Talk:Forgiveness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 
Portal:Religion
 Religion Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Religion. This project provides a central approach to Religion-related subjects on wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2004 press source article for details.

The citation is in: "Parents sort through emotions, search for meaning in son's death.", Tacoma News Tribune, April 9, 2004.

Some content has been moved to Forty-nine charismatic virtues. Peter Manchester 13:12, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Rewrite of first paragraph

This was my first contribution to this project so I am still learning the etiquette

Forgiveness is not a quality, being forgiving is. The previous version confusingly referred only to a wrong committed against oneself. The other changes I hope bring clarity and more information in a concise way, while covering the topics of the original submission.

[edit] References

The article is very good but references and quotations would make it a bit more convincing and "factual". Somebody out there could expand the Christian para. as Christianity's a very rich Theology of Forgiveness. Obviously all religions will have their own "forgiveness theory", this could also be explored further.

"Another view is that forgiveness is a gift the forgiver gives to oneself to free their mind of resentment. Forgiveness does not entail condoning the wrong or difference that occasioned the resentment."

Can someone please expand the view above? How can someone forgive a wrong with a "gift to oneself" without condoning that same wrong? I am thinking of attitudes towards bullies that have not asked for forgiveness.

The view of forgiveness as a gift to oneself holds that forgiveness does not require repentence, contrition or any other form of "payment" from the forgiven. The act of forgiveness has merit in and of itself and can stand alone without acknowledgement. As a gift to oneself it allows the person granting forgiveness the oppourtunity to overcome some hurt or emotional turmoil by offering closure and the ability to move on from the situation or circumstance that merited an act of forgiveness.
Keep in mind that this is only one view of forgiveness. Other forms of forgiveness may be conditional and require that the person being forgiven acknowledge that they have done something that requires forgiveness. Such forgiveness also often requires some sort of promise that the offending act or behaviour will not be repeated. The first view is unconditional and non-judgemental, the second conditional and judgemental. Both approaches have their own merits and applications.
Bullying can be a complex thing in and of itself. While the resolution of a situation involving bullying may require patience and acts of forgiveness (of either form), bullying is not core to these two concepts.
Sign your posts please. Use four tildes (~~~~). Wiggy! 14:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiggy,

I am not interested in bullying, it just seems irrelevant to forgive as action if the action is bound to repeat in the future. In this case the victim of bullying would be forgiving with your definition of patience.

Forgiving as a gift to oneself would be a form of coping with our own impotence over an agression. I am thinking on forgiveness and pursuit of justice

  • Wiggy; I hope this rewrite begins to adequately address the various thoughts that have been expressed. I have tried to synthesize them into a cohesive whole. Everyone please sign you comments. --speet 03:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why forgiveness does not entail condoning

It is great to see some discussion on this topic. I agree that this topic needs expansion. Given its central nature to the tenants of many religions, I was surprised at the lack of depth. I plan to add to the topic as time allows and hope others will as well. Certainly, the concept as viewed from the various religions should be greatly enlarged. Additionally, adding specifics about research being done on forgiveness would seem to be a good and useful addition.

In the meantime I would like to encourage contributors not to confuse forgiveness with condoning wrongdoing. These are two separate things and should be distinguished. Requiring condoning a perceived wrong in order to forgive is a non sequitur. The goal of forgiving is to let go of the past. If one overlays the concept of condoning behavior a whole layer of morality is laid upon the release sought by forgiving. That would cause a block, which I would postulate would prevent forgiveness of any perceived harm that really calls for forgiveness. Saying that one must condone acts causing resentment would just lead to more resentment. The goal is to find release not make matters worse. I believe it would be a mistake to even indicate that a view of forgiveness includes a requirement to condone behavior. A search of “forgiveness condoning wrong” will give one a good clue that it is pretty much unanimous that forgiveness does not entail condoning. Stating that it is an accepted view would only mislead people trying to understand forgiveness. It would be better to say that it is a common misconception. I will try and create suitable language to spell this out with support in the future. I would suggest looking at the some of the possible goals of forgiveness as: 1) letting go of the past in the forgiver’s mind; 2) helping to release the perceived wrongdoer from the guilt associated with their deed; 3) Clearing the block between the forgiver and the forgivee to benefit present and future interaction between them, and 4) allowing the forgiver to see the perceived wrongdoer in a new light, which may lead to the ability to find release within themselves of guilt over their own perceived wrongs. One thing forgiveness is definitely not: a rewriting of history to now claim that a wrong is indeed a right. Forgiveness does not fix the past, only the present and future. Forgiveness is a means to move out of the past, focusing on whether a wrong should be condoned is a means of remaining cemented to the past hurt. “forgiveness means giving up all hope for a better past.” Gerald Jampolsky, M.D. and Diane V. Cirincione, Ph.D..

In specific answer to the question: How can someone forgive a wrong with a "gift to oneself" without condoning that same wrong? Looking from the forgiver’s eyes, I would suggest that one cannot truly forgive if they do condone an act. If an act should be condoned there would seem to be nothing to forgive in the first place. It is for those acts that cannot be condoned that we need forgiveness. Forgiveness is what allows the forgiver to move on with their life without that resentment. True forgiveness puts them mentally back in the space where they were before. That is why it is first and foremost a gift to the forgiver’s self.

An example might help. If someone steps on your foot by accident and immediately says “I am sorry” most would immediately respond with some words of forgiveness. That does not make the hurt to your foot good, or the pain go away. It just says I won’t sit and stew about it and let it ruin my day or how I treat you back. It is the same process for forgiving what we believe are more difficult hurts. Probably the most famous example of forgiveness is the biblical account of Jesus forgiving those that crucified him. Certainly, he was not saying he condoned their behavior, but rather they should be released for “they know not what they do.” It is the morality of “should I forgive” that gets people hung up. But if it brings the forgiver release couldn’t it always be viewed as unfortunate to hold on to resentment?

I hope that helps. The discussion has helped me so I would greatly welcome further input to aid in reaching clarity.

--speet 02:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok Speet,
Thanks for the answer. In your stepped foot example, what if it wasn't an accident? As a forgiver I can't hold grudge about that. It is stupid to say: "Ten years ago, John stepped on my foot on purpose!"
I can see the obvious economy in forgiving a wrong that can't be amended. Big or small. The logical inconsistency is that condoning is synonym for forgiving. So, would it still be forgiving if someone steals me a small value, I proceed to call the police and forget about the incident after that person is punished? I can have a "gift for myself" by forgetting the event, but it seems we are talking of two different concepts with the name of forgiving. Aren't we?
I always thought of forgiveness in terms of pardon and mercy. The concept of letting go resentment without being asked is kind of hard to grasp. I never thought of it as forgiving!


  • You have had me looking all over for different definitions of forgiveness and condoning. I must confess, I have never looked at condoning as anything other than a level of approving. I was surprised to see that the most common definition was along the lines of “to overlook a wrong.” Several sources have a more “approving” tone. My view of the word could be best summed up as: while I couldn’t condone its usage as a synonym for forgiveness, I could forgive such a usage. For now I placed the word “affirmatively” before condoning to help avoid any confusion among meanings. Perhaps the best solution is to create an article for “Condon” and link to it which could give the various meanings and some brief historical background. I hope this works as a fix until I or someone else gets to it. I do believe; however, that it is important to keep the distinction that forgiveness is not affirmative condoning as those writing on forgiveness seem to all be making a distinction between forgiveness is not condoning. I believe a lot of people get unfortunately stuck by the mistaken belief that forgiveness means a form of approval.
  • Answering your questions: You can sure hold a grudge about someone purposefully stepping on your foot ten years ago if you want to, but I can’t see how that would fall within any definition of forgiveness, asked for or not. I would also query, what good does holding the grudge do for you, except mess with your serenity? And why would you want to give the one you perceive as the wrongdoer power over your serenity. Hence, forgiveness is a gift of serenity to the forgiver. If the forgiveness is communicated to the wrongdoer, it is an offer of a gift of serenity to the actor. The actor may or may not request forgiveness to prompt the forgiveness. The actor can also forgive himself. The actor, hearing that he or she is forgiven may find it easier to find serenity for themself.
  • I am not saying you have to forget about what happened with the purposeful foot stomper or put yourself in jeopardy the next time you around him. But if you can let go of the resentment—be a forgiver—you will get back a piece of serenity. To me the key is not forgetting, but letting go of resentment. Similarly, with respect to the thief, see to it that he is punished if you want. I would phrase the question; do you want to be right or happy? If you believe seeing the guy punished will bring you happiness, try it. I would postulate that you won’t find serenity on the topic until you can grant the thief safe passage through your head. When that happens, there will be forgiveness and both you and the thief may have transformation. On the other hand, if one is looking to "win" at the expense of another or work the system for maximum material benefit, the point is probably lost. Check out this site for some help with the concept. [1]
  • By the way, please sign posts. --speet 03:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

A couple of times I have heard or read people saying they are opposed to forgiveness because forgiving means saying "you did nothing wrong." This is false. That is condonation, exculpation, exoneration, justification, or vindication, but not forgiveness. By definition, you can only forgive those who have done wrong. Forgiveness may mean letting go of hatred and anger. It may mean giving up on punishing the offender. At best, it means both. It simply cannot mean saying the wrong was not a wrong after all. It is important to understand this. Das Baz 15:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can "Letting resentment go" be bad?

I think I found a simpler answer to my questions in this dictionary. <http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/forgive>

Is the act of forgiving the same as condoning the wrong?

Unfortunately yes, it can be! But that is not so bad, as we are all faulty beings and so forgiving is important!

'Not resent' or 'letting the resentment go' too soon can indeed be bad things. It is just that we call it condoning then. Condoning is in fact synonym for forgiving, with clear different usage, but fuzzy borders between its meaning.

What motivated my initial question was not just big crimes but also some parental and teaching situations. If parents dismiss too soon their children misbehaviors they may be condoning it, even if unintentionally, and, what is worse: spoiling their offsprings. If a teacher or student settles for a B or a C, than they both may be inviting trouble in the future learning when they may need the concept there was no proficiency in.

