Thread: Redemption

Someone very close to me is currently going through a painful time dealing with events of his past. Although I'm not sure he believes it right now, I assured him that there is such thing as redemption for past wrongs, although the hardest part, I believe, is being able to forgive oneself. It's an issue I've pondered before, not just with regards to this person, and I wanted to get other people's thoughts on the matter.

Redemption: Is there such thing as redemption? If there is, how does one redeem oneself? Must one repay old wrongs in the same manner in which they were committed (i.e. if one has been a thief, one must help stop thieves or protect their victims), or can any good act of comparable magnitude repay a past wrong (i.e. if one has been a thief, one can redeem oneself by becoming a doctor and volunteering one's time and resources to save lives)? Is such a concept as "magnitude" even applicable? How does one know when/if they have been redeemed? Is it an ever ongoing process, or is there a point of balance when debts have been paid? Who decides?

Forgiveness: Who must do the forgiving? The one who has been wronged, the one who did wrong, or both? Which is harder, to forgive someone else or to forgive yourself? How can one possibly forgive oneself for certain crimes and certain choices? Can there be redemption without forgiveness or forgiveness without redemption?

Your thoughts?

Hmmm…
Great topic - and one that there’s probably no easy answer to.

Redemption:
Yes, I believe that there is such thing as redemption, however, being agnostic, I find it hard to determine whether or not redemption truly matters in the “grand cosmic scheme” of things, (if one exists) or if it is just a factor of personal satisfaction (not too different from forgiving oneself) that comes along with being aware of, and trying to liberate oneself from, one’s own guilt. Because of this, I’ll leave out the theistic concept and go with the purely psychological one.
I, personally, don’t think redemption must be carried out to counter, exactly, the guilty act. (as in your first example) To me, it is the acknowledgement of personal responsibility and the drive to counter that negative energy (for lack of a better term) with an equal or greater positive. It doesn’t necessarily matter if it is in exact context with the initial wrongdoing. I think a journey toward the negative side of the moral spectrum can be counter balanced, or exceeded, by a trip to the positive, independent of the subject matter - best applied by redeeming yourself, directly, to the person wronged, if possible.
How does one know if they’ve been redeemed? Well, eliminating the possibility of an omnipotent judge, as I’m doing, I’d say that’s a question only the individual can answer for himself. It’s going to call into question everything they’ve learned (or haven’t learned) of fairness, empathy, mutual respect and their overall commitment to “right what’s wrong.” Some people are apathetic with their guilt, oblivious at how unbalanced their piss-poor attempt at restitution really is, when compared to what it is they’ve “done wrong.” What matters, to me, is to try to apply logic, assessing what it is I’m guilty of, imagining the impact it had on those who I might have wronged, (empathy) and doing whatever I can to tip the scales back to, at least, a balance. I’m just not convinced that there is any objective criterion that is set for this sort of thing.

Forgiveness:
This one is a little tougher. I think, fundamentally, it is important for both parties to do the forgiving. On one hand, if the restitution given is undeniably poor, I think it shows the same apathy I was talking about in the paragraph above, and stands the risk of further insulting the person who was wronged, and will be considered nothing more than “charity” or “patronization.” On the other hand, if the redeemer is heart-felt on getting forgiveness from the person they’ve wronged, and that person is so insulted and/or stubborn about the act that was first committed, then the redeemer’s guilt may only intensify. Many people go into vicious downward spirals of guilt because they feel they’ve done something to someone that they can never repay, a feeling so all-consuming that it can even destroy those who have long-since been forgiven by the person who was wronged. When this happens, the only closure that can come about is forgiveness of self, knowing that one did what they could (within reason) to repay their “debt.”
Can there be forgiveness of others without redemption? Sure. Many people are willing to understand human nature in a way that allows them to forgive others for their wrongdoings. (I do it all the time…sometimes to a fault.) Can people forgive themselves without having redeemed (or at least offering to redeem) themselves to the wronged person? Sure, but it borders on “self-centeredness,” in my mind, depending on the circumstances. If one has the chance to redeem oneself, I feel they should, in some way, shape or form, regardless of whether or not they are forgiven by others. After a hearfelt attempt at redemption, though, I think forgiveness of self is extremely important.

one of the most complex psychological problems i can think of.
--
in my mind, redemption signifies freedom from bondage, and/or repayment of a debt.

hence, the concept of redemption actually has two parts.

freedom from bondage is the personal aspect, and its solution is found in the act of forgiving oneself.

repayment of debt is the social aspect, and its solution is found in
those who have been wronged acknowledging the debt, and hopefully even putting it into perspective...settling on an "amount owed" with the debtor, and then nullifying that debt. either with immediate forgiveness, or certain conditions which must be satisfied before forgiveness is granted.

of course, the term "redemption" encompasses both of these aspects for good reason. the debt IS the bondage.

guilt often accompanies the social aspect, and shame the personal. i think all too often people no longer have reason for guilt, but they cannot be rid of shame.

they cannot forgive themself...and yes, i completely agree that this is the hardest part of redemption.

