# Forgiveness as Antidote to Emotional Problems



## Universal (May 30, 2005)

in his book, Psycho Cybernetics, Maxwell Maltz writes:

In therapeutic forgivenesss we cancel out the debt of the other person, not because we have decided to be generous, or do him a favor, or because we are a morally superior person. We cancel the debt, mark it "null and void," not because we have made the other person "pay" sufficiently for his wrong-but because we have come to recognize that the debt itself is not valid. True forgiveness comes only when we are able to see, and emotionally accept, that there is and was nothing for us to forgive. We should not have condemned or hated the other person in the first place.

======================================

Therapeutic forgiveness is not difficult. The only difficulty is to secure your own willingness to give up and do without your sense of condemnation-your willingness to cancel out the debt, with no mental reservations. We find it difficult to forgive only because we like our sense of condemnation. We get a perverse and morbid enjoyment out of nursing our wounds. As long as we can condemn another, we can feel superior to them.

No one can deny that there is also a perverse sense of satisfaction in feeling sorry for yourself.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2006)

i have forgiven everything people have done to me because i have chosen that forgiveness is much better than carrying all that pain on my shoulders. Its really healthy, forgiveness is a great thing.


----------



## Luka (Aug 30, 2005)

> We find it difficult to forgive only because we like our sense of condemnation. We get a perverse and morbid enjoyment out of nursing our wounds. As long as we can condemn another, we can feel superior to them.


I don't agree with this statement. Looking at myself, I didn't forgive because I like my sense of condemnation or it made me feel superior. I didn't forgive because I was so hurt, angry, sad and had got so many problems (mentally and physically) because of my molestors. Everyone saying the word "forgive" could expect a punch in the face. However, I had therapy and worked through alot of problems. Now I can say I am more inclined to forgive.


----------



## Guest (Jan 19, 2006)

Luka said:

I don't agree with this statement. Looking at myself, I didn't forgive because I like my sense of condemnation or it made me feel superior. I didn't forgive because I was so hurt, angry, sad and had got so many problems (mentally and physically) because of my molestors. Everyone saying the word "forgive" could expect a punch in the face. However, I had therapy and worked through alot of problems. Now I can say I am more inclined to forgive.

I don't agree with it either, because I tried the forgiveness thing for many years and I just got progressively sicker, mentally and physically. Not until I read Alice Miller a few months ago, who says that forgiveness does NOT work for many people and that forgiveness is entirely up to you, not an obligation to those who hurt you, did I stop feeling like the onus was all on me to make my problems disappear. Now I am finally having the courage to put the blame where it belongs, which is NOT on me, and thus to remember what really happened to me.
If forgiveness works for you, if it makes you a better, happier, healthier person, then it's worthwhile. But if you're not getting better, you might be fooling yourself, like I did.
It didn't do anything but make me extremely unhappy and now I know why. This theory on forgiveness is widespread, but poorly founded.


----------



## Luka (Aug 30, 2005)

Couldn't agree with you more, Beachgirl!


----------



## Methusala (Dec 22, 2005)

re: True forgiveness comes only when we are able to see, and emotionally accept, that there is and was nothing for us to forgive. We should not have condemned or hated the other person in the first place.

======================================

M: Your apparently saying that trauma survivors should never have condemned people who commited crimes against them. I disagree. I think people who commit crimes should be condemed, they are perpetrating evil. In addition, the above statement is hypocritical. Because if it's not condemnable to commit crimes, what could be wrong with the mere verbal and emotional acts of condeming and hatred? By this logic it seems the only true crime is complaining about being a victim. Perhaps victims should retaliate with crimes of their own instead of condeming, since by the above logic thats a more forgivable act.

re: Therapeutic forgiveness is not difficult. The only difficulty is to secure your own willingness to give up and do without your sense of condemnation-your willingness to cancel out the debt, with no mental reservations. We find it difficult to forgive only because we like our sense of condemnation. We get a perverse and morbid enjoyment out of nursing our wounds. As long as we can condemn another, we can feel superior to them.