There are clearly two mixed concepts that led for my confusion. The first concept is dealing with with resentment and the second with seeking justice/balance. When we forgive we may be in fact taking the burden of the wrong deed on to ourselves and others, which may be good or bad or neither. We can:

  • not resent but not let go - calmly seeking justice (?) (Inner?) forgiveness
  • not resent and let go - total forgiveness, or negligent condoning when serious
  • resent and not let go - no forgiveness at all
  • resent but let go - pardon, officially cease to seek justice, not prosecuting (external forgiveness)

In a Christian logic, I understant Jesus and God took this burden onto themselves.

Too many people have trouble with resentment, so forgiving as letting go of it may be important for those people, but the meaning of forgiving is confused by its complex meaning and by all that it may entail.

  • As for signing, I am still to learn how to do it ip200.17


I edited your answer with my observations, I hope it is ok! ~~ip200.17~~

  • If you are signed, in four ~~ in a row will do it automatically.
  • On your title, “letting resentment go can be bad,” do you have any information to back that up? I have never seen such an assertion in the literature. Because of that, I changed your title into a discussion question instead of a factual statement.
I am just discussing the topic for my understanding, I will back it up with examples. You are free to prove myself wrong, if you like. I will thank you one way or the other! I don't need to be right, but I do want to discuss this!
  • If you do not let go there is still resentment, in fact if you think about it what you are not letting go of is always resentment. Let go does not mean condone (permit, approve, or look the other way with resentment). It simply means let go. Take the morality of “should I” out of it and just do. It does not mean let the criminal go, if that what you meant. Letting go, means letting go of resentment in the mind of the forgiver. I do not see this as complicated, but it does go against most people’s upbringing and accordingly we tell ourselves it is difficult.
This statement: ...in fact if you think about it what you are not letting go of is always resentment. I understood: If I think about the wrong done, I am resented. How is that different of forgetting, overlooking or ignore? Resentment means being unhappy, angry, bitter. If so, don't we have a duty of being unhappy about many things?
  • Duty to whom? That is a story we tell ourselves to remain in a down mindset. I don't believe God has any desire for us to be unhappy. Does your being unhappy ever cure the things you are unhappy about? My guess is that being unhappy simply makes us act in a way that whatever it is we are unhappy about will happen again. If unhappiness has no useful effect, one should be happy and brighten up the days of all the people we come into contact with.
  • Forgiveness is certainly NOT taking on the burden. It is LETTING GO of the burden of resentment. It is not taking on another’s wrong, but saying I don’t see the wrong anymore—that was in the past—and in the present I see you as you are in this moment, without that past baggage in my mind. Once it is grasped that this is not a balancing of equities, but a gift of seeing the present without ties to the past, it is actually quite simple. Take a look at the two links I added to the third paragraph of the article. You could also look at [2] for some further information.
Your link point it out that it may be a courageous decision to forgive. I don't have problem with forgiving in general. But I do have problems with forgetting something that will probably happen again as being forgiveness or good. In other words, forgiving what was not asked. For instance, if my brother would have his inconveniences to me and he is not changing it in the foreseeable future, forgiving means then: tolerance to his faults. No problem with tolerance at all, but it can't be forgotten, it is part of the price of loving my brother and my family. Tolerance. Taking the burden of the specific inconveniences. No big deal sometimes. And a huge deal other times.
  • I didn't say forget. I believe the link site also says that forgiveness is not necessaraly forgetting an event. (If you try you will just resent yourself for being unable to do it.) Forgiveness is letting go (perhaps forgeting) THE RESENTMENT not the event.
  • Going to your motivation, forgiveness does not mean lack of appropriate boundaries or lack of encouragement. In a home situation, a forgiving attitude should lead to less tension, less resentment, more open discussion and motivation by love not fear. I don’t see that as bad.
Parents and children. That is getting too confusing! Resetting! My original point is that "forgiving as a gift to myself is wrong". We both agree that the misbehavior of children must be adressed, Right? This is such an ordinary life situation that words like resentment are too heavy, but in order to adress a wrong the parents must feel a minimal unhappiness about the behavior of their children. They can't have a gift, they must act on the child by teaching the apropriate behavior, when they just forgive the children are spoiled. This was suppose to be a light example, I think we somehow agree here.
  • Think how easy little children forgive. How quickly they can let things go. We can learn a lot from children.
  • As far as confusion of the meaning, what makes things complicated is bringing in the concept of condoning. If you Google “forgive” and “condone” together you will find that besides dictionaries, every single article says forgiveness DOES NOT MEAN condone. My preliminary research has uncovered that condone references forgive because of its Latin and antiquated legal roots of turning a blind eye to marital infidelity. In America, I believe it almost always now has a connotation of approval. It may still have more of the “forgiveness” meaning in England. If you look at definitions of forgiveness, you generally will NOT see condone. The bottom line is that the two are separate and distinct concepts with seperate and disticnt considerations that may have some overlap. --speet 03:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
That is the overlapping I want discuss here, as a native-english-speaker you have usage issues I may be losing. I am convinced that forgiving and approval are tied together. Your issues are the useless suffering caused by resentment as anger and bitterness. (Right?) A valid point, and I agree with you. My issues are in the other hand, bad things that happened because you didn't show enough concern. Forgave too soon!
every single article says forgiveness DOES NOT MEAN condone. But we have agreed that both concepts do overlap, and if they do, then they may be the same much more times than we are ready to admit. ~~ip200.17~~
  • Forgiving does not see the past, it doesn’t say it was good or bad, it does not see it. Approval sees the past and pronounces is ok. Approval is a moral judgment and because of that will never be a true release of resentment and will never be true forgiveness. It really sounds like you are struggling with forgiving yourself for something. Feel free to email me directly from my talk page (the link is on the left) if you prefer a more in-depth answer than I think is appropriate for this page. Try Googling “forgiveness quotes”. It will help to get your “arms” around the concept better. [Keep in mind that some may not be helpful]

"Forgiveness is the answer to the child's dream of a miracle by which what is broken is made whole again, what is soiled is again made clean." - Dag Hammarskjold

--speet 16:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Speet,

Thanks for our exchange. I will think about it.

Summarizing it, my problem with this article is the association between forgiveness and resentment. For instance, in courtrooms, a Judge is suppose to be a rational element applying the law blindly. No resentment there. A specific defence is to show that the Judge was emotionally involved in the subject matter under jugdgement. A Lawyer can correct me where/if I am wrong, please.

More specifically to forgiveness that was not asked. I was surprised by this part of the definition! Do you have specific examples on how can one forgive without forgetting? I think examples can be nice in this or in the resentment article.

Our talking would be hard to proceed if I claim I am not motivated by resentment, and you would insist that: It really sounds like you are struggling with forgiving yourself for something. Suppose I am not resented.

BTW, I forgive you! ;)

Thanks again!

~~ip200.17~~ 8 March 2006

It is funny you should make that comment. I am, in fact, a lawyer specializing in criminal defense for 22 years. That is a big reason why I am interested in forgiveness. In the U.S., I find that the “system” (prosecutors, judges, probation officers) are very resentment based. There are exceptions, but there is a systemic reason why we incarcerate 10 times as many people here per 100,000 population as opposed to many European counties. I could write a book on the topic, and hope to some day. It depends upon how you look at resentment. I would say that the whole criminal justice system is one of enforcing society’s resentment, and in retribution therefore it metes out punishment to the guilty. Even with the fairest judge, he or she is merely part of the societal resentment doling out machine. Unfortunately, that leaves a lot of people harmed by crime, thinking they will be happy when the punishment happens, but finding out that being “right” does not bring the true closure forgiveness can.

I think everyone struggles with resentment. I apologize if it felt like an attack. As far as other examples, I will add stuff as time allows. In the meantime try: [3][4] Two last things. I really would not mind keeping the correspondence up on this, I just think it would be more appropriate on email. (It actually helps me get my thoughts together for the book I am starting to write. I just don't want all my theories on this page as of yet.) My talk page has an email link. Also, on forgetting. That is optional, but unlikely. The harder one tries, the more they remember. You will then just need to forgive yourself for not forgetting.  :) --speet 23:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resentment

Speet,

I have just seem your page, and I think some of the article on letting go of resentment would be nice in the resentment article. What do you think?

~~ip200.17~~ 8 March 2006

[edit] On Christian forgiveness

There was a suggestion on the Christianity Talk page that this topic needed attention. I agree: it does. I'm not sure I know enough theology to do it full justice, but I think it important to distinguish two parts, which can be summed up in a line from the Lord's Prayer: forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us. There are two quite distinct topics which mustn't be confused: God's forgiveness of us (which is what John Wesley is talking about) and our forgiveness of each other (which is probably more central to what this article needs to address). From the NPOV, it is more helpful to explain how Christians deal with human forgiveness, than to discuss God's forgiveness, which it is hard to explain without resorting to much more overtly POV Christian language. It might be useful to hunt for some external links, or information from them: I wonder whether, for example, there is anything that could be put in about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa, and recent attempts to begin a similar process in Northern Ireland. Myopic Bookworm 11:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Myopic Bookworm-- Are the two topics really quite distinct? It seems one could say that the passage you quoted ties them together as tight as could be..."as we forgive". Just food for thought. I admit I have a very distinct opinion on this, however, which is why I am soliciting help to get a NPOV. I like your suggestion regarding the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I think they are doing the cutting edge work. I would encourage you to take a stab at beginning this portion of the article. Thank you for responding. --speet 16:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox sections should include something about how forgiveness is related to the Sacrament of Confession (aka Sacrament of Repentance). God's forgiveness of people and people's forgiveness of each other are distinct but interconnected. For instance, in the Divine Liturgy, the priest says to the people, "Forgive me, a sinner", and the people respond "as God forgives us all." This exchange is also repeated between individuals at the annual "Forgiveness Vespers" in the Orthodox Church; that vespers is also worth mentioning. (And it's coming up this Sunday, making this a timely topic to work on. :-) I agree that for the sake of neutrality, this section should rely heavily on quotations and citations. I'll try to come back and work more on this later. Wesley 17:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. That is good information for how forgivenes is celebrated. I think there should also be a paragraph or more on what forgiveness actually means. Is it the means to the Golden Rule? It would be great to really flush out the content of forgiveness along with the form. Any information you have on these lines would be great. --speet 16:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I have provisionally recast this section, and have for the moment abandoned the headings for particular denominations, as I think there is too much shared ground for this to be very helpful. The different traditions regarding Confession are treated at that article. There is probably still space to mention the liturgical context of confession too: not a peculiarity of the Orthodox Church, but found in many Western rites, though the formula "Wesley" mentions is especially apposite in the context. I'm not wholly convinced that the quotation from John Wesley is needed here, but I've left it in for now. I think it relates to a topic best left at the articles on atonement. Myopic Bookworm 10:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the submission. I haven't had time to digest it fully yet, but it seems like you are heading in the right direction by making it a "Christian" thing. From there, any differences, if any, could be pointed out. One source for the Catholic view on forgiveness would be the Catechism. [5] I tend to agree on the John Wesley quote, it seems out of place and too specific. Again, I appreciate the collaboration. --speet 14:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychological theories about forgiveness

