words for forgive - 'Calach' (used 46 times) and 'Nasa' (used 654 times) - mean to forgive, to pardon, to take away, carry off, endure, to bear.

In the New Testament, the Greek words for forgive - 'aphiemi' (used 146 times) and 'charizomai' (used 23 times) - offer similar meanings, such as to give up a debt, to let go, to give up, to keep no longer, to give graciously, to give freely, bestow, to graciously restore one to another.

Sure, forgiving another of an offense leaves us feeling purged and cleansed, but the act of forgiving is still the same. We must pardon the wrongdoings of our perpetrators. I don't see any other way around this definition. Furthermore, I don't imagine ever being able for forgive (pardon, excuse) my rapists, especially when they have not apologized and asked for my forgiveness.

I agree with Matt that the assumption in forgiving others, especially that taught in the Bible, is that one is trying to restore a relationship. Now, some Survivors may want to restore a relationship with their offenders and in this situation working towards forgiveness is understandable. However, many Survivors want nothing more to do with their rapists. This is where talk about forgiving becomes insulting to me.

I want to heal from the hurts of my past. Forgiving my offenders always seems to work its way into my healing process, whether it be brought up by a friend, a therapist, family member, church leader, literature, or my own consciousness formed by my religious upbringing. There is this struggle in me to forgive and I cannot ignore it. Why do I struggle? I believe it is because of the societal pressures placed on me to believe that forgiving is the "right" thing to do, but the very core of my soul tells me otherwise.

I am beginning to believe that asking a Survivor to forgive or even to ponder the idea of forgiving is not only wrong but damaging to the healing process. Perhaps all that I have written is a result of my unresolved bitterness towards those three men who ravaged my body and (like Anthem said earlier) murdered my soul. If so, how do I work through this bitterness? How many of you have an inclination to tell me I need to forgive? That was my first response to my own question. The struggle continues.

Thanks for writing about the need to keep the biblical term of forgiveness for relationships of this non rape tramatic nature. Where the dynamics are truely of a relationship nature. I did not realize where these things might have been overlapping in my mind.

SallyAnn - I really don't think you need to forgive=excuse to let go of bitterness.

Bitterness, in my own experience, is a mix of three things (a) feeling wronged (b) feeling I have no right to feel wronged (c) feeling that I am permanently injured and have no control over my healing. All this combines in a noxious cloud of anger,deligiimization and despair.

To let go of bitterness I need to (a) acknowledge that the wrong is real (b) believe that the wrong is not the final word - even without excusing or denying it I can still heal. Acknowledging the wrong undoes the deligitiimization. Believing that the wrong is not the final word restores hope.

As for the bible - the bible does use the word "forgive" but I think it is important to look carefully at how it is used. In particular, the Hebrew Bible (OT) really does not ever command people to forgive, at least not directly.

Take the word salach (I'm assuming calach is a typo - calach isn't a word in biblical Hebrew). Not once is any human commanded to "salach". All 46 uses of the word salach refer to divine forgiveness directed towards humans. Never does it mean excuse. Always it is used in reference to God restoring the relationship between God's self and God's people or sometimes between an individual and God.

Nasa is a general purpose verb which means to physically carry or bear things. It is used 30 times to metaphorically to indicate forbearance of human sin, but again the Hebrew bible (OT) uses it mostly to describe how God relates to God's people. It still isn't something we human beings are commanded to do. If anything we are commanded not to do it!

In Lev 19:17 "You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor and not bear (nasa) his sin.". Huh? To avoid hating your brother, you must NOT forgive? Judaism actually does see this as a command to forgive .... eventually, and only if the offender genuinely repents. In Jewish thought, pardon is inseparable from repentance - no repentance, no pardon.

Nasa has lots of meanings so there are lots of ways I could read this verse. But if we go with the reading "forgive", then this is how I make sense of it: In order to forgive, we must first encourage the offender to take responsibility and change his ways. We are responsible for starting the process by declaring that a wrong has happened and refusing to forgive until there is real repentance. Judaism does view withholding forgiveness from someone who is truly repentant as cruel, however it also has a very high standard for repentance - it is a lot more than "I'm sorry".

Even so, we aren't explicitly commanded to forgive at the end because we can't control the outcome of the process. Repentance has to be a free independent choice of the person who offended us.