No one can deny that there is also a perverse sense of satisfaction in feeling sorry for yourself.

M: Is this what you would tell someone who was recovering from a rape attack? That they should forgive the attacker and only don't because they like the sense of condemnation?? That being angry and wanting justice means they get a perverse and morbid enjoyment out of nursing their wounds? Would you prefer the victim hate themselves instead of feeling sorry for themself? I think the above philosophy is mostly masochism and victim hatred. Maybe the trauma victim will be able to go through the stages/cycles of mourning of denial, anger, bargaining, acceptance and mourning, or maybe she won't. Either way there is no crime in having thoughts and feelings of condemnation and hatred. Crimes are actions not 
thoughts or feelings. Instead of demanding that victims should say and believe 'thank you sir may I have another', why aren't you even asking if the perpetrators have atoned or not? There's nothing wrong with anger, but there is something wrong with societal pressure to tolerate injustice.

Trauma victims do often develop psychological issues such as flashbacks to the trauma or bursts of anger about it. There is no shame or 'badness' in having these kinds of experiences. They are thoughts and feelings, not actions against others. People seek treatment not because they are supposedly somehow 'bad' for being repetitively angry about the trauma or perpetrator, but because the unresolved feelings are putting a damper on their own lives. The key is to forgive ONES SELF, not the crime perpetrator. This means coming to know that one never did anything wrong or was somehow bad because the traumatic abuse incident happened. The healing process often for many does involve coming to have balanced out thoughts and feelings toward the perpetrator, this involves taking the power away from the incident and perpetrator, by resolving the feelings through mourning losses. That's very different then forgiveness, which is an act between people, not an internal emotional experience.

Finaly, I'd like to add that the whole 'forgiveness for healing' philosophy, seems to me to be a disociative process. If one really is getting 'morbid pleasure in condemnation' as stated above, would it be a good idea to deal with this by 'securing willingness to do away with it without any mental reservations'? It seems to me that would just accomplish denial of ones own thoughts and feelings.

Justice is important for societal balance and stability. If justice didn't exist 
retaliation would take it's place. However many victims find that justice alone isn't enough to feel better, losses happened and can be mourned for closure, a very individual process.

M


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2006)

Also, the opposite of forgiveness is not resentment. For me so far, it's a kind of acknowledgement of what is true to me, Why does forgiveness have to enter into the picture? Often, it seems, it's to make the forgiver feel superior to the situation or the abuser.

I feel much more sane now, not pressuring myself or accepting pressure from others to forgive people who acted badly toward me. To do so is to reject my truth, my own experiences and perceptions and even my common sense, and makes me feel like I'm responsible for all the crap in my life, which I'm not. I'm just one person and can only contribute one person's energy.
I also feel less angry now than before I retracted my forgiveness.

Many people, me among them, feel that the pressure to forgive abusers is wonderfully convenient for the adults/people in power who are the usual abusers. The onus is put on people who were hurt as tiny, defenseless, trusting children to understand, suck it up, don't make waves, etc. to make the adults feel good. This kind of thinking is strictly stone-age and I applaud anyone who can see through this conventional falseness.


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2006)

Methusala said:


> i
> 
> Finaly, I'd like to add that the whole 'forgiveness for healing' philosophy, seems to me to be a disociative process.M


For me it is a dissociative process. It makes me feel floaty, not myself.


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2006)

Universal said:


> No one can deny that there is also a perverse sense of satisfaction in feeling sorry for yourself.


If there is, it's because we are doing by proxy what the perpetrator should be doing - that is, feeling sorry for the abused (us). No wonder we feel noble, taking on the responsibility of both the abuser and the abused, while the abuser often gets away with everything.

(Universal, I'm not attacking you or what you wrote, only the ideas you brought up - glad you did)


----------