We need some sources and/or references for the text in this section. Thanks. Currently it reads more as a very nice essay rather than an encyclopedic article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this section needs work. Probably a complete rewrite. I solicited input on the psychology page the other day. We will see. I can work on it if there is no response and would gladly work with someone on that. I do believe that this is an emerging psych. field. I would recommend that the section "The role of forgiveness in society" be scrapped as I doubt there is a source to back that up. --speet 03:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

In response to RSpeeter's request on my talk page, I have added a couple of images I though are suitable. Free free to delete if these are not. I have also added stubs for Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism, with the hope other will add to it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Jossi-
Thanks for the pics, citation help and stubs. I love the Rembrandt Prodigal Son. It says so much by itself that it is perfect. I am thinking, because it is such a Christian theme, it should be where the picture of the girl praying is. In my POV the picture by the main article should be a bit more secular. Here is an example of what I had in mind; however, I imagine I would have to get that artist’s permission. [6] Now imagine under that picture the quote from one of the first Secretary General’s of the UN, Dag Hammarskjöld (also Nobel Prize winner). “Forgiveness is the answer to the child's dream of a miracle by which what is broken is made whole again, what is soiled is again made clean.” I think that gives a good summation within a secular context.
On Buddhism and Hinduism, there is preliminary information on those discussion pages, so more information should be coming.
Thanks again for stepping up! It is fun to see this coming together.
--speet 07:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to change the order. As per the painting of the girl w/ butterfly, I sincerely do not understand the connection. Forgive me for not "getting" it (pun intended). For an essay or a web page on the subject it may be approproate, bit I doubt it will be for an encyclopedic article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I really like the "Prodigal Son" pic too. Even though Christianity may not be a "universal" religion, many of its stories and lessons are so nearly universally known, and so seldom objected to, that I don't feel that the "Prodigal Son" pic would be too POV or secular for this article where it is placed right now. My guess is that even most athiests would probably be familiar with this story, and have no qualms about its current placement.
The foto of the little girl with the butterfly is nice, but she seems too young to me to have too much to forgive.... yet. Give her a few years, perhaps.... ; )
Perhaps others may feel differently. Comments?
-Scott P. 23:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The prodigal son story, is quite universal, but I would defer to other editors who have a non Judeo-Christian background to let us know otherwise. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The pictre "Prayer", on the other hand, I think that it is suitable. Maybe it is only my POV, but I would argue that forgiveness is strongly associated with prayer. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey guys...My POV is Forgiveness is not just a spiritual and religious concept; the benefits can be gained with our without prayer, see note 4 to article. Yes, for many, prayer is associated with forgiveness, but not all. I think it is a mistake to have a picture of a purely religious context with the body of the main text. It should be something that is neutral on religion. Many already see forgiveness as a religious and especially Christian topic, although there are many other viewpoints and applications. I have already had a comment on the Buddhism page that forgiveness is a Christian "thingy" (even though the Dali Lama has written a book entitled The Wisdom of Forgiveness.) I am trying to get clarification from Buddhist editors before I enter anything on that section.
I guess what I am getting at with the pix of the little girl releasing the butterfly is a picture to capture the “experience” of forgiveness. For example, try and define love. In that respect a heart as a symbol of love is an abstract connection. While this connection may not be as well known, forgiveness is about release and “rebirth”. The suggested artwork, called “Forgiveness” by the artist, is about being like a child again, without the baggage of resentment, and releasing a butterfly, reborn from a caterpillar. Both are released by the act. “Forgiveness is the answer to the child's dream of a miracle by which what is broken is made whole again, what is soiled is again made clean.” So I would say don’t look at the child and say, I don’t have anything to learn from her because she doesn’t have enough to forgive yet. Rather, look at the child and say look how much I can learn from her; I want to be free of baggage like her and with the ability to release another being. One can do that with or without their God.
Jossi-A side note, I go to a Nondenominational christian church, and the pastor happened to give a sermon on forgiveness today and used the prodigal son story to sum things up as the best biblical teaching on the subject.
On the little girl praying, that is what it says to me. Prayer, but not anything special on forgiveness. --speet 01:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
As I said, feel free to delete. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we could wait and see if anyone else has any feelings or comments on this one way or another. I think I can see what you mean Speeter, the little girl with the butterfly certainly portrays a beautiful experience, which could certainly be likened in many ways to the experience of forgiveness. In any case, it is good to have some images here. Thanks Jossi and Speeter.
-Scott P. 01:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Scott, I didn't notice your note here until after I uploaded the picture of the girl. I got permission from the artist by the way. Do you think it makes it a bit more "hip" and lively and a little less static. Let's live with it a few days and decide. Thanks, --speet 06:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I admit that I don't see the point of the girl with butterfly. It's a picture which may give people nice feelings, and forgiveness is a nice feeling, but that's about all I can make of it: a tenuous emotional link. I'm sure something more relevant could be found. Myopic Bookworm 13:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
An image of someone seeking forgiveness at the The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Africa) would be great, but I could not find a suitable image. --speet 13:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhism Edit

The previous sentence and citation were removed as the source did not appear to be from a NPOV as it was a Christian source with suspect (not objective) aims and was contrary from materials from Buddhist sources. This edit is meant as a starting point and input from others is requested. Note there has been some discussion of forgiveness on the Buddhism talk page as well as my talk page. The following is another good source, which has not been included.[7] --speet 10:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the mistake removal of what seemed a dup. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I did a double take the first time I saw it. --speet 01:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forgiveness is a decision not a feeling

The material I have seen has always said forgiveness is a decision or choice. In forgiving we let go, therefore we cease to feel about the matter. We may move from resentment to love, but forgiveness is about determining to move forward with the process of release. Does anyone have a source that says the contrary? --speet 03:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Speet, but that is only your interpretation. Please note that youy are getting way to close to no original research. The text you deleted was based on Princeton's wordnet definition of "Forgiveness". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Source: Forgiveness is a compassionate feeling that support a willingness to forgive [8]
Please restore the deletion. Thanks. And in the future please do not delete other editor's additions without discussing first. That will be much appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity as religion with greater emphasis on forgiveness

Here is the disputed material that was moved from the article for discussion. I do not have time to work on it tonight, but please do not repost it until we have had a chance to discuss its content and placement. If something along these lines is to go in, my quick initial POV is that it should be in the Christianity section only and the claim of who forgiveness is more important to must be removed. The purpose is to provide information not sell a religion as having a lock on a concept. As these views are very strong, they need to be supported or left out.

Amongst the major world religions, Christianity appears to place a greater emphasis on the importance of achieving forgiveness than perhaps any other world religion. According to traditional Christian doctrine, "through his(Christ's) blood, the forgiveness of sins (offers redemption to all mankind).[1]" Thus, amongst Christians it is most often believed that all true forgiveness originates from God, and is somehow made manifest as the result of the crucifixion of Jesus, which in some way acted as the ultimate 'blood sacrifice' to God. This early teaching on the theology of forgiveness may have had some basis in the ancient religious practice of blood sacrifice which was a common religious practice in the first century AD in most religious belief systems of the Greco-Roman world.

--speet 04:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This seems a very condensed and not very satisfactory summary, and I think it should not be reinstated. The bit about how divine forgiveness operates through the sacrifice of Christ is better discussed in the articles on Atonement (which is why I added the links); one must avoid preaching, even in the guise of "most Christians believe ...(here follows an exposition of scripture)". The stuff about 'blood sacrifice' is even more remote from the topic of Christian forgiveness, and should be left to 'comparative religion' articles on the historical origin of Christian doctrine. Myopic Bookworm 13:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

I disagree with the picture of the girl w/ butterfly. It makes no sense to have such a picture. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for essays. BTW, there are many unsubtantiated material in the article. Editors need to add references and sources for most of the material presented in the intro. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that the many of the sources provided are not be considered "reputable" as per Wikipedia guidelines. Please read: WP:RS#Using_online_sources ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
A hug (Rembrandt), freedom (chan), as the saying goes, a pictuer is worth 1000 words. And each depiction gives a very different aspect or difinition of what forgiveness is. Isn't that the point of artwork? While it may not be an essay, it still makes sense to give more than a one dimentional, sterile dictionary entry that does not give the reader a broader feel for the topic. This type of depiction; "freedom" for forgiveness is like a heart for love. I just picked up a book today that has a similar theme for forgiveness. [9] The topic needs a little more latitude because it is inadequate to describe an experiance in a few sentences. If it was that easy to explain and understand, people would do it more often. I don't believe such a product would describe forgivenes, but something else. With that said, I will work on tightening things up as time allows. This article is relatively young, it is still developing. I do appreciate the critique and direction, however.--speet 07:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the butterfly much either. For me, forgiveness involves relationships between two or more people, not between a person and a butterfly. Butterfly's for me are simply beautiful, and need no forgiveness. Now other people (and self), there's another story!
-Scott P. 14:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article intro

The article intro reads more as an essay than an encyclopedic article. Sources provided are mostly online sources, some of which are not citable as reputable sources per Wikipedia guidelines. The syle needs tightening and proper sources found. I would also argue that the intro can be shrunk to just a few short sentences designed presents the basics of this concept, from an ethical, religious, pshycological and philosopical perspectives. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

