Unfortunately, it seems that the Definition of FORGIVENESS IGNORES TOO MANY IMPORTANT FACTORS. We are expected to apply it to ALL SITUATIONS IN WHICH HARM HAS BEEN INFLICTED UPON US, EITHER DIRECTLY, OR THROUGH THE HURT AND PAIN CAUSED TO OTHERS WHOSE PERSONAL WELFARE AFFECTS US EMOTIONALLY AND/OR INTELLECTUALLY.
Yet not every Situation is the Same, and Certain Important Details are often Ignored. As I Mentioned Earlier, This Includes the Future Actions of Those Who have Caused Harm, and whether or not there is any Adjustment in the Type of Personal Behavior that led to the Negative Consequences that were Inflicted on Those Innocent of any Immoral or Illegal Behavior.
However, that is the Final Evaluation;
- After the Act has been Committed.
- When the Affects of such Behavior have become known,
at least the Physical, on the Victim(s). ( Mentally, the Victim
may Suffer Ill- Effects for Years, which may not always be Readily Apparent.)
- Once Punishment, (Through the Legal System) , has been Exacted.
- WHEN RESTITUTION , if it is Possible, is made to make THE VICTIM WHOLE, or as Close To as is Possible.
However, that is all Done AFTER THE FACT. It is at This Point that the Expectation of FORGIVENESS is Usually Confronted, whether or not it
should be Offered, and if not, WHY?
THIS TYPE OF REASONING EXCLUDES THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT
OF ALL, WHEN WE JUDGE THE ACTIONS OF ANOTHER:
WHAT LED TO BEHAVIOR THAT CAUSED INJURY OR SUFFERING, AND
HOW DOES THIS MITIGATE OR ALTER THE DEGREE TO WHICH WE HOLD THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES RESULTING FROM THEIR ACTIONS.
IT IS THE IDEA OF JUDGING THE INTENT VS JUDGING THE OUTCOME.
END OF PT 3.