Forgiveness is defined as ceasing
to hold resentment towards a person who did you some real or perceived wrong or
ceasing to blame them. Resentment involves
the desire to hurt them for what they did or to see them punished. Often
resentment may draw you to withdraw yourself from them in
some way and hurt them spitefully.
Forgiveness is not excusing evil or condoning evil. It admits that evil is evil but it chooses to
let it go for everyone’s sake. That is
what we are told anyway especially by religionists.
Ceasing to blame the person is simply
condoning or rewarding what you think was done wrong. Condoning is not blaming what should be
blamed. If God does that then he is just
being a silly hypocrite for being opposed to the person in the first place.
Forgiveness then makes no sense for it says a
person should be treated as they don’t deserve which really amounts to saying
you will not treat a person as a person so it is hardly loving. Forgiveness without love is not forgiveness. Augustine tried to solve the problem by
saying you must love the sinner and hate the sin. If you love the sinner and hate the sin then
you must forgive the sin and not forgive the sinner! Loving the sinner and hating the sin is
impossible if you have the honesty to see that and it makes nonsense of
forgiveness.
If believers should forgive one another as
their God instructs then what do they need to believe in free will for? It is a needless exercise.
There is no point in believing in free will if
you are going to treat a sin as something that is not part of the person. And if you buy the lie that you love the
sinner and hate the sin then why are you calling the sinner a sinner? Isn’t that saying the person and the sin are
one and the same? The command really
means that you are going to reward a sinner by pretending that he or she does
not sin and that the sin is like a bug that got latched on to them without
their doing. You can only forgive if you
believe in free will. When you don’t
need to believe in free will and then believe in it you are accusing people of
freely doing wrong without evidence meaning that forgiveness cannot be
practiced. I mean you can only forgive
what you believe was done wrong. But if
you have invented the wrong you have accused them of then if you forgive the
forgiveness is not real forgiveness at all.
Many Christians say that when God forgives he
is not ceasing to have a spiteful attitude towards somebody for he is not like
that but he is simply cancelling their punishment and he only punishes because
he loves and making peace with them to help them to do better in the future
when they are set free from their sins.
It is impossible to see how a God who is almighty could be spiteful for
he does not need anything from us. If he
cancels their punishment then we must do the same and so we cannot put
criminals in jail. God is more important
than us and if he can do it so should we.
So the view that God simply cancels the punishment is ridiculous for it
wants us to encourage criminals by doing nothing about them.
The claim that forgiveness is compatible with
getting the wrongdoer punished is so laughable when it comes from the mouth of
a believer in God. It is laughable
enough when coming from an unbeliever because what it is saying is that the
wrongdoing doesn’t matter to anymore.
But evil does matter. To say that
evil is evil and yet does not matter is to become as evil as the person who did
the wrong in your innermost heart despite your noble exterior.
It is totally
insulting to the intelligence to be asked by the hypocrites in our society to
forgive criminals and then punish them as if not forgiving them would be more
hurtful to all concerned than punishing them.
Not forgiving was declared by Jesus to be a heinous crime that would
stop God forgiving you because it implied ingratitude for the fact that he
forgave you and gave you an undeserved ticked to everlasting salvation. Clearly then it is worse not to forgive than
not to punish. Man was made for religion
and religion was not made for man. All
this is what belief in God logically implies.
If you really forgive you will be upset to see the criminals punished
even if you think they should be.
Forgiveness then solves nothing.
It gives the criminals more power to hurt you as if the criminal action can’t
do enough of that on its own. To
emphasise forgiveness more than letting criminals off is silly for if you
forgive so that you can love them what good is your love going to be to them in
jail? If forgiveness is what matters
most then you should not let them be punished.
If forgiveness does that then you should not need to forgive in the
first place- just turn your blind spot to crime.
What then about
those who forgive a murder but who are still devastated by the killing? They are saying that it matters that the
murder happened but not that a person did it which is totally schizophrenic and
incoherent. They hate the loss of life
but not the sin. Weird.
