If i forgive you, must i make amends with you

[JRKH]

Yes, sorry for misunderstanding. (And sorry for taking so long to reply.)

I’ll try to be more careful to not misunderstand. So let me ask if you would say that not every definition of acquit applies, but probably only number (2)?

**ac⋅quit **
[uh-kwit]
–verb (used with object), -quit⋅ted, -quit⋅ting.

1. to relieve from a charge of fault or crime; declare not guilty: They acquitted him of the crime. The jury acquitted her, but I still think she’s guilty.
2. to release or discharge (a person) from an obligation.
3. to settle or satisfy (a debt, obligation, claim, etc.).
4. to bear or conduct (oneself); behave: He acquitted himself well in battle.
5. to free or clear (oneself): He acquitted himself of suspicion

That is, do you think Spockrates should forgive her in the sense of (2) but not necessarily in the sense of (1), (3), (4) and (5)? For example, he would not relieve her from a charge of fault (1) by saying it was OK for her to have a sexual affair with his friend while they were engaged. Would he?

To be honest Spock, I don’t know. I think that one thing a person needs to determine is what factors are important and what factors are not, what factors are ones that you have control over and those better left to God. When Spockrates decides that he will, a) not marry her because she has betrayed his trust, and b) hold no grudge against her for so doing, and c) tell her that he lets her go with a clear heart and conscience, with no ill will, and d) wishes her well in her future life, then Spockrates has fulfilled his obligation to forgive.
Just how all of that fits with the various definitions I don’t know for every situation is different, and every persons perspective is different, as we have discovered.

Peace
James

 

[MargaretLFY]

Dear Spock,

Yes – I think often that I’ve done all that I can. I also often I wish I can do more but have to remind myself the love and peace I seek here on earth will only be complete in heaven.

Thank you for kind words.

Margaret

 

[juliamajor]

the forgiver does not have to make amends-the forgiven have to,they are the ones who sinned.

 

[spockrates]

To be honest Spock, I don’t know. I think that one thing a person needs to determine is what factors are important and what factors are not, what factors are ones that you have control over and those better left to God. When Spockrates decides that he will, a) not marry her because she has betrayed his trust, and b) hold no grudge against her for so doing, and c) tell her that he lets her go with a clear heart and conscience, with no ill will, and d) wishes her well in her future life, then Spockrates has fulfilled his obligation to forgive.
Just how all of that fits with the various definitions I don’t know for every situation is different, and every persons perspective is different, as we have discovered.

Peace
James

Thank you for being frank about your uncertainty, James. I’ve got some uncertainty myself, but I find that thinking things through with a thoughtful person like you helps when exploring the depths of God’s loving Mercy and Forgiveness.

My thought is that to forgive in the sense of definition (1) means to consider a person no longer guilty of the trespass, sin, or wrong she once committed against onself. Such removal of a person’s guilt in Spock’s opinion would require a change on the part of the person for whom he removes the guilt. (And please understand that I’m not talking about removing guilt in the sense that she is no longer guilty in the eyes of God, but removing guilt in the sense that she is no longer guilty in the eyes of Spock.)

Before he could say to his fiance, “I no longer consider you a woman of lose morals,” she would, it seems to me, have to prove she is no longer so by confession (that is, by sincerely admitting she was wrong) and by repentance (that is, by making a genuine change of attitude and behavior). The natural goal of such a degree of forgiveness would be to restore the relationship–if not a relationship of intention to marry, then maybe a relationship of friendship.

Spock might, then, acquit and forgive the sexual offender unconditionally in the sense of definition (2), but might require the condition of true repentance be met to acquit and forgive her conditionally in the sense of definition (1).

ac⋅quit
[uh-kwit]
–verb (used with object), -quit⋅ted, -quit⋅ting.

1. to relieve from a charge of fault or crime; declare not guilty: They acquitted him of the crime. The jury acquitted her, but I still think she’s guilty.
2. to release or discharge (a person) from an obligation.
3. to settle or satisfy (a debt, obligation, claim, etc.).

 

[spockrates]

So let’s put this theory of mine to the test, James. Let’s look at a couple of other synonyms of forgiveness to see if they might also be conditional and unconditional depending on the definition.

ab⋅solve
  /æbˈzɒlv, -ˈsɒlv/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ab-zolv, -solv] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -solved, -solv⋅ing.

