Thank you for the link. It was interesting. I think the first lady said it well, that she regrets ever wanting to hear him talk. So often it seems that we think the victims, in order to heal, have to see some sort of change in the perpetrator. Like showing remorse, or like being killed and/or tortured because after all, what did their victims go through?
This lady shows that if a victim needs to hear or see the right things from or about the attacker in order to heal, don’t count on it.
Besides what if he were a better actor, and more convincing to her? Why should her emotional life be contingent upon what this person says – after she has already suffered the loss and nothing he says or does can reduce that. It’s all in the mind, other than that, which is why Jesus said to forgive – so that we may be at peace. He demonstrated “they know not what they do” type forgiveness.
If this guy buys into some brainwash religion that says they must kill those who don’t believe like them, why would you expect remorse from him any more than you’d expect the Spanish Inquisition for killing heretics?
The one at the end was pretty interesting because it said they chose to “honor” the life of the child, by rejecting the apology saying that the killer chose to kill so they will choose life. To my way of thinking, rejecting the apology and refusing to forgive, could stand in the way of their own healing. I’d like to chalk it up to grief; if they go to their graves without forgiving him (whether or not they believe his message btw) they may miss out on a chance to experience a more “purified” love. Love is tried in fire, and purified when it acts even amid the flames. So others are welcome to have another opinion; everybody processes grief in different ways but “forgiveness” is just one of several tools people use.