Cancelling the punishment is cancelling what the sinners have asked
for. Punishment is meant to make you pay
your debt and grow as a better person in doing so. So forgiveness does not set you free so that
you can do better. To be punished is to
be respected as a person.
The reason that
condoning crime is bad is that it lets the criminals off and stops resenting
them. It rewards and encourages crime
while claiming that crime is bad. It is
what condoning results in that makes it bad.
When forgiveness does that too it follows that it and condoning are one
and the same thing and or as bad as each other.
Forgivers look down on people who condone. They should cast the plank out of their own
eye if they want to see clearly to remove the speck from anybody else’s eyes.
It is said that forgiveness
is not the same as condoning crime. The
difference is supposed to be that forgiveness still allows you to punish while condoning
forbids it.
With forgiveness,
you can’t punish because of the crime because you have forgotten the crime so
you have to find other reasons to punish.
In fact you are not punishing at all for punishment is making the wrongdoer
pay for the crime. It is still
condoning. Forgiveness is just condoning
in a new guise. Even people who condone
may send the people they condone to jail for some reason other than for the crime. Condoning and forgiving both have no concern
for punishing the crime so they are the same thing.
Mercy says a
crime should not be punished as much as it should be and in so far as it does
that it rewards the crime. Punishment is
evil if mercy is right. So, God cannot
be merciful and cannot want us to be so belief in a good God who made us is
unreasonable.
You forgive
because you feel like it not because you think you should therefore you are
condoning the crime for you forget the crime because you feel like it without
any real concern for its inherent badness.
We are naturally sensual creatures.
Reason only influences our actions when we feel devotion to it.
All this applies to God as it does us, too.
My conclusion is that God forgiving you makes no sense.
Moral systems and especially religious ones
say that love is sacrifice. Sacrifice is
meaningless if we should not forgive. They
also say that there is nobody who is not a sinner. Forgiveness is a scam for getting us to live
our lives in torment and/or self-righteous hypocrisy. Love would be a forbidden feeling. The
will to love or sacrifice for others would be an iniquity then for it would be
really encouraging the evil of others if all are still considered guilty of sin. If we refuse to give people the consequences
of their actions then we are doing our best to encourage their evil. If forgiveness is immoral and two-faced then
God did not put us here to become virtuous for then it is dead easy to be
virtuous. If it is that easy, then there
is no need for discipline or suffering. God
is cruel for sending them if they are not just for retribution.
When we ask why we forgive we see
that forgiveness implies that if God forgives then he is evil and is not God
but insane.
Why
do we forgive?
* Because the past cannot
be undone.
People only forgive when
the enemy is sorry but this says people should be pardoned even when they are
not. The implication is that people
should not will or want them to be hurt for their crime for the wrong cannot be
helped anymore. This is actually
condoning or rewarding the crime and it makes punishment wrong. It is making it best for the criminal to look
for this reward. If the crime should be
rewarded partly or fully, then the criminal needs compensation for being
punished in which case he should never have been punished in the first
place.
This is not really
forgiveness because it is really saying that a bad act is made harmless and
made nothing by the mere fact that the perpetrator cannot change it.
* We forgive not for the
sake of the enemy but because our anger and hate hurt only us and we want to
stop the bad feeling.
Forgiveness like this is selfish so it is just dropping the horrible feelings but retaining the uncaring attitude towards the enemy. You are not doing it for the enemy so you still couldn’t care less about them though you may trick yourself to think that you do. It isn’t really forgiveness at all. And it selfishly rewards yourself for your uncharitable attitude by getting rid of the non-essential distress and anger so it is an affront to the enemy.
Forgiveness that is only practiced for not forgiving has so many bad results does not sound much like real forgiveness. It is like accepting an apology from somebody who has victimised you because you will lose your job if you don't. Yet all people who have suffered greatly at the hands of another only forgive to avoid the bad results!