1. to free from guilt or blame or their consequences: The court absolved her of guilt in his death.
2. to set free or release, as from some duty, obligation, or responsibility (usually fol. by from): to be absolved from one’s oath.
3. to grant pardon for.
4. Ecclesiastical.
   a. to grant or pronounce remission of sins to.
   b. to remit (a sin) by absolution.
   c. to declare (censure, as excommunication) removed.

Here, again, definitions (1) and (2) are, perhaps not surprisingly, extremely similar to definitions (1) and (2) of acquit. I suppose we might say that it would be good to grant absolution in the sense of (2) unconditionally, but that absolving someone of her sin in the sense of (1) might first require repentance on the part of the one so absolved.

But I find (4c) most fascinating, as it speaks to the Catholic practice of excommunication. I think that you might agree with me that in order for an offender to be absolved from excommunication (that is, before the Church might declare a person no longer excommunicated) such an excommunicated one would be expected to show evidence that she had confessed her sin and repented of it. Don’t you agree?

 

[spockrates]

Or consider another good synonym of forgiveness:

par⋅don
  /ˈpɑrdn/ [pahr-dn]
–noun

1. kind indulgence, as in forgiveness of an offense or discourtesy or in tolerance of a distraction or inconvenience: I beg your pardon, but which way is Spruce Street?
2. Law.
   a. a release from the penalty of an offense; a remission of penalty, as by a governor.
   b. the document by which such remission is declared.
3. forgiveness of a serious offense or offender.
4. Obsolete. a papal indulgence.
   –verb (used with object)
5. to make courteous allowance for or to excuse: Pardon me, madam.
6. to release (a person) from liability for an offense.
7. to remit the penalty of (an offense): The governor will not pardon your crime.

I’m thinking that it is right and good to pardon and forgive unconditionally in the sense of, say, definition (1). However, it might be a great sin to forgive in the sense of definition (6) if the sin for which a person was pardoned was great and the person had no intention of either confessing it as sin or of repenting of such a sin. A judge, for example, or a governor, or the President of the United States, would be wrong to pardon a criminal of a federal offense, such as murder, if the criminal was obviously guilty and showed no signs of remorse or of a change of heart.

 

[spockrates]

In the light of these synonyms, do you now see, James, that it might be true that acquittal, absolution, and pardon can be unconditional in some cases, but perhaps should be conditional in others? Or is this still only clear as muddy water?

 

[spockrates]

Dear Spock,

Yes – I think often that I’ve done all that I can. I also often I wish I can do more but have to remind myself the love and peace I seek here on earth will only be complete in heaven.

Thank you for kind words.

Margaret

Thank you for being so kind as to say my words were kind, Margaret. May God richly bless you and really grant you peace!

 

[spockrates]

the forgiver does not have to make amends-the forgiven have to,they are the ones who sinned.

Perhaps, Julia. But as James argued persuasively, there is much forgiving we can do, and even should do, even when the one forgiven never makes any amends. The trick, I think, is to know to what degree one might acquit, absolve and pardon a person who refuses to make amends.

 

[juliamajor]

“If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
—Spock
I have to say that’s been bugging me. Spock might have said in the newest Star Trek but the original comes out of the mouth of Sherlock Holmes “the adventure of the Blanched Soldier”.He actually uses the phrase in an altered version in the “Bruce Partington Plans”

 

[JRKH]

Thank you for being frank about your uncertainty, James. I’ve got some uncertainty myself, but I find that thinking things through with a thoughtful person like you helps when exploring the depths of God’s loving Mercy and Forgiveness.

My thought is that to forgive in the sense of definition (1) means to consider a person no longer guilty of the trespass, sin, or wrong she once committed against onself. Such removal of a person’s guilt in Spock’s opinion would require a change on the part of the person for whom he removes the guilt. (And please understand that I’m not talking about removing guilt in the sense that she is no longer guilty in the eyes of God, but removing guilt in the sense that she is no longer guilty in the eyes of Spock.)

