On a couple of the threads here, people have been discussing various aspects of forgiveness. Some feel that forgiveness exists only in the person doing the forgiving.
Consider the following thought exercise:
(1) You're walking through a park when a rain storm suddenly hits and your clothes are ruined.
(2) You're walking through a park when a computer sensor decides it's the optimum temperature and humidity to turn on the sprinklers to water the grass and your clothes are ruined.
(3) You're walking through a park when an automatic sprinkler timer goes off and your clothes are ruined.
(4) You're walking through a park but a gardener with his back to you doesn't know you're coming and accidentally sprays you with his hose and your clothes are ruined.
(5) You're walking through the park when two persons having a water balloon fight unintentionally hit you and your clothes are ruined.
(6) You're walking through the park when a person with a water balloon decides to throw it at you and your clothes are ruined.
Now, where does forgiveness play into all those scenarios?
(1) is a natural event; no one has control over it. (2) and (3) are pre-programmed events; one might question if the wisest time/conditions for the sprinklers to active were selected, but the activation was done without malice. Other than the fact a human agency is ultimately responsible for the sprinkler systems, (2) and (3) are indistinguishable from (1).
(4) involves a person being negligent in so far as they did not check before spraying, but again the intent was not to ruin your clothes but to water the grass. (4) differs from (1), (2), and (3) primarily in that there is another human directly involved; since this human is following a routine and/or pre-established instructions, (4) is more similar to (1), (2), and (3) than it is different.
(5) involves neglect and a lack of consideration for others, but again no deliberate malice is involved. If you had been walking a few steps slower, or the water balloon thrown at a slightly different trajectory, the two of you would not have intersected. In that sense, (5) is a random event along the lines of (1).
(6) does involve malice, even if it's of a playful, michievous sort and the thrower did not realize your clothes would be ruined.
Bottom line, all six scenarios: You're wet, your clothes are ruined.
Now, who do you forgive?
(1) involves impersonal forces of nature. There's no one for you to forgive since there is no individual responsible.
For (2) and (3) you opt to forgive the person who programmed the sprinklers sight unseen -- but curious, you check into who was responsible and you learn that person died the day before, so there is no one in this world you can forgive.
(4) and (5) you opt to forgive without telling them of the wrong they had done. Since the gardener wasn't paying attention and the two people with the water balloons are too wrapped up to notice you, none of the people in (4) or (5) are even aware they have caused harm to you.
Sidebar: If you don't inform them of the harm they have done you, you are enabling negligent behavior. This time it was only a set of clothes, but next time their negligence may have more far reaching implications. By informing them, you are giving them the chance to correct their own moral and ethical behavior voluntarily.
You say nothing to the thrower in (6), choosing to forgive him in your heart and move on. That person soon realizes he did a wrong thing by throwing the water balloon at you, but since you wouldn't offer him forgiveness and he is now unable to locate you, he is plagued with guilt and shame. You, in effect, have harmed him by not giving him the chance to seek forgiveness.
Discuss.
Consider the following thought exercise:
(1) You're walking through a park when a rain storm suddenly hits and your clothes are ruined.
(2) You're walking through a park when a computer sensor decides it's the optimum temperature and humidity to turn on the sprinklers to water the grass and your clothes are ruined.
(3) You're walking through a park when an automatic sprinkler timer goes off and your clothes are ruined.
(4) You're walking through a park but a gardener with his back to you doesn't know you're coming and accidentally sprays you with his hose and your clothes are ruined.
(5) You're walking through the park when two persons having a water balloon fight unintentionally hit you and your clothes are ruined.
(6) You're walking through the park when a person with a water balloon decides to throw it at you and your clothes are ruined.
Now, where does forgiveness play into all those scenarios?
(1) is a natural event; no one has control over it. (2) and (3) are pre-programmed events; one might question if the wisest time/conditions for the sprinklers to active were selected, but the activation was done without malice. Other than the fact a human agency is ultimately responsible for the sprinkler systems, (2) and (3) are indistinguishable from (1).
(4) involves a person being negligent in so far as they did not check before spraying, but again the intent was not to ruin your clothes but to water the grass. (4) differs from (1), (2), and (3) primarily in that there is another human directly involved; since this human is following a routine and/or pre-established instructions, (4) is more similar to (1), (2), and (3) than it is different.
(5) involves neglect and a lack of consideration for others, but again no deliberate malice is involved. If you had been walking a few steps slower, or the water balloon thrown at a slightly different trajectory, the two of you would not have intersected. In that sense, (5) is a random event along the lines of (1).
(6) does involve malice, even if it's of a playful, michievous sort and the thrower did not realize your clothes would be ruined.
Bottom line, all six scenarios: You're wet, your clothes are ruined.
Now, who do you forgive?
(1) involves impersonal forces of nature. There's no one for you to forgive since there is no individual responsible.
For (2) and (3) you opt to forgive the person who programmed the sprinklers sight unseen -- but curious, you check into who was responsible and you learn that person died the day before, so there is no one in this world you can forgive.
(4) and (5) you opt to forgive without telling them of the wrong they had done. Since the gardener wasn't paying attention and the two people with the water balloons are too wrapped up to notice you, none of the people in (4) or (5) are even aware they have caused harm to you.
Sidebar: If you don't inform them of the harm they have done you, you are enabling negligent behavior. This time it was only a set of clothes, but next time their negligence may have more far reaching implications. By informing them, you are giving them the chance to correct their own moral and ethical behavior voluntarily.
You say nothing to the thrower in (6), choosing to forgive him in your heart and move on. That person soon realizes he did a wrong thing by throwing the water balloon at you, but since you wouldn't offer him forgiveness and he is now unable to locate you, he is plagued with guilt and shame. You, in effect, have harmed him by not giving him the chance to seek forgiveness.
Discuss.