If
you really cannot help being angry and hating a person but you would not harm
them because you think it is wrong to then you have forgiven them. You do not consent to the bad feelings
therefore they are not your fault.
Forgiveness only requires that you abandon resentment when you can. If you find the resentment does you good then
you could still say you forgive for you do not hold it to hurt the person but
for another reason.
It is possible
to be unforgiving in a way that does you more good than harm. We all have mild resentments. So when you are so generous to the criminal
as to forgive totally you are condoning his crime. You are treating him as special because he
did wrong while you go out and hurt other people for like us all you have your
faults.
When
you forgive a criminal you will trust him if you have really forgiven him. To say his sin does not matter is to
logically say that you will not mistrust him any more. So the gospel of forgiveness of Jesus Christ
wants you to leave yourself wide open to abuse by a person who cannot be
trusted. You would be better off with
your anger and hate than that.
Forgiveness is not for your benefit at all. You condone the crime of the criminal
accepting your forgiveness though he knows you are endangering yourself and
perverting your mind which knows he is dangerous. When you do that you should condone all his
evil. If you still hate his sin you
still hate him for you are hating the act that you should condone to be
consistent and you are not doing that.
Forgiveness is not meant to help you even if it does. If you really loved your enemy you would not
be encouraging him to attack forgiving people like you.
* We forgive for the sake
of the enemy.
Free
will conflicts with the doctrine that pardoning is a duty even if it is taught
that you can only forgive a person who freely did wrong. Now, you are more certain that the person did
wrong than you are that he or she is sorry when the apology comes. The person could fake repentance to avoid the
results of their actions. Thus it
follows that forgiveness is degrading to the person who is asked to forgive and
so it is really another act of wickedness.
To forgive is to reward the person for insulting you. It is more moral to punish that person and
never forgive and to deal with your bad feelings in a way that is good for you
so that you will feel no pain. The
Christian faith is erected on the cornerstone of forgiveness so the faith is
all error for its foundation is error.
If forgiveness is about
abandoning the desire to punish and punishing is about reforming as well as
about paying for the evil you did then forgiveness does not care about the
wicked person at all. It does not care
what that person owes society so it does not care about society either which
raises the question of what the wicked person was resented for in the first
place.
The condemnation of
crime is more important than the punishment of crime. Therefore if you may forgive and still punish
you are doing wrong for you are putting more emphasis on the punishment. Forgiving is ceasing to condemn. If you can do that then the punishment could
also be shelved. Indeed it ought to be
if it is less important. You do not
really forgive anybody you punish or who you allow to be punished. One of the greatest marks of Christian
hypocrisy is the way they bless people who forgive and who still support the
legal retribution system.
In most cases, it is
easier to do wrong if you are confident you will be forgiven for we fear people
wishing us evil. The amount of time most
of us have spent in doing harm when we were confident we would be pardoned adds
up in damage to many things that people have gone to jail for. So there is no doubt forgiveness is indeed
making an excuse for non-criminal evil, provided free will is accepted as true,
though it is dressed up as doing the opposite.
The gospel of forgiveness of Jesus Christ logically implies you should
hate yourself and let others walk all over you.
When non-criminal evil can do as much damage as crime then when we let
it go unpunished we should let crime go unpunished too!
It is hypocrisy to claim
that there is a difference between forgiving and condoning when most
forgiveness does not exact a punishment or restitution and does not need
to. I mean if X smashes your window and
you forgive him and make him pay for the repairs you are not making him pay
because you forgive him or because you don’t but because you want the money so
his wrongdoing is still being condoned.
It just looks as if it is not being.
The real reason we like
forgiveness is that in most cases it does result in us getting away with the
evil we have done. That is the real
attraction. It is about us and not other
people.
We are told we are all
sinners. If that is true then we deserve
whatever evil others to do us. It would
be unfair to condemn them for hurting us.