See above section. On Citations, I am getting them as time allows. I am quite busy at work. I have added a few "proper" citations and some web links. I would note, however, that I believe the web links I have given are unanimous for their propositions. i.e I am NOT cherry picking. Suprisingly, forgiveness is an emerging topic. I do have some scientific papers that I can go through and find citations as well as some other books for essentially all that I have put up. I have been studying the topic for about 5 years, its around somewhere. Is there anything in particular that strikes you as suspect that I can address first? From my clicking of random articles, this seems better supported than most of the articles out there. --speet 07:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
You did not respond to my request here about your deletion of my edity: Forgiveness#Forgiveness_is_a_decision_not_a_feeling. Once you respond to it, I will be happy to address your other comments. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I would also suggest you read Wikipedia:Lead_section. It provides an excellent guideline on what needs to be included in teh article's lead. At the moment, the article's lead does not reflect the content of the article. It reads rather as an essay on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Jossi- I had the same concern yesterday. There were 13 edits to the article yesterday (some major) without any discussion or citations whatsoever. I agree that there should be discussion before major or important edits are made. I hope everyone will accord the same consideration that you seek.
Will you forgive me, I was frustrated and tired? Your potential answer is: You think I am full of it and deserve no good feelings, but upon reflection it is best for you to let it go and move on. Under such a circumstance there are no “compassionate feelings that support a willingness to forgive.” Yet, for yourself you may decide to let it go. On the other hand, knowing I was frustrated, tired and just a sorry s.o.b. you may have compassion for me. With that compassion you could decide to still be resentful that I would not go to sleep instead of editing; or on the other hand, you could say letting it go is best for you and/or me so you (decide or feel--circle the best) to let it go.
I will gladly cite more authoritative sources on this, but I have a jury trial to prepare for. A quick look in the book in front of me says, for eg.: “Make a decision to forgive the one who hurt you.” Father Robert DeGrandis To Forgive is Divine p. 15. Forgive me that I simply have no more time to devote to this right now. I will likely be very busy in trial the next few days. That does not mean that I don’t take your comments seriously. Please be patient and let the article develop. I foresee sections tying in the information that the lead in talks about. I wanted to get the religion stuff down first. Perhaps you could help create those sections rather than advocate scaling the article down.--speet 16:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
No problems with asking for patience and time. This is a wiki, and people can collaborate as much or as little as they can/want. I will restore my edits that you deleted and attempt to make the lead one that reflects the article's contents, as well as address some of the concerns expressed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
A quick note, I have not had time to review your links to preferred format. May I suggest working throught the definitions before going to the religious views. In other words, move section 3 to section 1. On feeling vs. decision, at what point does a definition change when it is incorrect? What is more authoratitive, a dictionary or a book from someone in the field? If you like dictionary, I would urge you to view definitions of forgive. Most talk about the act of pardon, or the like. That is not a feeling but the result of a decision to act. In the end, so much for the discussion and patience before the major edit...., I had hoped we could do this on that talk page in a colloborative fashion, and that you would take the time to concider the logic of the POV that I have documented. (Summed up as, all forgiveness requires a decision, but not all forgiveness requires a compasionate disposition. A compasionate disposition may foster the decision to forgive and forgiveness may foster a compasionate disposition, but NOT NECESSARALY SO!) Does your POV have room for an alternative definition in the lead? --speet 18:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course! As said in my message below, the article lead needs a summary of all main points and POVs made in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Speet requested on my talk page that I slow down and work with others. As a response, I will not edit this article until Monday March 19, to give ample time to Speet and other editors to contribute. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

  • Reduced the lead to form the basis for an article summary as per Wikipedia:Lead section
  • Moved the interpretations. POVs and other definitions to "Other views on forgiveness"
  • Reordered content. (Maybe this is not the best order)

Please note that no text was deleted from the article, just refactoted to other sections. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have also added <citation needed> tags to these paragraphs that have no source or attribution, so that these can be researched and added to the article for compliance to WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Just massaging the headings to avoid a string of sections labelled 'other'. My personal opinion is that the section on ACIM rather overbalances the article by its size at present, and a tighter summary combined with links to the article on ACIM might be better. Myopic Bookworm 18:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Given the need to establish the general scope of the topic, before discussing the very different subtopics of religious and psychological approaches to forgiveness, I think the lead does have to have a reasonable amount of substance to it. I think quoting dictionary definitions from elsewhere is a weak way of beginning an article (especially when they are as feeble as the Princeton one), so I have produced a 'consensus' definition after consulting several sources. I have also the comment on forgiveness and society back to its original position in the lead section. It is such a general comment that I don't think it really needs a clear attribution. If someone were to write a properly sourced section on forgiveness and society then this brief note will stand here as a summary. I have reservations about the overall ordering of the article: it might make more sense to pass from the overview to the secular discussion (which might in principle be relevant to more people), and only then go on to discuss the various religious viewpoints. Myopic Bookworm 10:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The lead looks good. Now, I would want to challenge your statement; "it might make more sense to pass from the overview to the secular discussion (which might in principle be relevant to more people)". You mat want to check this: 84% of the world population are active religious practitioners. .... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Because of work commitments I am simply not able to put together a thoughtful response. I am happy to see that in the rewrites there has been no attempt to lay claim to which religion is more forgiving. I need some time to process what has been written, so I am not laying any judgment one way or the other at this time.
What has been going on in my head since yesterday's edits, so that others can think about it … I have a concept for addressing this whole issue that I will need some time to develop. The direction, however, is to provide a more comprehensive way to look at the various concepts of forgiveness. The old lead had the information, but it was not succinctly and directly stated. The nut of the matter is there are two classifications of forgiveness: 1) Forgiveness which is earned: and 2) Forgiveness which is granted or given. Within religions there can be both forms. For example, in Judaism, if a person sincerely requests forgiveness, it is a duty to forgive (type 1). Otherwise it is merely recommended “pious” practice. (type 2). This format would give someone food for thought and a context as they read through the various psychological and religious views. It would be a lead that gives somewhat of a defined compass rather than a laundry list of considerations that leaves one as confused as when they began. (This is not meant to be a comment on what is written now, this is my thoughts without processing what is the present lead).
As is probably obvious, this is a matter that is important to me, and I am learning to uncover new layers of the issue as well (Thanks for the message Scott). The Buddhist perspective of not becoming too attached in the first place is what is sticking with me. So I am sitting back, watching this develop, enjoying that people are thinking about an issue that is important to all of us and looking forward to a great collaborative result. Thanks for the hard work everyone!--speet 18:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why remove all notes regarding religious aspects of forgiveness from intro?

I do not understand why the intro must be void of any religious references. It seems to me that the idea of forgiveness is indeed very closely related, for most people, with religious teachings. To delete out all references to religion in the intro seems to me to be rather a disservice to this article. Please explain further your rationale for deleting these references.

Regarding the idea that Christianity is more strongly focused on forgiveness than other world-religions, I think that most religious scholars would agree with this. As a preliminary form of research I did a Google search on the term: "world religions" combined with the term: "forgiveness". Of the first 10 websites listed, eight were hosted by Christians, and two were neutral. None of the first 10 sites attempted to list any other world religion as more focused on forgiveness than Christianity.

Doing a Google search on only the term: "Forgiveness" yielded seven neutral sites, none of which attempted to list any other world religion as more focused on forgiveness than Christianity, and three pro-Christian sites. I would ask you Speeter, if Christianity is not the one religion that places the most emphasis on the need for forgiveness, then which other world religion places the most emphasis on this?

Religion and forgiveness are not mutually exclusive. They are complimentary. To delete references to religion from the intro.... I just don't understand it. It seems to me that today's concepts of forgiveness are all very strongly rooted in various religious teachings of the past. To say that these religious foundations do not merit mention in the intro doesn't make sense to me. Please forgive me for not understanding.

-Scott P. 15:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that it is possible to remove a summary of the religious views rom the lead. How can be that possible? The article's lead needs to be a summary of the article and include the main points presented. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, and I don't see that any attempt has been made to remove religious reference. What has been done is to avoid making those religious references in such a way that they actually only refer to Christianity, not to other religious traditions. That is why my former wording, for example, was generalized to include polytheistic religion. The present wording is unsatisfactory because it implies that divine forgiveness and human forgiveness are somehow alternatives in religious doctrine ("some teach that forgiveness is a grace of god, others that it is a duty of the believer"). They are extremely closely linked in Christian thought, but the point here is to distinguish them carefully, so that the parts about humans forgiving one another do not become meaningless to people who don't believe in God. Myopic Bookworm 16:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attempted to address concerns about earlier religious notes in intro, reset Prodigal Son pic to intro

I have rewritten the intro, attempting to note the importance of the religious heritage to theories on forgiveness with less discussion of Christianity. I hope that this is OK. Also, I've reset the Prodigal Son foto to the top, as most here seem to prefer this. Hoping I haven't offended anyone with this.

-Scott P. 15:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Be careful of systemic bias, Scott.... You wrote "Notably, Jesus Christ's teachings on forgiveness, such as his parable of the Prodigal Son, are quite widely known.". But that is only correct in the parts of the Western world. I woud say that it would be better to state: Notably, Jesus Christ's teachings on forgiveness, such as his parable of the Prodigal Son, are quite widely known in the Western world ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Please see the proposed lead below in this issue. --speet 06:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Universalism

I do not understand what is the relevance of the newly added section of "Universalism" as it pertains to the subject of this article, that is "Forgiveness". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine. I think the contributor has mistaken the subject of the article, and unless something relevant can be said, I think it needs removing altogether. If anything new is said there, it should be in an article on Christian Universalism. Myopic Bookworm 18:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Material should be moved there. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I've put a note on his talk page, and will not initiate major deletion until (a) he's had a chance to respond and (b) I've had a look at the existing material on Christian Universalism. Myopic Bookworm 18:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I made a similar suggestion there last night as well. I also suggest it be under the classification Universalism in the meantime.--speet 01:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I am moving all that text to Universalism. It can be a great addition to that article, but certainly the content is not related to Forgiveness. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced with "non-Universalists" the POV gloss of the term 'partialists'. The suggestion that all other Christians believe God's love to be 'partial' is potentially offensive: except among hard-line believers in predestination, the widespread Christian view is that God's love is boundless, but that he gives us the free will to reject it (hence not all will be saved). Myopic Bookworm 08:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement in intro