--------
one can need redemption from specific wrongs committed against specific people, or redemption from wrongs committed against one's own self, or wrongs committed against faceless, abstract entities- e.g. "those i could have helped if only i had...."


personally, i find it very easy to forgive others. perhaps too easy, to the extent i let people off too easily.
this is to compensate for the inability to forgive myself, something i have been struggling with in my own life for the past number of years. i am intimately familiar with the "bondage" aspect of redemption...how the inability to forgive onself weighs down life..makes it heavy and burdensome. makes one ashamed to be social.

it is as if one has gone bankrupt in the past, and has sorted out all the social aspects...in the eyes of others, the scales are empty. yet the ghost of debt remains in the formerly bankrupted individuals interior universe. no amount of tangible deeds on the side of good can outweigh this phantasm of shame.
-------

i think there are instances where this unshakeable guilt and shame is justified. if someone rapes a classroom of schoolchildren and savagely murders their parents and teachers, perhaps they are not worthy of redemption.

aside from such instances though, it is tragic to see someone who has wronged others, and yet been forgiven by them, remain bound forever. it is only committing one further wrong against oneself. rejecting the forgiveness of others.

------

i fear that was much murkier than i would have liked...and ultimately, the problem of redemption is primarily emotional it seems. guilt and shame are powerful forces. perhaps even stronger than love.

no matter which combination of influences are involved it seems the problem of redemption is the problem of whether love is greater than guilt and shame.


i will not touch much on the religious aspect, as there the waters become positively muddy. suffice to say that the christian symbology of redemption is relevant here.

a god-man, the creator of the universe, allows himself to be brutally murdered by his own creatures adn children, and yet can forgive them for not just this, but everything....under the condition that "if ye do not forgive, ye shall not be forgiven".

if one is not christian, it seems redemption becomes much harder. there is no "unconditional" love to conquer conditional guilt and shame. no perfect forgiver to forgive even when one's victims cannot.

one's flawed love of self and other must grow strong enough to overcome the inevitable acts of hate (doing to others what one would not have done to them).


in the end, forgiveness is the highest act of love. every person feels this deep within themself. as long as one feels themself unworthy of love (both being loved/forgiven, and loving/forgiving), they shall remain forever unredeemed.

----
i do not know the particulars of your friend's past and present, but i deeply hope he finds the redemption he seeks.

please PM me if you wish to talk about it in more detail..

Originally Posted by Peregrinus

Can there be redemption without forgiveness or forgiveness without redemption?[/b]

I'll just tackle that part for now. I think there HAS to be redemption without forgiveness at least. I'm speaking from the perspective of redeeming oneself without the forgiveness from the 'victim' of the wrong doing. I feel that way because if the victim were to die, then forgiveness would be impossible. So the redemption must come from the individual him/herself.

Also, if the person WERE to obtain forgiveness from the victim, it isn't always enough. The individual needs to do some soul patchwork, as it were (i.e. A thief feels bad for stealing, so he apologizes to the victim, returns what he/she stole, and the victim gives forgiveness. The thief still needs to deal with why he/she resorted to stealing, and find a replacement for that behavior, otherwise he/she may be tempted to do it again, making a true redemption difficult.)

Speaking of thieves, someone has stolen my train of thought THAT'S WHAT YOU GET FOR MAKING OPHELIA TRY TO THINK SMART THINGS

*brain dies*

Redemption and forgiveness need standards for 'right' and 'wrong' to exist.

And 'right' and 'wrong' are human inventions, as a result as living in groups (I am sure gorilla's have some sort of unwritten code of 'right' and 'wrong' behavior).

Evolution in it's purest form does not really allow there to be an objective 'right' nor 'wrong'. We created the terms, they are contemperary, they hold value only to us.

-

So objectively there is no real 'right' or 'wrong'. There is just a persons own compassion and other things (all resulting from evolution) that make us do certain things. Becouse 'right' and 'wrong' are our terms they do matter to us, but only if we accept them. A true killer wouldn't feel regret. The only redemption and forgiveness (towards others and self) can be done by yourself. There is no mesurement for 'having forgiven enough' or something. Only you own internal peace matters (that allso is affected by how the people you love are doing).

So basicly, ... well actually this didn't really have a point to it, it was just a way how I see it. No moral message really. Just forgive yourself and others, and try to let other people forgive themselves. Or something like that.

Thank you for your replies and your thoughts.

Nameless: You comfort me because my friend shares your faith, or he tries to. But it's tested. I truly hope he's able to let himself be forgiven and then find a way to finally forgive himself. I think it's easier that way. We're hardest on ourselves.

