Jump to content

Talk:Forgiveness/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

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)

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 Mar2005). "'Disappearance' Appears Big Time". Publisher's Weekly. Retrieved 29 Jun2006. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help) 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)

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~~

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) —Preceding unsigned comment 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) —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)
I agree, there is a very strong religious perspective, bias even, to this article. It lacks non-religious perspectives to the point of being unbalanced. 212.56.88.63 17:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.135.162 (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Forgiveness Myths Revealed

After studying, debating, and arguing the theology of Biblical forgiveness for over 25 years with ministers, theologians, rabbi, Greek scholars, and laymen, here are a few myths I have exposed which can be verified by simply reading the Bible (and looking up the Greek and Hebrew words).

1. Jesus never said to forgive your enemy. (He did say to love your enemy).

2. There is a very big difference between Biblical concepts of love and and Biblcial concepts of forgiveness. They are separate issues yet often confused. (See story of Joseph in Genesis 37, 38-50, Rich young ruler, Matthew 19.)

3. Many churches have grossly misquoted the Lord's Prayer in rendering "as we forgive our debtors" as "as we forgive those who trespass against us." (A trepassor and a debtor can have very different attudes about causing an offense. Verifiable through Greek inner-linear Bible.)

4. Letting go of anger and resentment are not part of nor directly defined in the Bible as forgiveness. No verb for forgiveness in the Greek or Hebrew has a meaning associating forgiveness with releasing oneself from anger and bitterness. (See Greek or Hebrew word translations)

5. Jesus Christ, while He prayed to His Father to have mercy and be forgiving rather than wrathful, did not himself offer forgiveness to His enemies while on the cross, though He did offer it to one thief next to him.

6. Forgiveness can be a sin, if one considers disobeying the commands of Jesus Christ as sin. He said, Rebuke the offender, not forgive, and only IF he repents, forgive. (Luke 17) He does command, however, to love the unrepentant offender, even if excommunicating him for his own good (Matthew 18).

7. Jesus did not say to forgive everyone 70 x7, but only the repentant brother (Matthew 18 in whole.)

To discuss further, you may also contact me through www.cleartruthministries.com

J. Scott Berry

As to #5, didn't He say on the cross, "Lord forgive them for they know not what they do?" Makana Chai (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Paper

Actually the paper I linked to in the forgiveness article is published in this journal, Perspectives on Evil and Human Wickedness. Please restore the paragraph.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.88.63 (talk • contribs)

Please read our policy about which type of sources to use in Wikipedia articles. You may also want to read WP:NPOV#Undue weight, in this context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the links; I am new to editing and appreciate your advice. Considering NPOV, my view is that the article lacks a neutrally toned recognition of the health risks of forgiveness; the closest thing to this is the somewhat alarming "authoritarian control" section. Might you agree? 212.56.88.63 04:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I've put a copy of this contested paragraph below for others to consider. For reference, Jossi's original challenge was that the paper was unpublished. Although it can probably be improved, I think it contains important and otherwise un-represented aspects of forgiveness. 212.56.88.63 18:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It is reckoned[1] that forgiveness is not a necessary condition for a victim's healing, and that premature forgiveness can harm well-being. Inappropriate forgiveness, perhaps motivated by a desire to re-connect and restore a sense of community, carries the risk of encouraging a false sense of self, harming a victim's self-image and making true forgiveness harder to achieve.

There's been no discussion about restoring the paragraph for ten days, so I've gone ahead and done so. 212.56.88.63 22:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jossi, this does not appear to meet the standard for a reliable source, and it would be inappropriate to place emphasis or devote text to it. The paragraph is also an inappropriate tone that uses weasel words, promotes a point of view which is not adequately supported (i.e. if it is a prominent idea, it should be easy to source to a more reliable publication; if it's not, it should not be on the page), and is inappropriately speculative. It appears to be reckoned by one person, published in a web journal of dubious reputation, content and reliability, and it's addition here would probably be self-promoting given it's content. I would be against it having a presence on the page. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 02:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Section psychology should be expanded