There are statements in the intro attriubuted to "some religious doctrines". Please say which. Also this sentence It has been said that forgiveness is necessary for the continued existence of civil society, since without it, all wrongs would demand revenge, which may themselves be taken as wrongs requiring revenge, resulting in a spiralling escalation of retaliation, leading ultimately to mutual destruction. (it has been said by whom?) needs to be attributed and/or referenced. Otherwise it is original research. Please also read WP:WEASEL ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The "some religious doctrines" and similar language I have proposed, could internal link below or just state the religions as you recommend. I think one problem in being specific, is it depends upon how the religion is intrepreted. They don't all fall cleanly into these classifications (Christianity could run the gamut). It is almost something people have to dig into to get or something like an elaborate table would have to be constructed. Perhaps the quotes from the religions give readers the information to begin that process. (Not for the article, my POV is the problem is that it is human nature to have difficulty to let go of resentments, and the various religious and secular views all say to do it, they just attack it from many different and overlapping angles and motivations.) I agree the italicized language is an issue as it sits. I proposed some possibilities to the author, but I left it out in my suggested language below.--speet 06:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Lead

I propose to reword the article lead as follows below. The first paragraph is intact (I really like calling it a process to solve the prior issue) with the exception of adding the words "believe they are" to the last sentence. The second paragraph broadens the reference to the prodigal son and takes out the reference to Gandhi for brevity. I added the next paragraph to tighten it up as one paragraph on religion. I also gave a draft of text to talk very briefly about eastern religious doctrines. In the final paragraph I added back about two sentences from the prior lead. I envision a new section dealing with the process of forgiveness that this would serve as the intro for. I am putting this up here so that we can all have an open discussion about these changes and the overall direction of the article before posting.

Forgiveness is the action or process of ceasing to feel resentment or anger against another person for an offence or mistake, or ceasing to demand punishment or restitution. Forgiveness may be considered simply in terms of the feelings of the person who forgives, or in terms of the relationship between the forgiver and the person forgiven. In some contexts, it may be granted without any expectation of compensation, and without any response on the part of the offender (for example, one may forgive a person who is dead). In practical terms, it may be necessary for the offender to offer some form of apology or restitution, or even just ask for forgiveness, in order for the wronged person to believe they are able to forgive.
Most world religions include teachings on the nature of forgiveness, and many of these teachings provide an underlying basis for the varying modern day theories and practices of forgiveness. The differing Christian and Buddhist parables of the Prodigal Son, [10] are examples of widely known teachings on forgiveness in their respective spheres of influence. Some religious doctrines teach that forgiveness is primarily a state of divine grace, granted by God to those who might in some way please God. Others present forgiveness more as a personal responsibility of the believer, holding the believer responsible to forgive others in some way. Other doctrines shift the focus to looking at the unhealthiness of holding resentments due to attachment to earthly things. Yet further approaches seek to loosen the grip of resentments through a metaphysical evaluation of their unreality.
Althougth forgiveness is often assoicated with religious or spiritual teachings, sectarian or non-religious theories on forgiveness may be motivated by love, philosophy, appreciation for the forgiveness of others, empathy, personal temperament or pragmatic concerns such as the benefits to one’s physical and emotional health. Whether religious or secular, ultimately a decision is made to begin the process of forgiveness in some fashion, guided by the personal beliefs of the forgiver. As the choice of forgiveness is made in the mind of the forgiver, it can be made about any resentment, actual or imagined, whether toward another, oneself, a group, a situation or even one's God. The personal beliefs of the forgiver will impact whether they think forgiveness should be granted. (Add section stub ot end of article for the process of forgiveness)--speet 06:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
(Alternative third paragraph) Secular or non-religious theories may also provide a motivation for forgiveness. Considerations such as love, philosophy, appreciation for the forgiveness of others, empathy, personal temperament or pragmatic concerns, such as the benefits to one’s physical and emotional health are examples. Whether religious or secular, ultimately a decision is made to begin the process of forgiveness in some fashion, guided by the personal beliefs of the forgiver. As the choice of forgiveness is made in the mind of the forgiver, it can be made about any resentment, actual or imagined, whether toward another, oneself, a group, a situation or even one's God. In the end, both the religious and secular doctrines can be categorized into two philosophies: 1) Those that treat forgiveness as something to be earned and 2) those that treat forgiveness as a something to be given. (Add section stubs at end of article for future work on the process of forgiveness and earned vs. purchase) --speet 14:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
This seems to do quite well at discussing religious approaches generally, without assuming that 'religious' means 'Chrstian'. Given the gulf of world-views between religions, I think generalization is probably impossible, and the lead must resort rather to summary. Myopic Bookworm 14:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
That was always my problem with discussing religious views in the lead. It seemed best to essentially just say go see below and intrepret it yourself. One could give Christian examples that would go from a view that: forgiveness must be earned; to the more mystical, if you don't forgive your experiance on earth will be you are not forgiven. That is why I agree that examples of religions should not be given (except with respect to a known teaching--without intreptation as the second sentence of the middle paragraph sentence does). So I am following the last comment, do you think the last 4 sentences in the middle paragraph should be removed as a generalization that doesn't work?--speet 14:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attempted rewrite of intro

Dear Speeter, Jossi and M.B.,
I've just tried to rewrite the intro as per above, yet with several significant differences in the second paragraph. By deleting all direct references to various religions, yet retaining references to Gandhi and the parable of the Prodigal Son, I am hoping that the intro is now rendered sufficiently "non-sectarian" enough. I also tried to generalize in ways that I hope might better generally represent a broader spectrum of theories on forgiveness, both sectarian and non-sectarian, as has been suggested here in this talk page. As always, all input and edits are welcome (even if at first I may whine a bit!) : )

Thanks,

-Scott P. 16:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


Thanks Scott for the new version of the lead. I like it quite a bit, with the exception of last two paragraphs, that IMO are too close to WP:NOR for comfort. We shall either find a citation that support the taxonomy you describe, or delete it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


Jossi,
I did have some concerns too about the second to last paragraph. I have no opinion one way or another about keeping or deleting it. As far as the last paragraph, I feel that it would be much improved if cited, however it does also seem to me to have a fairly good internal logic of its own. I would prefer to simply get some reference and/ or quotes along those lines rather than to delete it.
Thanks for your suggestions.
-Scott P. 16:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It would be wonderful if references can be found. Speet added these, and I am hope he can find some sources. But if no sources are found, then we shall delete these. I will proceed with deletion on March 28th if these are not provided. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Scott and Jossi— Scott, thanks for the thoughtful rewrite. And Jossi, thanks for keeping our feet to the fire. While I don’t disagree personally with what Scott has said, I phrased things as an earned/purchase vs. gift because I felt that that is the language that the literature out there would more easily support. (Scott, I see where you are going with adding no 3. Without ACIM backround I would have agreed instantly. But think about it, if it is a combination, it is always a purchased at some price, so 3 is arguably always 1.) I am not sure that I will have time before March 28th to put this together. I envision sections at the end of the article to support these types of statements. I also imagine that the lead would likely be modified as that material is developed. We could either put in section stubs now, or delete and add back when we have supporting material. By leaving it in, others would have some direction where we are going. I would concur with Scott in that there really is a good internal logic. If one reads through the various quotes, they all fall within one of the categories. An exchange of things (or forgiveness) is always either for a price or free. I can’t think of an exception, but I may be missing something. However I do understand Jossi’s NOR concern, because the categories are something that must be gleaned from what is out there. In fact, most stuff that talks about gift says forgiveness is never earned; it is given. However, in practice as we all know, most people expect it to be earned. (ACIM calls it forgiveness to destroy.) (I am afraid it might be a 10+ hour project to get it right with solid citations.) Direction Jossi?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RSpeeter (talk • contribs).
(please don't forget to sign your comments). You can leave for now these with the"citation requested tag". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

Can we, pleae keep the number of quotes in each section to just a couple? I have copied all quotes to Wikiquote, so there is no need to have all quotes here. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. Jossi, is there a way to link to the Wikiquote page at the point where, for example, all the Christianity quotes are? (Like endnote arrows go to the exact point in the article). Then we could put in short references so it isn't so much of a treasure hunt.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RSpeeter (talk • contribs).
Yes, you can add a link to Wikiquote by using {{wikiquote}} ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there a way to go to a specific section of a Wikiquote page?--speet 04:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, For example Budhism related quotes are available at Budhism related quotes ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced text sections

[edit] Unreferenced text in Intro

I am placing here some text from the lead, that has no references. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Whether religious or secular, ultimately a decision is made to begin the process of forgiveness in some fashion, guided by the personal beliefs of the one who would forgive (or forgiver). As the choice of forgiveness is made in the mind of the forgiver, it can be made about any resentment, actual or imagined, whether toward another, oneself, a group, a situation or even one's God. In the end, both religious and secular theories can be categorized into three general approaches: 1) Those that treat forgiveness primarily as something requiring some sort of material or practical amends, 2) Those that treat forgiveness primarily as a state of internal awareness or inner state. 3) Those that treat forgiveness as some sort of a combination of 1 and 2 above.
  • Secular or non-religious theories also provide explanations for various motivations for and perceived benefits of forgiveness. Considerations such as love, philosophy, appreciation for the forgiveness of others, empathy, personal temperament, practicality, and improved physical or emotional health are some examples of various secular motives and benefits often associated with forgiveness. [citation needed]
  • It has been said that forgiveness is necessary for the continued existence of civil society, since without it, all wrongs would demand revenge, which may themselves be taken as wrongs requiring revenge, resulting in a spiralling escalation of retaliation, leading ultimately to mutual destruction.[citation needed]