Is it fair to say you can have righteous anger about the violation and still not hold the bitterness that eats your soul? It has nothing to do with absolving blame for the horrendous act, nothing to do with the perps request to forgive or forget, but everything to do with purposely giving the responsibility for obtaining justice to a higher source,and also refusing to let the guilt and blame rest and fester within you. The evilness of the act is not negated by your choice to not let it keep you from living a life that is not defined by its evil... and the quest to heal and still have joy and even innocence. If you choose to not prosecute the perpetrator in the court system, that doesn't make it any less of a crime, either. It is the victim's choice whether to go through the prosecution in the court system, or just deal with the process her own way. Nothing you choose to do in your healing changes the perpetrator's accountability for it...

That's strange. I wrote something and thought I posted it!? It was about the feeling that as it stands to a great deal now victims of rape feel that they are asked to forgive and also to absolve because they are expected to heal as if it didn't happen. That would be forgive and absolve. But we can not absolve them of the sin or the crime. Here in is the big dilemma for many I presume. I know it is for me sometimes. Sometime I have wondered if I do not let my self live a better life because I feel it would be like acting as if he is absolved. I guess I wish that living a better life is somehow in my realm of control or power?! And that if and because I am not it is because I am not "letting" myself.
I am hoping that there are areas to heal still and if I am able to heal then I can see some of these things come into my life. For instance, like a relationship.

The sinner should be rebuked. In order to rebuke someone one must have love and light in their heart?

I cannot remember where i read this...or even if I did *roll eyes* But it was something about God not being able to forgive unless we do. Which I think was in a victim guilt blaming thing. But reading about absolving and stuff got me thinking about it.

Maybe it really isn't about the wrong doer at all. I guess if I were to believe in heaven and hell; god and Satan...id think this kind of fits.

God wants to 'save' us all. God maybe carries all of our shames, our hatreds. So if we haven't found a way to forgive, unattach from the wrongdoer..god feels unable to forgive and absolve them (if they feel true remorse) so they move to hell.

I dont see this as a guilt thing victims must carry. The perp makes the decision that puts him in hell in the first place..but jointly through our healing and their remorse they are lead onto a path of redemption (of sorts).

So in a basic...forgiveness can be just - I wish you no harm. It's not removing their crimes, you don't have to like them or get on with them. You just wish them no harm.

That can free us from the angry, resentful, festering feelings towards them as people and we can start to feel the injustice; the righteous anger. - At least more consistently and more powerfully.

In a lot of this discussion we've been looking at Jewish views, but I kind of want to turn the table and look at Christianity (if no one objects).

The idea of one-sided forgiveness without repentance doesn't sit well with me as a Jew, but the more I think about this discussion, I'm also finding that definition harder and harder to reconcile with the Christian message, at least as I've understood it through the years from theology and Christian friends. My apologies in advance if I misrepresent Christianity in any way.

Here's my line of thought:

In a lot of popular Christianity, especially one's targeted at showing God's love to the wounded, forgiveness plays a huge role. In some cases it is used to offset the feelings of shame felt by many survivors (God loves you no matter what). In others it is used to help people to let go of bitterness. One sided forgiveness would appear to be a key element of Christianity because Jesus does teach things like "turning the other cheek."

And yet...

I'm wondering if turning the other cheek is really about one-sided "forgiveness" at all. In Luke 6:27-31 the passage from the Sermon of the Mount where Jesus instructs his followers to turn the other cheek, he concludes, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you". Surely decent people seeking God (one would presume Jesus's followers would fall in this category) would not want a person to give them a pass when they hurt that person? Wouldn't we rather know we had caused hurt so that we can do better? So why would Jesus be commanding his followers to give those who hurt a pass?

What decent people often do want is acceptance of our sincere efforts at repentance. We do want help when we really need it. In context Jesus's words seem more like a declaration of radical charity - if someone hits your cheek (and repents) - give them another chance, even to the point of showing them the other cheek. If someone takes your coat (out of genuine need and fear that it won't be met), recognize their need and give them a second one if you have it. Don't just walk away or take back the coat they took.