I will confine myself to a narrow thought here.
Forgiveness does not require one to “aquit” another in the sense that you post above.
In the moral code of each person (assuming they were both raised with the same moral code) tells them that sex outside of marriage is wrong. He cannot EVER see her action as being OK, that is remove guilt for the act. He CAN forgive her for having acted sinfully.
Example:
A person is brought before a court on the charge of rape. He is found guilty and the victim is given an opportunity to speak. She takes her time and reads a prepared statement innumerating all of the hurt, pain, humiliation that he has caused her by his brutal and selfish act. She explains that she is glad that he has been caught and is being sent to prison for his crime so that he cannot rape others. She then tells him that she forgives him for his sin against her. That she will pray that, someday he will repent and come to know God so that he might go to heaven.
Now - She has forgiven this man but not aquitted him.

Before he could say to his fiance, “I no longer consider you a woman of lose morals,” she would, it seems to me, have to prove she is no longer so by confession (that is, by sincerely admitting she was wrong) and by repentance (that is, by making a genuine change of attitude and behavior). The natural goal of such a degree of forgiveness would be to restore the relationship–if not a relationship of intention to marry, then maybe a relationship of friendship.

And here we see the difference between forgiveness and restoration.

Spock might, then, acquit and forgive the sexual offender unconditionally in the sense of definition (2), but might require the condition of true repentance be met to acquit and forgive her conditionally in the sense of definition (1).

Nicely differentiated.
Just keep in mind that Spock should “forgive” in so far as it is in his power to do at a given time. For instance. He finds out about the affair, and she is not repentant. He forgives her for the hurt and scandal she has caused him, but breaks off the engagement because she has shown herself not ready to marry and commit herself exclusively to him. He has forgiven her in so far as he is able. He cannot tell her she has not sinned for surely she has. He cannot marry someone who obviously is not ready to commit to marriage, so must break of the engagement. He has taken the issue as far as he can.
BUT
He must also NOT give in to the negative aspects hate, anger, etc. He may feel aspects of these for a time, but to give in to them would expose HIM to sin.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

In the light of these synonyms, do you now see, James, that it might be true that acquittal, absolution, and pardon can be unconditional in some cases, but perhaps should be conditional in others? Or is this still only clear as muddy water?

I can only say that you make my head swim sometimes with your permutations.
:whacky::juggle::hammering:

I can only say what I have said earlier and maybe summarize / clarify
We need to forgive in so far as it is in our power to forgive.
We must be ready to welcome back a person who repents and restore, as much as possible, a relationship.
If I (and I’m talking personally here) hold or set any “conditions” under which I will NOT forgive, then I must be prepared for God not to forgive ME under those same conditions for we pray in the Our Father, “…Forgive us our trespasses AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESPASS AGAINST US…”
Since I need all of the forgiveness I can get, I’d hate to put too many conditions on my forgiving others.

As for all of the other permutaions my dear Spock, All I can say is pray hard on each situation and permutation and follow where Christ leads you.

Peace
James

 

[spockrates]

“If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
—Spock
I have to say that’s been bugging me. Spock might have said in the newest Star Trek but the original comes out of the mouth of Sherlock Holmes “the adventure of the Blanched Soldier”.He actually uses the phrase in an altered version in the “Bruce Partington Plans”

Spock actually said it in the newest Star Trek movie, and in an earlier Star Trek movie. Please understand that it was not my intention to bug you. And perhaps after I say this you will not be so annoyed:

While reading Plato’s Socratic dialogs, I was surprised to hear Socrates say, “Birds of a feather flock together.” More astonishing was his statement that the saying was an ancient one in relationship to himself!

Now, if you or I were to ask Conan Doyle if he was the inventor of the truth that if one eliminates the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth, I’m sure he’d say that the idea was not his own. What is important, I think, is what Socrates pointed out:

In any case, the question we’ve got to consider is not who said it, but whether or not the statement is true.

(Charmides, 161)

So Julia, how about you? Do you consider it true, what Sherlock Holmes and Spock said about how to find the truth?

 

[spockrates]

I can only say that you make my head swim sometimes with your permutations.
:whacky::juggle::hammering:
…

LOL! Then I suppose I’m taking after my mentor, for one bright man after a short discussion with Socrates, said of his thought-provoking questions:

… my head quite swims with the contemplation of them!

(Theaetetus)

But learn to swim you must, my good friend! as should I. For Socrates said:

Surely swimming saves a man from death, and there is occasions on which he must know to swim.

(Gorgias)

Getting our heads above the swirling vortex of the nature of forgiveness might be the key to our survival after death, as you said. For Jesus warns you and me:

“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.”