Jossi,
It seems to me that perhaps 50% of Wiki may be unreferenced. Whenever anyone states a clearly obvious uncontested fact in Wiki, which appears to me to be what Wiki is about 50% of the time, unless someone else might be able to show the logical fallacy of the statement being presented as fact, it is usually not removed due to lack of documentation. For example, if I write that the Dravidian culture of India is centered towards the Southern end of India, I generally won't document it, as it is already a well known fact amongst those who know about India. Now if I were wrong about this in an article, then perhaps someone would first point out specifically that they have heard that the Dravidian culture is centered in the North of India, and could I please document my claim that it is centered in the South. But simply to remove without even saying why, that doesn't seem to me to comply with general Wiki practice. Could you please tell me exactly which facts in the above section you are finding trouble with and why?
Thanks,
-Scott P. 03:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear Scott, I have no problems with text itself, with the exception that it reads very much as an unattributed opinion. I would love this article to be an excellent one, and with the text included is simply original research. I will not object to stating widely accepted facts about forgiveness, if there are such, but the text in question is not. I am sure that reputable sources can be found to attribute these views. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, please "forgive" me, but I am still unclear about specifically why you feel the above is opinion vs: reasonable, accepted facts. Could you please clarify a little bit more for me, or cite exactly why you feel this way about the above text? Thanks,
-Scott P. 12:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
(further reflections on this;)
In trying to better understand the specific reasons for your objections above, I have gone ahead and broken down the intro material into five different logical deductions which admittedly I have assumed that these deductions are self apparent enough to stand on their own. I feel that the overall effects of these five logical deductions is to enhance the article, rather than to distract or detract from it. Here are the five logical deductions which are implicit in the intro material which you have asked for a discussion on;
  1. Should one decide to forgive, he will do so based on either personal secular, or personal religious beliefs.
  2. The decision to forgive can be to forgive essentially anything, e.g. persons, people, one’s self, one’s God, etc..
  3. That one can choose to either predicate one’s decision to forgive on various remedial actions of others, or not.
  4. The decision to forgive may be entirely based on secular reasonings.
  5. Some have held that forgiveness is necessary for the continued existence of civil society, since without it, all wrongs would demand revenge. (On this point, I am not certain if you were indicating by stating that a citation is needed here that you might have felt it was not helpful to delete the Gandhi quote about 'an eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind' here. I plan to reinsert this citation here. If that is what you meant by asking for a citation here, then I certainly agree with it.)
It seems to me that these five logical deductions are reasonable enough to stand on their own. If you could please tell me which of these deductions may seem to you to be irrational, illogical or in need of greater documentation, and why (aside from possibly the fifth point, which we may agree upon), then I would certainly be willing to discuss this further with you. Your further clarification on this would be most appreciated.
Thanks,
-Scott P. 11:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Jossi,
Can I assume by your silence here that you have no more specific objections to the text above? If so, I plan to reinsert it in a couple of more days, acting under that assumption.
Thanks,
-Scott P. 12:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not believe a rational consensus to add this section was reached. I do, however wish to point out that per policy given at WP:VER, any unsourced text may be challenged and removed. I agree with Jossi that this section has been challenged and that it's inclusion isufficiently warranted. I am therefore removing it until such a time as reputible reference for such an addition exists. Ste4k 02:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
What text is unreferenced? It seems to be referenced. I will restore the edit. Please give Scott P. a head's up, as it seems that he put quite a bit of work into this section, and give him a few days to respond. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I have included a number of citations and can provide more if someone thinks it is necessary. I have also removed the citation needed tag. Scott P. and I spent a fair amount of effort collaborating together last spring on the ACIM section after I asked him to review the initial draft before posting it. Actually, if one carefully reads the quotes I added months ago following the summary, they should decern that the quotes act as a citation in and of themselves. Nevertheless I have added two very reputable online sources (one is the publisher the other is the main editor) together with a few more citations to the text. I think a line by line citation is overkill. I would also like a heads up if there are any significant deletions. speet 04:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
To follow the discussion that went into the ACIM section, please see the ACIM discussion page section 17. Talk:A Course in Miracles speet 04:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


The problem, Speet, is that that section reads very much like an essay. Many senteneces are written as fact rather than opinion, and there is no attribution. I would like to see this section written from an encyclopedic perspective, citing the reliable sources that make these assertions. For example:
The effect of that "tiny mad idea" of separation is analogous to a ripple effect in a pond, spreading out to create a universe of myriad forms of separation. But God still IS, as always. Outside of time, from God’s eternal reality, came His instant answer to the thought of separation: forgiveness. Within time, this answer must be learned.
A reader, needs to know who says that. Is it in the ACIM book? If so, which page? Is that the opinion/interpretation of a scholar? If so who, and where (as in in which book, essay, periodical) did he/she made that interpretation. Plese let me know if this clarifies the concerns expressed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the input Jossi. The analogy in the first sentence is one of several used by the editor in talks he has given. Not quite sure how to cite that or where exactly in the 64 cds it is. The other two sentences are more easily cited from the text and elsewhere. But do you really think every sentence needs to be cited? Please also keep in mind that I am trying to lay a very brief context of a very in-depth book (1000+ pages) so that the reader can have some background for considering the message of the quotes. Isn't the practice of citing in summaries a bit more relaxed? Nevertheless, I will get the cites as time allows and rewrite the first sentence if necessary. Thanks. speet 05:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

<<<<Thanks for the effort, it is much better now. As for this paragraph:

  • Outside of time there was a tiny mad idea that one could be separate from God and thereby lose one’s essential goodness. (T-27.VIII.6:2). In reality, one cannot. All creation is a loving and eternal thought of God. Nevertheless, our experience in time is the perception (or misperception) that there has been a separation from God.[19] The effect of that "tiny mad idea" of separation is analogous to a ripple effect in a pond, spreading out to create a universe of myriad forms of separation. But God still IS, as always. Outside of time, from God’s eternal reality, came His instant answer to the thought of separation: forgiveness.[20] Within time, this answer must be learned.

I would suggest the following: it these are direct citations, please place these in between quotes. If it is not a direct citation, then write it in a manner that does not feel as an essay, or unattributed opinion. Thanks again. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced text in "Forgiveness, deep trauma, and repeated deep trauma" section

Also this whole section:

When we carry deep psychological hurt and trauma with us after some crisis event we are negatively bonded with the situation in which the trauma occurred. For example: we may not be able to stop thinking about the circumstances of the event. We may feel hate for someone. We may feel deeply confused and unable to explain events. As a pragmatic (non religious) step, repeated forgiveness by way of self suggestion releases the negative bond with the one or other people that caused the trauma and allows us to become positive again.[citation needed]

Every day quarrelling aside, sensible people do not invite avoidable, repeated, deep trauma caused by continued wilful neglect. Where deep trauma is likely to re-visit us many people suggest proactive forgiveness while remembering the sequence of events that will lead to traumatisation. This is otherwise known practically as forgiving but not forgetting. Often this practical approach leaves us less vulnerable in the face of repeated wilful neglect, while still able to keep our internal peace.[citation needed]

Many people resent having to police hyper vulnerable environments as such. Further internal conflict is caused because the 'policing' represents a degree of lack of forgiveness. This situation can only be avoided ( with more forgiving and ) forgetting events to the extent that an achievable level of comfort can be attained with one or other of the people that caused the trauma.[citation needed]

This leads to the common conclusion that only time heals. However the process of healing accelerates rapidly with positive proactive forgiveness.[citation needed]

-≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rationale for views described in summary section

I recently rewrote this section as follows:

Original Section Title: Erroneous views on forgiveness
Original Section Body: People who do not wish to forgive claim that to forgive someone would be the same as declaring that person did nothing wrong in the first place. This view is erroneous and false. Forgiveness is not the same as acquital, exoneration or justification. Quite on the contrary, forgiveness, by its very nature, can only be extended to those who have done something wrong.
...............
Revised Section Title: Summary of differing views on forgiveness
Revised Section Body: Some hold that the the forgiveness of others amounts to the condoning of the misbehavior of others, and is no different from the acquital, exoneration or even the justification of such misbehavior. Others hold that the very act of forgiveness, by its nature, must include some type of recognition by the one who would forgive, that the act being forgiven was in error, and therefore no such condoning of such an act is necessarily a part of forgiveness.
Yet others hold that the act of forgiveness is less of a recognition of, or letting go of error, than it is an act of the recognition of the overidding good in another, thereby enabling both the one who would forgive and the one who would be forgiven, to actualize their greatest good.
...............
A comment was made regarding this section that: Please provide some sources. This reads as an essay. The use of "some hold that" is not acceptable.

The three views on forgiveness that I have attempted to describe in the rewrite of this section were meant to be brief summaries of what has been discussed above. Additional documentation would seem to me to be repititious, no? If anyone might have any suggestions for a better summary, I would certainly welcome any such suggestions.

-Scott P. 20:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to first sentence

Forgiveness as a process of letting go is much more of a mental process than an action. The mental process may foster or lead to action, however, that is laid out in the balance of the paragraph. It is also helpful to point out the obvious sometimes; like forgiveness can be of perceptions as opposed to reality and mere differences as opposed to an event.

speet 04:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ACIM issues

I have reverted the ACIM material prior section for the following reasons. It seemed that the forgiveness article was developing nicely into a good comparative study on the various views of forgiveness. ACIM presents a view of forgiveness, just as do all religions, psychological studies and other non formal spiritual views. The ACIM view of forgiveness is not the Christian view. Additionally, although written in a Christian voice, ACIM is definitely not Christianity and is NOT a religion. ACIM itself distinguishes itself from formalized religion. Please keep in mind that the central topic of ACIM is forgiveness.

One can have a view or opinion on forgiveness. Certainly such a view or opinion is not “provable” in the usual sense. However, ACIM has sold over 1.5 million copies and has been translated into 15 languages. Obviously, it is significant to a great many people. Thousands meet weekly to discuss ACIM. It has made an enormous difference in the understanding of forgiveness of many people that I know, is that insignificant? Now, ACIM may certainly may not be significant to many, but that does not mean it has no significance. There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia that I consider completely insignificant, but have a great deal of significance to others. To say that ACIM has no provable significance to the discussion on forgiveness is not a NPOV, but merely a point of view of someone that is not familiar with or does not agree with its material. To delete the section without soliciting discussion of others or to explain one’s thinking in any shape or form is to impose a biased POV on others that strongly feel otherwise. The article should be an exchange of ideas, not place for censorship of the minority view. The article should be a compilation of all differing views so that the reader can compare and contrast the various opinions.

Before making any other such drastic changes, as a common courtesy please discuss proposed changes and explore alternatives to arrive at a healthy consensus.