But my questioning of this one-sided forgiveness goes deeper than a quibble over the meaning of the Sermon of the Mount. I'm wondering if equating forgiveness to one-sided pardon or personal healing fundamentally cheapens and downplays the significance of what happened through the Cross and Resurrection? It isn't needed to prevent bitterness and it comes at the price of sweeping sin under the rug. It doesn't heal it. It doesn't trigger a process of change. It eliminates the need for change.

As we've been discussing forgiveness it is more and more clear to me that forgiveness, whether offered by God or by humans is part of the process of repair and redemption. The one thing it is not meant to do is eliminate the need for change or reduce the need for repentance.

Jesus is said to have died for the forgiveness of sins, but if this forgiveness is to have connection with the biblical prophets (and Christianity teaches it does), then it must be connected to something else the prophets talk about when they look towards the Messianic Age: a massive realignment of human kind so that its freely chosen goals vis a vis one another and God are in line with God's justice and mercy.

Wouldn't this mean that the kind of forgiveness offered on the Cross is a forgiveness where repentance is essential in order to partake of it. Otherwise, how could people freely choose to align their will with God's? Isn't God aiming for the big change rather than private relief from anxiety? If Christians are to be emulating Jesus, shouldn't they be seeking the same kind of redemption and forgiveness Jesus was seeking?

Is demanding one-sided pardon from survivors or anyone else, really truly Christianity?

In a lot of this discussion we've been looking at Jewish views, but I kind of want to turn the table and look at Christianity (if no one objects).

The idea of one-sided forgiveness without repentance doesn't sit well with me as a Jew, but the more I think about this discussion, I'm also finding that definition harder and harder to reconcile with the Christian message, at least as I've understood it through the years from theology and Christian friends. My apologies in advance if I misrepresent Christianity in any way.

Here's my line of thought:

In a lot of popular Christianity, especially one's targeted at showing God's love to the wounded, forgiveness plays a huge role. In some cases it is used to offset the feelings of shame felt by many survivors (God loves you no matter what). In others it is used to help people to let go of bitterness. One sided forgiveness would appear to be a key element of Christianity because Jesus does teach things like "turning the other cheek."

And yet...

I'm wondering if turning the other cheek is really about one-sided "forgiveness" at all. In Luke 6:27-31 the passage from the Sermon of the Mount where Jesus instructs his followers to turn the other cheek, he concludes, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you". Surely decent people seeking God (one would presume Jesus's followers would fall in this category) would not want a person to give them a pass when they hurt that person? Wouldn't we rather know we had caused hurt so that we can do better? So why would Jesus be commanding his followers to give those who hurt a pass?

What decent people often do want is acceptance of our sincere efforts at repentance. We do want help when we really need it. In context Jesus's words seem more like a declaration of radical charity - if someone hits your cheek (and repents) - give them another chance, even to the point of showing them the other cheek. If someone takes your coat (out of genuine need and fear that it won't be met), recognize their need and give them a second one if you have it. Don't just walk away or take back the coat they took.

But my questioning of this one-sided forgiveness goes deeper than a quibble over the meaning of the Sermon of the Mount. I'm wondering if equating forgiveness to one-sided pardon or personal healing fundamentally cheapens and downplays the significance of what happened through the Cross and Resurrection? One-sided pardon isn't needed to prevent bitterness and it comes at the price of sweeping sin under the rug. It doesn't heal it. It doesn't trigger a process of change. It eliminates the need for change.

As we've been discussing forgiveness it is more and more clear to me that forgiveness, whether offered by God or by humans is part of the process of repair and redemption. The one thing it is not meant to do is eliminate the need for change or reduce the need for repentance.

Jesus is said to have died for the forgiveness of sins, but if this forgiveness is to have connection with the biblical prophets (and Christianity teaches it does), then it must be connected to something else the prophets talk about when they look towards the Messianic Age: a massive realignment of human kind so that its freely chosen goals vis a vis one another and God are in line with God's justice and mercy.

Wouldn't this mean that the kind of forgiveness offered on the Cross is a forgiveness where repentance is essential in order to partake of it. Otherwise, how could people freely choose to align their will with God's? Isn't God aiming for the big change rather than private relief from anxiety? If Christians are to be emulating Jesus, shouldn't they be seeking the same kind of redemption and forgiveness Jesus was seeking?