As far as I remember, it is a widespread belief that in order to heal from trauma one must forgive the perpetrators. Alice Miller has been blamed because she denied and still denies that this is true. I have to look for references.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.88.32 (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Austerlitz -- 88.72.4.158 (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Alice Miller, [2] maybe I can use the reference to be found on her english wikisite?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.212.206 (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"Forgiveness" picture and quote (why edit was undone)

The picture, entitled "Forgiveness" is of a girl releasing or letting go of a butterfly. Through letting go, forgiveness can transform relationships and people. A butterfly represents transformation—i.e. from a caterpillar. Others describe forgiveness as being free from past burdens like a child. The picture manages to put all of these aspects of forgiveness together. For many that are open to the concept of understanding forgiveness, the picture could indeed represent a thousand words. The quote, which the previous editor dismissed as bizarre, is a very famous forgiveness quote amongst those that study forgiveness. It was made by the well regarded second Secretary General of the United Nations. (The United States honored him on a stamp.) The quote is not bizarre, it the essence of the potential of true forgiveness. The quote matches the picture well and was approved by the artist that gave permission for its use on Wikipedia. Much thought went into this, so please give the courtesy of meaningful discussion if anyone disagrees with the undo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSpeeter (talk • contribs) 20:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because an artist names an image "Forgiveness" doesn't mean it makes any sense on an article about the topic of forgiveness. What you think the butterfly represents isn't really relevant for the purposes of putting together an encyclopedia. We don't go for symbolic meanings, especially ambiguous ones that have to be explained on the talk page for it to make any sense. We don't do poetry here, we do prose. Surely a more representative image for forgiveness can be found, and if one can't it's still not an excuse for such an odd image choice.
On top of that, the image isn't licensed properly, so definitely can't be here. DreamGuy (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
It is precisely because of this arrogant approach to editing I don't often contribute to Wikipedia. If you think about it, your comment makes no sense. Images are obviously not prose, that is what TEXT is for. Images are to evoke a more poetic response. You may not agree with my choice of image, but others may well think it is a great choice. The license issue was fine with a previous editor as the discussion on the image shows. (If this is truly the issue it can be remedied quickly) But I can see you are not willing to discuss matters and will pull rank instead of find consensus. I choose to keep my peace and will practice forgiveness and move on. Peace and blessings to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSpeeter (talk • contribs) 21:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't Christianity section deal with human forgiveness?

All the other religion sections deal with human-human forgiveness, only the Christianity section is God-human. Would anyone object to me adding that in? "Love your enemies" and "blessed are the peacemakers" and "blessed are the merciful" would be some of the things I would add. Makana Chai (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I added quotes from Jesus on forgiveness. I do feel that everything that follows, about God's forgiveness of Christians, should be in another article. This article in every other aspect is about human forgiveness and the discussion of God's forgiveness seems out of place. How about a sentence and then a link to a new article? Makana Chai (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of God's forgiveness in Christianity section

I removed a lengthy discussion of God's forgiveness as viewed by various denominations, and replaced with links to repentance and atonement, where it is discussed in more detail. The primary focus of this article is now on human forgiveness. Makana Chai (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

relational transgressions

This link Relational transgressions#Repairing the damage from relational transgressions does not go on the top because what goes on top is only disambig. All see alsos go on the bottom. If you think that the info at relational transgressions should be integrated into the article, then feel free to integrate them into the article. Makana Chai (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There probably wouldnt be much in the way of integration needed. I think it best to copy and paste it into a new "psychology of forgiveness" section then you, I or somebody else could look to doing any necessary integration work. Do you agree ? --Penbat (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine. Go ahead and create a new section - and please put the see also at the end :-) Thanks. Makana Chai (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I put the see also at the end so I can take it off my to do list, but please do create the new section when you can.Makana Chai (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Updating page

Hi Tinkerman, thanks for the note on my talk page re this article. I think it is wonderful that you want to update it. I agree the most important is to add more on the scientific research. It looks like you have a good set of references which you could just go ahead and put on the page as reading. I am happy to copy edit your drafts. I'm starting a new job soon so not sure how much time I'll have, but I'm sure I can help. Suggest you post a sandbox here so others can participate if they want. Thanks for asking! Makana Chai (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Equal Life Foundation?