I agree. There is no need to delete, but the text needs to be written in a voice that is encyclopedic, not as an essay. It needs some work
Please see my comments above, copied here:

This sentence:

  • Outside of time there was a tiny mad idea that one could be separate from God and thereby lose one’s essential goodness. (T-27.VIII.6:2). In reality, one cannot. All creation is a loving and eternal thought of God. Nevertheless, our experience in time is the perception (or misperception) that there has been a separation from God.[19] The effect of that "tiny mad idea" of separation is analogous to a ripple effect in a pond, spreading out to create a universe of myriad forms of separation. But God still IS, as always. Outside of time, from God’s eternal reality, came His instant answer to the thought of separation: forgiveness.[20] Within time, this answer must be learned.
I would suggest the following: it these are direct citations, please place these in between quotes. If it is not a direct citation, then write it in a manner that does not feel as an essay, or unattributed opinion. Thanks again. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I will work on it as time permits and enlist Scott's help. Day job and family committments have placed this on the middle burner at the moment, but I will get to it with the care it deserves. Thanks again for the NPOV help. speet 21:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
My pleasure. Take your time, though. And if someone deletes the text, it will be there in the history for you to retrieve it later and fix it. (don't you love the wiki?) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @
  • In my view the ACIM section has no place in this article. This is an article in a global encyclopaedia on the concept of forgiveness; we discuss (rightly) the perspective of the world's major religions - the Christian view of forgiveness is distinct from that of Judaism and this is interesting and valid. The nuances of difference between individual Christian sects has little relevance overall, since they are in broad agreement on the fundamentals of forgiveness through repentance and the blood of Christ. I don't think that Christian Universalism or Christian Science belong in there either, since they are not markedly different form that of any other Protestant sect. We don't really go into the differences between the large subdivisions - the Roman Catholic and the Anglican Communions, for example - so including a statement on the Christian Scientists, which in any case says nothing which is not equally true of the Baptists, say, is both misleading and conferring undue weight. Much of the CS section is essentially a statement of Mark 12:31, which is accepted as gospel (literally) by all Christian churches. Just zis Guy you know? 14:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Broadly, I agree, but it is hard to argue against people with minority POVs who assert that they must be included on grounds of NPOV. I think there should be a full discussion of ACIM's approach in the article on ACIM, and not much more than a clear link from here. It is harder to deal simply with Christian Universalism and Christian Science, as they diverge in some important respects from mainstream Protestant beliefs. As far as Christian Universalism is concerned, I don't see that it differs materially from Protestant Christianity on this topic, except in the purely theological matter of the universal forgiveness of God; to go into that distinction in this article seems like a mere excuse for promoting universalist theology. Myopic Bookworm 14:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I partially disagree with Guy and Myopic B. As per NPOV: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. As we are comparing views about "Forgiveness" (religious, spiritual, phsycological, etc.) the article should be balanced in such a way as to represent these views proportionally. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see there is no "minority view" here, though. I see no evidence of a significant or noteworthy difference between the various Christian denominations and sects, with the exception of some doctrinal differences between Catholics and nonconformists. Official Catholic doctrine has it (or so I understand) that forgiveness is in the sole gift of the Church, whereas most nonconformists accept that forgiveness is from God and does requires only sincere repentance, not a statement of absolution by a priest. Thre is,of couse, a minority, in the case of ACIM a minority of unstated size, but I don't see the view of that minority as being significantly different. This article is not about the various Christian sects, it's about the doctrine of forgiveness; the Christian view is only one of many represented here.
The section is headed in the major religious traditions. ACIM, CS and CU are not major traditions, they are minor sects in a subset of one major tradition. The article and section titles both indicate a broad-brush approach. WP:NPOV does not mean that every minority POV must be covered in every article. We already cover these POVs in their articles. Just zis Guy you know? 15:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I would argue for one or two short sentences about these minority views, under an "Other minority views" subsection of Christianity, with wikilinks to their main articles, moving the text about forgiveness to a section on their respective articles. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Only if they are provably and significantly different, and the individual groups are themselves provably significant, against the context of comparing, say Christianity with Judaism. I don't think either of these is the case. Just zis Guy you know? 15:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
ACIM is not just some irrelevant cult roaming the underworld. The book is still in all the bookstores and has sold over 1.5 million copies and at over 1000 pages people have been committed enough to translate it meticulously into 15 languages. ACIM is not a religion. So to compare it with religions is misguided. ACIM is a thought system based upon forgiveness. It is not a cult. It urges readers specifically not to organize as a cult or formal religion. Of those that are opining here, I would ask just who has read the book to know exactly what they are forming an opinion about? ACIM is not a sect of Christianity. To make decisions on that belief is simply incorrect. As the sole focus of ACIM is forgiveness and viewing forgiveness in a new, non-judgmental way it provides a POV that is not found elsewhere.
A suggestion would be to rename the main religious section heading to “Religious and spiritual views on forgiveness” and then demote ACIM to a sub-subsection heading under a subsection of “Other Spiritual Views.” A mere link to the ACIM page is not supportable. Is there a threshold of a number of people who hold a view before it is included. There are only 14 million Jews, should they only get a link because there are 2 billion Christians? Is 1.5 million insignificant? Under such reasoning, we could delete 90% of Wikipedia articles. We should be encouraging the inclusion of all diverse opinions. Minority viewpoints will always remain just that if the Majority is able to censor the views they do not understand or disagree with.
On Christian Science- I personally learned something from reading that section. It is not fundamentally the same as Christianity. On Christian Universalism, I agree there is an issue. It would be more appropriately listed under Universalism, but should not be excluded. There was some discussion with the editor when it was first included. I think it was listed as “Christian Universalism” so it would not be at the end of the alphabetical list. As an aside, I originally listed ACIM in the way I did so that it would be at the end of the list. I also made requests from many different religions, including Christian Science and Universalism to make entries. I view this article as an inclusive clearinghouse when I undertook to greatly expand what was a wholly inadequate article last year. Lets encourage those from the different traditions to share their ideas and not have such a “chilling effect” on divergent views. Peace and forgiveness, speet 15:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I hope the new sections helps. I could also move two of the quotes to the quote page if others would find it proportionally less offensive. speet 16:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
No thanks. First you need to provide citations from reliable sources to attest to the fact that ACIM is widely seen by reputable authorities as a globally significant movement. 1.5m copies sold is very small beer compared to the Bible, after all, even if it were verifiable from independent sources outside of the movement itself (which is debatable). Second, you need to provide citations from reliable sources (i.e. not within the ACIM walled garden) to attest to the significance of their supposedly separate and distinct view on forgiveness in and of itself. Third, you need to note that a section which is larger than the entire treatment of the Bhuddist view and comparable in size to that of Judaism is massively out of proportion. Even if that 1.5m were provable, and even if 100% of those buyers accepted the contents rather than reading it for criticism, and even if they were all still alive, and even if they all identified as followers of the movement, that would still leave it around 20th in the list of global religions, somewhere around neopaganism. Judaism, the smallest of the religions discussed in the article, has 15 million adherents and a 2.5 millennia history, plus its influence on Christianity and its status as one of the Faiths of the Book. Christianity and Islam number their adherents in the billions. Just zis Guy you know? 16:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I would encourage others to look at proportionality in another way. Forgiveness is simply not truly as “considered” a part of traditional religions as we might believe. For example, search the articles on forgiveness in the various traditions using ctrl+f. Christianity has the word one time, Islam 0, Hinduism has the link I put in, Buddhism 0, and Judaism has the word 2 times, one of which is the forgiveness link. When I saw that dearth, that is why I wrote each tradition seeking input. ACIM has the word 37 times. That is what the book and thought system is about, and draws many to it. In the end, why the outright hostility to a different POV?
Now if we really want to be silly and proportional, we will give 2000 lines to Christianity, 1000 to Islam, and 14 to the Jews. And we can wait for the next census for redistricting. Let’s take a deep breath, and remember our mission is to exchange information and not be afraid of it and respect significant POV's. speet 16:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually what I want is what I asked for above: verifiable evidence from reliable secondary sources that ACIM is widely considered significant by anybody other than its devotees. I'm not hostile to diffferennt points of view, I'm hostile to Wikipedia being used to promote things. Your text search is absurd: the New Covenant and doctrine of forgiveness is a principal difference between Judaism and Christianity. Just zis Guy you know? 17:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation, and a foundation for inner security" Albert Einstein 1950 "Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." Albert Einstein “Into eternity, where all is one, there crept a tiny, mad idea, at which the Son of God remembered not to laugh. In his forgetting did the thought become a serious idea, and possible of both accomplishment and real effects. Together, we can laugh them both away, and understand that time cannot intrude upon eternity. It is a joke to think that time can come to circumvent eternity, which MEANS there is no time. (T-27.VIII.6) I truly wish everyone a blessed day full of peace and forgiveness. speet 20:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
That's not evidence, that's arm-waving. Humour me here: cite some verifiable evidence from reliable secondary sources that ACIM is widely considered significant by anybody other than its devotees. It's policy, after all. Or maybe there is none? In which case we can't talk about it here, since it would be undue weight. Just zis Guy you know? 06:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Lets just look at this in this light: There is an article in Wikipedia about ACIM. It seems that forgiveness is a central tenet of their beliefs. I see no problem in having a short indication of this in the article, with a link to their main article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Forgiveness is a fundamental spiritual concept found in every human spiritual community. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. Singling out ACIM is giving them undue weight. WAS 4.250 21:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so... If there are other religions, spirituals paths, etc., in which forgiveness is an important aspect, it would be useful to have a stub here and a wikilink to their article in WP. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with JzG (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) here, or the Christian religion should also be singled out from Catholicism since they are completely different. Also there isn't any mention of Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutheran, Episcopalian, the Anglican Church, and quite a few others that are larger more established religious groups which have much more written doctrine that is agreed to by their members. Forgiveness is also one of the themes of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Sikh, Shinto, Confucians, Inuits, Wiccans, etc. Doesn't the Foundation of Inner Peace have a specific doctrine that is different than the other two groups that have based their philosophy on the Urtext of the "Course in Miracles"? Those other two groups should also be listed as well to avoid any favoritism, imho. Ste4k 20:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of differing views on forgiveness

This section still reads very much as an essay and in violation of WP:NOR. We need references for that section, in particular about the first two sentences. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to sort what references there are. It appears though that per the style guide that because multiple references are cited that it would probably be a good idea to add a notes section and list the references alphabetically. (See the section on footnotes and referencing multiple times). Ste4k 20:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another spiritual view on forgiveness

What is the point of the {{unbalanced}} tag? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the statement only refers to one small group instead of mentioning several small groups and a diversity of groups. Listing the opinion of only one publisher doesn't seem balanced at all. We know for a fact that there are at least two other publishers that produce materials on that specific topic "the Course", but besides that, as previously mentioned, there are many small groups that haven't anything to do with "the Course" that should equally be mentioned if anything is to be mentioned at all. Ste4k 04:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • For example, here is a statement on forgiveness from the doctrine of a small group that hasn't anything to do with "the Course":
WE BELIEVE individual Israelites are destined for judgment (II Cor. 5:10; Heb. 9:27)
and must believe on the only begotten son of God, Yahshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ),
in whom only there is salvation (Acts 4:12), that they be not condemned (John 3:18; 
Mark 16:16). Each individual Israelite must repent, putting off the old corrupt man
and become a new creature (Eph. 4:22-24; II Cor. 5:17) walking in the newness of life
(Rom. 6:4). This spiritual rebirth (John 3:3-6; I Peter 1:23) being necessary for a
personal relationship with our Savior.