Is demanding one-sided pardon from survivors or anyone else, really truly Christianity?

"Is demanding one-sided pardon from survivors or anyone else, really truly Christianity?"

No, I don't think so at all. I have always believed that I need to be repentant and remorseful before I seek forgiveness, and that it is not something I can demand. ("You need to forgive me! It's the Christian thing to do!")

I think that what is behind this "You must forgive!" message to survivors is not some deep spiritual concern. When it comes from people we know, it's a more loving way of saying, "Get over it already! Sheesh! Why can't you put this behind you, let go and move on? You need to forgive so you can forget this whole thing ever happened!"

Authors of books -- well, except for the guy who wrote That Damn Book -- too often want an easy process to healing in a few simple steps. The reason so many of us flung Matt's book across the room is because he is painfully honest about the process of healing. Some of us have already tried and thought we failed at other, easier approaches.

The reasons we balk at the "You must forgive" message are valid. It's not that we are bitterly clinging to pain or have no desire to heal. It's that we recognize the message as a faulty one on so many grounds.

Christianity confuses me to be honest..maybe I just havent studied it properly?

From what I understood about Christ's initial death was that he died for our own sins so that we could be forgiven. The ultimate sacrifice from a god who supposedly frowned upon the act of sacrifice. So in theory as long as we show remorse for our sins we will be forgiven because we are showing the compassion to others God would like us to have...depending on what branch of Christianity you opt into.

I guess, for me, it is difficult to opt into my birth religion when I see so many contradictions in the bible. This had led me to an unorthodox view (some say pick and mix and not a true form of christianity) I see God and the bible as 2 separate things. I don't particularly believe that the bible has any connection to God at all. I believe the 10 commandments are possibly the nearest thing to God but the bible itself is too human for me.

My vision of what god is isnt super high power as such...just as we have some of God in us..God has us in Him/Her. Actually in some respects God is more human than we are. I believe that God has all of our emotions and feels everything we feel but is free. God doesn't run from a feeling because it feels 'bad' or feel other's shame as His own. All emotions were created equal.

So forgiveness...

What if the death and resurrection of Christ had nothing to do with forgiveness at all? What if it was God saving his son because he could...just the once. A miracle for himself and Jesus?

The bible writers want us to take on certain messages. They are the philosophers of their time. A shocking/stunning way to portray our 'need' to forgive. We MUST forgive because God said so and look what he sacrificed for this.

The concept of forgiveness is something almost beyond us..as we are finding out. How do you explain to people what forgiveness is? And why it is good for us? I read a post in the forgiveness thread on another board. One member wrote how stupid the concept was. We dont need to forgive to heal etc. When the crime and the person are so solidly linked it is almost impossible to imagine forgiving the person without forgiving the crime. Which is why we get so rightly offended by the concept if we have a healthy sense of self and what we deserve as human beings.

Do unto others what we wish for ourselves (or there abouts) was always taught to me solely as a way to be kind to our neighbour...outside of forgiveness concept. It was always don't commit a crime against another you wouldnt want yourself.

Applying forgiveness to that rule..i guess it boils down to this. Do you believe doing bad things makes a person bad?

If you do then forgiveness for a person who has so badly violated you is impossible. Bad people dont deserve forgiveness from anyone. Bad people are sub human. An eye for an eye is something that we should have no moral question over.

If you believe a person can behave badly without being a bad soul..then one day you may be able to forgive. Forgive their soul.

Linking to an eye for an eye a second. Somewhere in the middle east families have the option to have their relatives murderer, murdered (kind of like death penalty in the west only its solely the families choice) If the documentary I watched is correct...not many actually choose that option any more. They seek forgiveness rather than revenge.

If you choose not to kill..does it dishonour your family? People see forgiveness as a super human thing to do but is it valued over revenge? Some would say no..some would say yes. Sometimes I want to strangle my abusers with my bare hands. I find it emotionally freeing to do so because it is one of the few times I acknowledge that I wasn't at fault.

But when it boils down to it..for me..i need to work through my anger and when I am on the other side of that I want to be able to say: I couldn't care less what you do with your life if you only hurt yourself. You mean nothing to me. But I wish you no serious harm

And now ill be quiet..so many words 0_0