I see no evidence that there is a real organization with any substance called Equal Life Foundation, and propose that the section related to it be removed. Makana Chai (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Rationale for "Undue weight" template placed in ACIM section?

An "Undue Weight" template has been placed in the ACIM section requesting a discussion regarding the template, but offering no explanation or discussion here. Could the editor who placed the template there please explain or elaborate on his or her rationale for inserting the template? Thanks. Scott P. (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Expand definition of forgiveness?

The article currently says "Forgiveness is the ... cessation of resentment etc... as a result of a perceived offence, disagreement, or mistake"

However, these are examples of relatively easy to have sex. What about DIFFICULT offences to forgive, such as malicious, ongoing, unrepentant, actual harms? Or serious harms to one's family? Should these be included in this sentence... or is forgiveness actually only about the easy stuff? I actually would like to know. Tina Kimmel (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Meaning of "Forgiveness"

The first paragraph of the lede currently says:

Forgiveness is the intentional and voluntary process by which a victim undergoes a change in feelings and attitude regarding an offense, lets go of negative emotions such as vengefulness, with an increased ability to wish the offender well.[1][2][3] Forgiveness is different from condoning (failing to see the action as wrong and in need of forgiveness), excusing (not holding the offender as responsible for the action), pardoning (granted by a representative of society, such as a judge), forgetting (removing awareness of the offense from consciousness), and reconciliation (restoration of a relationship).[1]

(My bolding). Now, I've certainly seen and heard people use the term this way, particularly when arguing that forgiveness is a good thing for the person forgiving (as it removed resentment and negative feeling). But I'm very dubious about the claim that it doesn't (or can't) mean excusing or pardoning. I'm pretty sure this was the original meaning, and a lot of dictionaries still give this as the primary meaning (e.g.). This also seems (my opinion, admittedly) to be a traditional religious meaning (when the Bible says God forgives people who repent, that means He's not going to punish people for their sins, not that He is going to stop feeling bitter but send you to Hell anyway). The lede seems to be pushing a particular (limited, modern) point of view that is definitely different from what "forgiveness" traditionally meant, and is probably different from how many or most people still use the term. Iapetus (talk) 11:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Scope of the article - forgiveness other than as a religious concept

The lion's share of this article - and indeed even of the discussions on this page - appear to revolve around forgiveness within a religious context.

Clearly, forgiveness is an important facet of many, or possibly all, religions and I would certainly not want to suggest that what has been written in this article about that be reduced. However, it is not solely a religious concept. On the contrary there are many other aspects - emotional, psychological, societal, judicial, etc. that are not really covered in any detail by this article; and I feel the article is the poorer for it.

I came to this article looking for some information on forgiveness as an emotional process. I was able to read some interesting information regarding various philosphies' teachings on the spiritual side of forgiveness, but I am sadly none the wiser on the more down-to-earth details, such as can be found for example in the article on grief.

I don't feel suitably knowledgeable to add this information myself, but were someone else to do so, I think it could improve the article immeasurably. P M C 23:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


Why is the obvious cure for anger (takes 2 seconds) not promoted very much?

Forgiveness cures anger, every single time. If you are capable of getting angry you are capable of doing the cure - forgiveness. People only kind of know this though. Ask around. Ask your friends, therapists, counselors, coaches, mentors, teachers, parents, communication consultants, or professors. Ask them what is the ONE simple thing to cure your anger. And the vast majority of them can not tell you it is forgiveness. Why not? They all know that forgiveness cures anger because as soon as you tell them what it is then they act like they knew it all along. "Oh, ya, I knew that." Only, even then, they still don't use it or say it directly. People (especially professionals) refuse to say, "Forgiveness cures anger." Can we have a heading of, "Forgiveness cures anger"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyjensen (talk • contribs) 15:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected links on Forgiveness which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • https://www.personalgrowth.com/the-power-of-forgiveness/
    Triggered by \bpersonalgrowth\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Forgiveness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forgiveness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forgiveness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Bibliography for Wikiproject

Sources

Counseling Within the Forgiveness Triad: On Forgiving, Receiving Forgiveness, and Self‐Forgiveness - https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-007X.1996.tb00844.x