Ste4k 04:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Since ACIM is a quasi-spiritual system with forgiveness as a central focus (which it not the case with, for example, a zillion minor sects of Judeo-Christian origin, in which it is merely part of a broader theology), it seems reasonable enough to give a brief mention, like this, and link to the article on ACIM. Since there is no longer a disproportionately long discussion of ACIM's position, but simply a mention and a link, I would be happy to see the "unbalanced" tag removed once someone who knows more than me sorts out the appropriate way to refer to ACIM without plugging the commercial interests of a particular publisher. Myopic Bookworm 13:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually "ACIM" is not a system at all, but rather only one faction of the many different factional beliefs centered around the public domain writings of Helen Schucman. That particular acronym is the index at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office for a registered trademark used by one specific publishing group Foundation of Inner Peace (FIP) & Foundation for A COURSE IN MIRACLES (FACIM) that uses the acronym as much as possible for brand recognition. Please view the source at the homepage of FACIM where it is written "A COURSE IN MIRACLES (ACIM) is a registered service mark and trademark of the Foundation for A Course in Miracles.". These two particular organizations share common members on their Board of Directors and are associated closely enough to be co-complaintants in litigation against other groups interested in the Course. This court case shows one example of referring to the work as "Course". Please refer to pages 10-11, where one of the Board of Directors is identified by the court. The press refers to the same work as "the Course". Please see Garrett, Lynn (7 Mar 2005). 'Disappearance' Appears Big Time. Publisher's Weekly. Retrieved on [[29 Jun 2006]]. for another example of referring to the Course appropriately without arousing commercial sentiment. The sects that base their beliefs on the Course are also referred by the press as "cults" rather than "sects" or "systems". Several editors here on WP also insist that the word "cult" is correct. My own opinion is that there isn't any reason to refer to various publishers by a term which is clearly controversial. "ACIM" is only one publishing group's perspective of the Course and failing to mention the other groups and/or publishers is unbalanced. Hope this helps. Ste4k 15:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to trust Ste4k's judgment here, since she has done some quite substantial background reading and fact-checking on this issue. She also has no obvious axe to grind, having (as far as I can tell) come to this initially as a janitorial exercise, looking to polish off some cleanup tags. Neutrality is, as acknowledged by other editors involved in the articles, hard to come by, since there is no obvious secondary analysis of this movement on whihc to base any encyclopaedic treatment. Actually, as a wannabe policy wonk, I would say that unless we can find reliable, independent secondary sources for the statements made about the Course in this section then we should not include it here at all. Just zis Guy you know? 16:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
On reflection, and in recognition of one of the Course insiders' statement that there pretty much are no secondary sources, since only insiders talk about it, I have removed the section. It sticks out like a sore thumb in this company. This article is a high-level overview; all religions talk about forgiveness, and this is not a signifcant one - if every single copy sold made a convery, that would still be about the same number as the new age / druid movement, and about as coherent, given the lack of any evidence of an organised basis for the supposed religion. If we allow this we will have to allow every self-help book that has a theme of forgiveness; I'm guessing there are a lot. Redux: cruft. Just zis Guy you know? 17:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This edit 13:25, 10 July 2006 JzG (Talk | contribs) (→Another spiritual view on forgiveness - No, I'm sorry, I can't see this as a significant movement. It is not coherent, well-defined or widely recognised. deleted a section. I agree with the delete. WAS 4.250 17:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose that it would be better, as mentioned, to be sure to include facts and preclude what is merely controversial among a handful of editors. I agree with the deletion as well. Ste4k 17:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to object. Myopic Bookworm 11:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forgiveness and punishment

Can someone forgive a wrongdoer while still wanting them to receive punishment? For instance a year or so ago there was a young, black man killed in Liverpool by racists: his mother publicly stated she forgave his killer, but still appealed for help with the police investigation. Perhaps the only punishment that is consistent with forgiveness is that which is designed to stop the naughty person doing it again. Any thoughts? --81.132.1.136 22:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC) DB

Hello. Please note that this talk page is to discuss the article and not the subject. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. I have placed some pointers for you to learn more about Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this article should work on the relationship among forgiveness, punishment, resentment, etc. As it is, the article seems to be lumping different concepts with the same name, homonym.
Is forgiveness "the ceasing to feeling resentment" or is it "the ceasing to demand punishment"?

~~ip200.17~~

[edit] POV Check/Reliability Check: Sources

Some of the recent sources added, may not be sufficiently reliable/ You may want to consult the WP:RS guideline to orient you on what sources are appropriate for our articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No offense but please be specific about the source you are questioning here and your specific issues about their reliability. I cannot work with weasel worded concerns here. I need to know exactly what concerns you have vis a vis wiki policies so we can find reliable common ground. I notice there was no comment made about what I consider highly unreliable religious sources on this article before I added some new secular sources. What gives here? Are you using a single fair standard or are you trying to shut down secular sources in favor of religious sources?
I know that some new ideas here are highly controversial because they fly in the face of all the other religious POV's this article has so far been loaded with. However, there is no basis to believe that any of the (irrational) religious beliefs about forgiveness are particulary reliable either so please use a single standard for assessing reliability on this article. I simply want to find some sort of NPOV balance that includes all important secular sources as well as the views contained in the various religious theologies. (drop in editor) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.254.114 (talk • contribs).
I also notice no reliable content here that shows the realities of foregiveness for real people. For example, nationally known child abuse therapist Susan Forward devotes a chapter to the realities of child-(predatory) parent forgiveness. Her (and others) practical experience seems to be as reliable as the abstract (and untested) religious theologies presented here. (drop in editor)
For a description of reliable sources, please read WP:RS ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I will read the guidelines but please cite and discuss the specific sources you have reliablity issues with and what those specific reliability issues are so I can understand your concerns. (drop in editor) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.254.11 (talk • contribs).

Please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. Each sentence in this article in which a claim is made, needs to be attributed to a reputable published source. I will add the template {{fact}} to these sentences, so that you can add sources. I will also add the same template to these sourced statement, whose sources are not reliable for this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Sorry for overreacting. Thanks for being specific here. 71.102.254.114 21:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC) (drop in editor)

The section "Summary of differing views on forgiveness" is in violation of WP:NOR, that states "Articles may not contain any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree in general with this concern. A number of sources, I added could be used to clean this up. After I add other content, I will take a look at this section regarding your concerns. 71.102.254.114 21:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC) (drop in editor)
I would delete the whole section, and move the last sentence that is well sourced to anither part of the article. All articles in Wikipedia are summaries of what reliable/verifiable sources say about a subject. The article's lead needs to summarize the whole article (See WP:LEAD), so there is no need for a section called "Summary of differing views on forgiveness", and most definitively the one that is currently there that is an example of original research. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
This seems reasonable to me. I would suggest that (later) complex distinctions between well sourced differences/oppositions be summarized in such a section for clarity and ease of understanding. However, this section as shown NOW is far from a well-sourced, balanced, NPOV depiction of these differences. (drop in editor) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (drop in editor) 209.129.49.65 04:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Check: 'Spiritual Correctness'?

This article seems to have an overwhelming religious slant. I could imagine it being an article in a religious encyclopedia but it seems too religious to be in a secular encyclopedia. Of course, religion has influenced the concept of forgiveness a lot so I am not saying we should hide religious content here. What I am concerned about is the 'spiritually correct' tone as shown by the photo and the overwhelming amount of religious or spiritually oriented content that is 'friendly' to religious POV's about forgiveness. Does anyone else share this concern? (drop in editor) 128.111.95.110 06:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neither a religious encyclopedia, nor a secular one. In Wikipedia we have articles written from a neutral point of view, in which we describe significant viewpoints based on verifiable sources. If you have material that describe "Forgiveness" not from a religious perspective, it would be a wonderful addition to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Whatever...you know what I mean here. Please refrain from wiki lectures unless I ask for them. I am able to compare articles with ease myself. Politically correct or 'spiritually correct' content is far from NPOV. The religion article is written with a much more secular tone than this one is. I do indeed have a secular source that describes this kind of 'spiritual correctness' as related to forgiveness...but I thought I would ask first about the whole article out of courtesy as it is so loaded with religious content/POV. (drop in editor)

[edit] Philosophical Approaches

alex -- this article needs to include recent philosophical approaches to this stuff eg Derrida (you should forgive the unforgivable) and Levinas etc - this topic is coming up a lot in continental philsophy right now...

[edit] Disambiguation

I seem to remember there being a "For other uses, see 'Forgiveness (Disambiguation)'" at the top of the page. Where'd that go? Kaoskastle 02:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scare Quotes around the word "mediated"

It was surprising to come across scare quotes used concerning the beliefs of two major religions, Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The Wikipedia article "Scare Quotes" points out that, "scare quotes are generally avoided in serious, impartial writing, such as in encyclopedia articles." These occured around two instances of the word mediated, and I removed them. Ivain 01:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religious and spiritual views on forgiveness

good section -however, i once read some interesting quotes from Scientologists about forgiveness and was wondering if a mention of Scientology and forgiveness would appropriate for this article. i could understand that adding more and more religions to this section would be something you'd want to avoid. El hombre de haha 04:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/o/r/Talk%7EForgiveness_291a.html"