(Luke 6:37)

As difficult as it is to tread water, we cannot do otherwise. Our eternal lives might very well depend on it! So if I start to sink, hold my head up. And I promise to do the same for you.

http://www.barefootgym.com/images/Pic_Swim2.jpg

Let’s help each other keep our heads above water.

 

[spockrates]

I will confine myself to a narrow thought here.
Forgiveness does not require one to “acquit” another in the sense that you post above.
In the moral code of each person (assuming they were both raised with the same moral code) tells them that sex outside of marriage is wrong. He cannot EVER see her action as being OK, that is remove guilt for the act. He CAN forgive her for having acted sinfully.
…

Yes, James, thank you for that breath of fresh air! I think it is likely, then, that one might acquit in one way, but not in another way, and still be said to have acquitted. And one might absolve in one way, but not in another way, and still be said to have absolved. And one might pardon in one way, but not in another way, and still be said to have pardoned. That is, one does not have to acquit, absolve, or pardon in every sense of the word before one is considered to have actually acquitted, absolved, or pardoned someone. Does idea this help you to catch your breath, too?

 

[JRKH]

Yes, James, thank you for that breath of fresh air! I think it is likely, then, that one might acquit in one way, but not in another way, and still be said to have acquitted. And one might absolve in one way, but not in another way, and still be said to have absolved. And one might pardon in one way, but not in another way, and still be said to have pardoned. That is, one does not have to acquit, absolve, or pardon in every sense of the word before one is considered to have actually acquitted, absolved, or pardoned someone. Does idea this help you to catch your breath, too?

Possibly, but, to introdroduce yet another analogy, the hair may be getting too fine to split further.

What you speak of above sounds like you agree with my premise that we must be aware of what we can and should absolve or aquit and what we must leave to God. We cannot absolve “sin”, which is a trespass against God, only God (or a Priest) can do that. We can absolve hurt, which is a trespass against us.
Also we must be awre that forgiine, absolving, aquitting another of injury done to us does not mean that we need to, or should, reestablish a relationship when the other is not repentant.

As I said earlier, we can only act in as Loving a way possible given the particulars of a given situation. Each one is unique.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

LOL! Then I suppose I’m taking after my mentor, for one bright man after a short discussion with Socrates, said of his thought-provoking questions:

… my head quite swims with the contemplation of them!

(Theaetetus)

But learn to swim you must, my good friend! as should I. For Socrates said:

Surely swimming saves a man from death, and there is occasions on which he must know to swim.

(Gorgias)

Getting our heads above the swirling vortex of the nature of forgiveness might be the key to our survival after death, as you said. For Jesus warns you and me:

“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.”

(Luke 6:37)

As difficult as it is to tread water, we cannot do otherwise. Our eternal lives might very well depend on it! So if I start to sink, hold my head up. And I promise to do the same for you.

http://www.barefootgym.com/images/Pic_Swim2.jpg

Let’s help each other keep our heads above water.

Well when it comes to swimming and vortexes etc, I think Christ teaches us to swim away from them. “The devil is always in the details” and he just waits for us to say, Yea but…they hurt me first".
Ol’ Socrates may have been good at getting his head around such things. I am not. I’m just a simple Christian who is trying to follow Christ as best he knows how. When Christ says to forgive my enemy, to pray for those who spitefully use me, to Love my neighbor as myself, to forgive as I wish to be forgiven, I don’t try to disect it so much as I try to live it.
I may not be very good at living it, but I do try and will not give up striving for the ideal, even if I know I’ll never reach it.

Peace
James

 

[spockrates]

Possibly, but, to introdroduce yet another analogy, the hair may be getting too fine to split further.

Is it an analogy, or a definition? Remember, we determined that synonyms for the word Forgive are Acquit, Absolve and Pardon. By better understanding these words, won’t we have a better chance of better understanding Forgiveness?

My thought is that rather than muddying the waters more, defining Forgiveness and its synonyms will help us see more clearly the sunken treasure before us. But if we fail to define what Forgiveness or its synonyms are, we are doomed to failure. As Socrates advised his good friend:

No matter what the subject, there is for those who wish to deliberate well upon it always one and the same starting point: You must know what it is you are deliberating about, or you will inevitably fail altogether. Most people, however, are not aware of their ignorance of a thing’s essential nature, and because they think they know all about it, they fail to secure agreement about the premises of their inquiry at its beginning. As they proceed, they reap the predictable harvest of this oversight: They disagree with one another and even contradict themselves. Now, you and I must not be guilty of this fundamental error that we condemn in others.