Lawler-Row, K., Scott, C., Raines, R., Edlis-Matityahou, M., & Moore, E. (2007). The Varieties of Forgiveness Experience: Working toward a Comprehensive Definition of Forgiveness. Journal of Religion and Health, 46(2), 233-248. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libdata.lib.ua.edu/stable/27513006

Fincham, F., Hall, J., & Beach, S. (2006). Forgiveness in Marriage: Current Status and Future Directions. Family Relations, 55(4), 415-427. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libdata.lib.ua.edu/stable/40005337

Sansone, R., Kelley, A., & Forbis, J. (2013). The Relationship Between Forgiveness and Borderline Personality Symptomatology. Journal of Religion and Health, 52(3), 974-980. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libdata.lib.ua.edu/stable/24485045

Escher, D. (2013). How Does Religion Promote Forgiveness? Linking Beliefs, Orientations, and Practices. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 52(1), 100-119. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libdata.lib.ua.edu/stable/23353893

VanOyen Witvliet, C., Ludwig, T., & Laan, K. (2001). Granting Forgiveness or Harboring Grudges: Implications for Emotion, Physiology, and Health. Psychological Science, 12(2), 117-123. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libdata.lib.ua.edu/stable/40063597 Rdblakely (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)rdblakely

Some proposed changes

I implemented the edit proposed on 18 March with a small extra change to the last sentence of the paragraph; the Prodigal Son story can of course be interpreted at many levels but concerning forgiveness, the story is about people who repent, more than "his people".Stratopastor (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

hello... I propose a change to the second paragraph of the 'Christianity' section to match what the 'Islam' section rightly states, i.e. that the obligation to forgive is based on the imitation of a God who forgives. I suggest

In the New Testament, Jesus speaks of the importance of Christians forgiving or showing mercy towards others. This is based on the belief that God forgives sins through faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ in his death (1 John 2:2) and that, therefore, Christians should forgive others (Ephesians 4:32) . Jesus used the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matthew 18:21–35) to show that we (reperesented in the parable by the servant) should forgive because God (represented by the king) forgives much more. Parable of the Prodigal Son[21] is perhaps the best known parable about forgiveness and refers to God's forgiveness for his people.

I also want to propose a change to the first paragraph, first sentence: to take 'forswears recompense from or punishment of the offender, however legally or morally justified it might be' out of the paragraph (delete it). Fred Luskin, Everett Worthington, and other high-profile forgiveness researchers/teachers have made it clear that punishment and forgiveness are different concepts. Forgiveness is a psychological experience/concept, Justice is a social concept/construct: you can hold someone accountable for actions, regardless of whether you decide to forgive or not. In fact, this 'forswears recompense' is a big confusion, and actually makes forgiveness harder to do, when people hold ideas like these. And just to add one source, of many, listen to: https://www.virtuesforlife.com/qa-on-forgiveness-with-dr-fred-luskin/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:73A2:C300:3C40:80C4:94F2:C85 (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

--> I am going to change, rather than delete 'forswears recompense from or punishment of the offender, however legally or morally justified it might be', into 'letting go of vengeance'. What I am worried about, is that people who read this will think that in order to forgive, they have to not punish or hold people accountable for their offenses and the losses that have occurred as a result: in which case, punishment or recompense might actually be the appropriate thing to do, while still forgiving at the same time (which are two different things: forgiveness is about emotional well-being, accountability/justice is about social/economic well-being). The proposed change, is from the Berkeley Institute of Education (Greater Good) who cite Fred Luskin, which in my opinion, offers a more accurate description of what forgiveness really is about. The rationale being: Vengeance is being motivated to use violence to make the offender suffer in hopes of personally feeling good (or better), while punishment is about using violence to prevent further more extreme forms of violence from occuring, as well as hoping that the offender may change or learn from their actions (one is about harm for it's own sake, the other is about trying to prevent and detter further violence): https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/topic/forgiveness/definition

Stratopastor (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ "A Philosophical Counselor's Approach to Forgiveness and Reconciliation" (PDF). 2004. Retrieved 2007-11-04.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Forgiveness/Archive_2&oldid=1218887966"