If we take an eye for an eye it leaves us all blind but we could gossip
about one another and run one another down because we deserve it and we do that
a lot at times anyway.
The doctrine that we all
need forgiveness from one another and from God and that we need to forgive
ourselves is harmful because it implies we all deserve to suffer and be
condemned. One way it harms is
this. When you get a reward or a
compliment you want it to remind you that you are a good person. To be a good person is the same as deserving
only good. But to believe that we are
all sinners and deserve suffering and need pardon is saying that anything
anybody does for us it is done for any reason but not to really convey to us
that we are considered good. Only a delusional
person would be happy with such blessings.
They are Black Widow bites.
When we forgive our
enemy we declare ourselves to be his friend.
We are going to help him if he is in trouble. It would be bizarre then if you could send
him to jail for a crime against you and couldn’t refuse to give him a lemsip
for his flu. If we really are his friend
we will not want him to go to jail and even more so if we feel he has really
reformed.
A lot of the time, if
you send a person to jail they will be worse when they come out for jail is a brutalising
experience. It is utter hypocrisy for
Christians to say they have forgiven enemies they send to jail. The boast, “We don’t want revenge. We just want justice”, seems hollow. If they really meant it they would not be
able to send hardened criminals to jail for they will resist changing their
attitude and use jail to harden their hearts.
Punishment is to reform not to make worse.
You would need to be
clairvoyant and know the criminal exceptionally well to be sure that sending
him to jail would be best for him and other people. When you are simply guessing that it is the
right thing to do it is clear that you have not forgiven him at all. You are getting your own back and using the
law to do it. You never know what the
future will bring – end of story.
When we cannot forgive
for our own sake or the sake of the enemy we can’t forgive for both at the one
time either.
All the reasons for
forgiveness fail. What they really do is
excuse evil.
Many people like
the God concept because they want to use it to exploit others. They want others to feel guilty about hurting
other people for it hurts the perfectly good God who is not physically harmed
but who disapproves of the sin and is justly offended by it and can punish for
it. But the truth of the matter is that
it is none of God’s business what we do to each other. The reply, “Oh yes it is because God loves us
all and whoever hurts another person hurts what is dear to him and therefore
hurts him”, does not work. Then it is
not so much that the person is hurt that matters to him but the insult offered
to him by damaging his property.
Another is that
God made us all and to hurt another is to hurt his property. That does not work either. Why?
Sin cannot hurt God and to say it does is only a metaphor. He does not disapprove of sin but he
“disapproves”. Disapproval is not
pleasant while God’s happiness cannot be marred. We might be offending God but we have nothing
to apologise to him for. It is like
saying sorry to a man who does not mind you kicking his wall for it can’t do
him any harm. God would be evil and
vindictive if he did mind our sins. And
God says he will bring good out of the evil we have done and he uses evil
though he is almighty meaning he needs it.
Once again he has no business telling us to come to him for forgiveness.
To be more concerned about an invulnerable
God than a human being is a great mental sickness. It is a further insult against people who
after being hurt need to be assured that they are loved for themselves and not
for any God.
God alone
matters. Jesus said we must love him
with all our hearts. God does not want
us to be sorry then for thumping John but for breaking his law that we must not
exercise unnecessary violence. It’s
about God and not John. In this
scenario, we see there is no value in arguing that sin should be avoided
because God is good and that God is therefore a helpful idea.
With God, you
are asking for pardon as if the sin you committed was against him and not John
which is not only evil but also stupid.
The sin could not be entirely against God. The fact that John was hurt has nothing to do
with God for John is not God. The fact
is that God’s handwork was damaged but that is a separate issue. You can’t go to God and say, “I confess that
I hit John and I want you to forgive me”.