(Phaedrus, 237)

What you speak of above sounds like you agree with my premise that we must be aware of what we can and should absolve or aquit and what we must leave to God. We cannot absolve “sin”, which is a trespass against God, only God (or a Priest) can do that. We can absolve hurt, which is a trespass against us.
Also we must be awre that forgiine, absolving, aquitting another of injury done to us does not mean that we need to, or should, reestablish a relationship when the other is not repentant.

Yes, I quite agree!

As I said earlier, we can only act in as Loving a way possible given the particulars of a given situation. Each one is unique.

Peace
James

Yes, each one is unique. All the more reason to have a reliable way of accurately weighing the situation and determining a correctly measured response. Let’s say we explored a shipwreck and found a great number of gold doubloons and other gold treasures and brought them to the surface. Now, to get our money’s worth for our hard work, we would need to know the market value for the recovered treasures, or the price of gold per ounce, and then have an accurate scale to determine the correct weight for each item. It might be true that each treasured item is unique, having a different size and weight, and perhaps a different form. Some will be worth their weight in gold, and others, being desired by museums and other collectors, might fetch at auction far more than the value of the weight of gold of which they made. To determine the value of each, and the price we should require from our buyers, we would need an accurate scale, and expert knowledge of the expected value of rare sunken treasures.

That is analogous to what we are attempting to do here, isn’t it James? Rather than determine the response to every type of situation in which one is either required or not required to forgive, we are trying to come up with a reliable method to weigh any situation and determine the properly measured response. We are trying to give ourselves a set of guidelines to help us be prepared should an opportunity demanding us to forgive or not to forgive sneak up on us, like a shark darting out of a cabin of a sunken schooner. Just as a diver should be prepared to respond, and have an idea what action to take before the potentially deadly man eater ever surprises him, so should you and I be prepared to know how to determine what action to take when surprised by an opportunity to forgive, or not to forgive. Otherwise we risk more than losing a limb. For we might act wrongly, forgiving when we should not, or forgiving in a way we should never forgive, and so do more harm than good. Or we might fail to forgive as we should, and so risk offending God and being unforgiven by Him!

As the Boy Scout motto of my youth advises, you and I should be prepared to “always be prepared,” especially when it comes to such an important Catholic practice of forgiving as Christ forgave us.

 

[spockrates]

Well when it comes to swimming and vortexes etc, I think Christ teaches us to swim away from them. “The devil is always in the details” and he just waits for us to say, Yea but…they hurt me first".
Ol’ Socrates may have been good at getting his head around such things. I am not. I’m just a simple Christian who is trying to follow Christ as best he knows how. When Christ says to forgive my enemy, to pray for those who spitefully use me, to Love my neighbor as myself, to forgive as I wish to be forgiven, I don’t try to disect it so much as I try to live it.
I may not be very good at living it, but I do try and will not give up striving for the ideal, even if I know I’ll never reach it.

Peace
James

But if you are not prepared to determine the truth of how to forgive now, will you be more likely or less able to determine the truth of how to forgive in the heat of the moment? Like the diver attacked by the shark, won’t you be more likely to make a rash decision, which is the wrong decision, and risk doing great harm to yourself or others?

 

[spockrates]

James:

If you want to help me get these golden gems of truth about Forgiveness to the surface of practical day-to-day living, I sure would appreciate the help. But if you think it too much work to make it worth your while, I won’t be offended if you head to the surface now, with your hands empty. I will be disappointed, I’m sure, for my hands will be empty too. But I won’t blame you and will be grateful for the time you have spent in the depths of the deep mystery of God’s commandment to forgive if we want to be forgiven.

http://www.divetime.com/images/cms/assets/1/1981-large_wreck-treasure.jpg

We’re so close now. Should we give up the search for truth?

If you do want to continue the treasure hunt, then there is this stone to move: It seems to be true that you and I can acquit in one way, but not another. However, it would be wrong for someone to accuse us of not acquitting should we choose not to acquit according to every definition of the word acquit. It also appears to me that you and I can pardon in one way, but not another. Yet it would be unfair for someone to say we had failed to pardon if we did not pardon in every conceivable sense of the word. The same is apparently true of absolving, remitting, and other synonyms for the word forgive.

Do you agree that this, at the moment, sounds true?