What you say is, “I confess and ask forgiveness for abusing your gifts,
a person you made”. The Christians have
been conditioned to go to God for relief when their consciences condemn them
but in fact they can’t do that. It
doesn’t make sense. Obviously, God is
pompously and rudely making what is directed at John his business. So this shows the true face of the mercy of
God. It is based on hatred of the rights
of the person and is therefore condoning sin and not true mercy for it is sin itself. The pardon is just used by religion as an
attractant for the unwary. The only
reason we get any mercy is because God wants to show off his power. To exult in the mercy of God is to declare
that God should be followed and obeyed because he is powerful and not because
he is good. Might is right and if the
Church is the
If you have sinned against God at all then
you have sinned indirectly against him and directly against John. The emphasis is put on asking God for pardon
which could make some sense if God exists more than on John. But this is incorrect because the person
directly offended still comes first. God
has stolen the place of John and sticking his nose in where it should not be.
Forgiveness, especially
God’s forgiveness, makes no sense and it is another reason for discarding belief
in free will. Where there is no freedom
there is nothing to forgive. Mercy
exposes some reasons why it is so bad to believe in free will. You can show mercy if you believe that evil
is not sin but sickness.
The scary thing about Christian mercy is that
it is better to give mercy to the more undeserving than to somebody who
deserves it more. The worse the sin you
forgive the more praise you get from God for it shows the most gratitude to God
who has forgiven you so much. That is
plainly saying that religious considerations should have more weight than human
considerations. It is saying that man is
made for faith and not faith for man.
Yet the inconsistent Jesus was the one that said that man was not made
for the Sabbath but the Sabbath was made for man! That translates as that man was not made for
prayer but prayer for man which shows that somebody may not always have been a
believer in God and was perhaps a humanist or near-humanist at times.
God has done us the greatest of favours by
forgiving us so the worse the sin we forgive the better. We should concentrate on forgiving the worst
and only take time if it is available later to forgive those who were not so
bad.
It
would totally churlish to deny mercy to a good man who has committed some crime
and who isn’t sorry and to give it to somebody who has barely done a good deed
in his life and who is sorry. Good has
to be acknowledged. Actions must be put
before virtues and attitudes. It is
results we need.
The Church says that two equally evil people
can come to God in confession for pardon and both will be pardoned even though
one was barely sorry and the other deeply sorry. They get the main benefit forgiveness. So the goal is reached without much resolve
to avoid evil in the future. This is
condoning and not forgiveness even by the Church’s own standards.
The Bible detests on the authority of God, atheists
and homosexuals and heretics. If God is
right to hate them then they should receive less mercy than those God likes or
likes better. The Christian faith infers
that a man who kills one of these people should receive mercy in preference to
somebody who has slaughtered somebody God likes better. We plainly see that no religion should be
allowed to get away with condemning Atheists, homosexuals and heretics.
People are alarmed at
our deterministic teaching and yet their own teaching implies that it is true
and they live like determinists themselves. Their teaching implies it. Our exploration of forgiveness helps make
that clear.
Belief in God or gods or spirits who can help us is madness for forgiveness is madness. Read The Gospel According to Atheism and you will learn that we can live happily, safely and normally without forgiveness and without the notion that anybody deserves to suffer. The sinister truth about forgiveness is clear proof that God, if he exists, invents morality and morality does not really exist. It proves that theism in all its forms, monotheism, henotheism, monism, polytheism is bad. Any good it does is caused by ignorance and people not thinking but no more makes it good than taking arsenic to cure a health problem is good. It is a deep attack on human rights – and one of these rights is the right not be deceived and not to be made to think that a bad product is a good product. Ignorance does not get people off the hook for they are still doing wrong because they are not thinking and not trying to learn though they should. And we have all met people who see that forgiveness is rewarding sin so faith in forgiveness is blindness and there is no excuse. Anybody that teaches the existence of a forgiving God is furthering a bad fruit. This includes the legendary Jesus who said that you can tell fake prophets by their bad fruits. Bizarrely this young man would have known of false prophets who did not produce bad fruits and yet he said that!