O: I agree with you that redemption is something you have to judge for yourself. But as with forgiveness, one has to judge
honestly where that balance lies, where the debt is repaid, and when forgiveness is earned (as opposed to the selfish sort of forgiveness you mentioned). Do you think that everyone has a true sense of that balance, or that, as Neruo suggested, it's all subjective such that what is an equal repayment of debt to one person is not to another?

wombing: I didn't think that was murky at all. It was actually quite lucid and certainly far better than I could have done myself. But how does someone who does not feel worthy of love and questions the motives of all who give it ever find forgiveness or redemption?

Ophelia: I agree with you that redemption cannot depend on the forgiveness of the person wronged. But within an individual - the person who did wrong - can one be redeemed without forgiving oneself and can one forgive oneself without seeking redemption.

Neruo: Granted, most specific moral and ethical codes are culturally-dependent (there can be no theft in a society with no concept of personal ownership, for example), but there are some things, some fundamentals, that almost all people regardless of their cultural upbringing would deem "wrong" or "right". Hurting another human being solely for personal gain, for instance, is wrong. I'm not talking about the little things here - taking a deity's name in vain every once in a while, pinching a pen from the local office supply store, not going to the authorities if you find a wallet full of cash, etc. It's the big stuff with which I'm concerned right now. The sort of things that keep you awake for 5 days straight. The kinds of memories that haunt you whenever you close your eyes, that make eating repulsive and touch excruciating. A history of deeds that, when wrenched from behind the anesthetic of cold anger, sear and twist the heart, eating through the mind and soul in an avalanching onslaught of emotions locked away and unfelt for years. That’s what I’m talking about. That’s what needs to be forgiven and redeemed, and I don't think that the ethical analysis of those deeds is really in question.

Originally Posted by Peregrinus

Neruo: Granted, most specific moral and ethical codes are culturally-dependent (there can be no theft in a society with no concept of personal ownership, for example), but there are some things, some fundamentals, that almost all people regardless of their cultural upbringing would deem "wrong" or "right". Hurting another human being solely for personal gain, for instance, is wrong. I'm not talking about the little things here - taking a deity's name in vain every once in a while, pinching a pen from the local office supply store, not going to the authorities if you find a wallet full of cash, etc. It's the big stuff with which I'm concerned right now. The sort of things that keep you awake for 5 days straight. The kinds of memories that haunt you whenever you close your eyes, that make eating repulsive and touch excruciating. A history of deeds that, when wrenched from behind the anesthetic of cold anger, sear and twist the heart, eating through the mind and soul in an avalanching onslaught of emotions locked away and unfelt for years. That’s what I’m talking about. That’s what needs to be forgiven and redeemed, and I don't think that the ethical analysis of those deeds is really in question.
[/b]

Indeed there are some sorts of standards all people have... however they came from evolution. We live in groups naturally, and killing our own tribe isn't usefull for survival.

However you still have other points that are harder to explain. Such as what we are talking about now. First I would like to make a point about guilt and cultural influences:

In other times (roman ect.), so am I told, people looked at guilt and responsability a great way different. For instance, the people that find a wallet in the street and do not return it, but do find out later that it belonged to an old lady that really needs the money. How many people would admit having kept the wallet? In our society today just about everything is fine to do, aslong as no one knows about it. However in ancient times, like the romans and the samurai (i think), a person would take it's own life if they found out they did something horrible. And not becouse of shame, becouse of that people know they are guilty, like people now would, but becouse they know for themselves that they are guilty.

But actually, I think you arn't a total victem of our 'low' moral standards currently, I think you actually seek a sort of 'objective' forgiving. Not for other people (iand ndirectly for your own (social) advantage), but actually for yourself in a way that is 'good' in a moral way.

So, it might be all evolution, but in that is something inbedded that is 'truely good' (still in our own standards, but that doens't make it less 'true' for us).

If there is good -'good' in a way not influenced by cultural factors- then I guess there indeed might be redemption and forgiveness, again in a way not effected by other things, so purely 'human' in a way.

-

I personally conclude/think:


Within our human reality there is 'objective' right and wrong (irrelevant that it is through evolution), and thus something that might be called redemption and forgiveness.

I think I actually kind of changed my opinion a bit, that doesn't happen alot

But actually what I think really doesn't change or help you on this subject... Kind of selfish of me... All I can say is that you should seek what you think achieves redemption and forgiveness. Someone that has done things wrong might be wrong during doing those things, but if the person regrets and wants to better, I guess there is no 'wrong' in that person. Or actually, no wrong can be laid on that person, yet the person could indeed redeem oneselfs though doing what one finds 'good'.

Good luck still

Originally Posted by Neruo

How many people would admit having kept the wallet?[/b]

I'd like to believe that there are more than you give credit for, but my own cynicism tends to get in the way of that. However, personal anecdote here. A couple of weeks ago, I found a new $300 iPod in the restroom next to my lab. I taped up two signs, put a 'found' announcement in the department newsletter, and kept the iPod in the lab until, two days ago, the owner saw the sign and came to claim it. I don't consider myself a morally superior person, so if I take the time and effort to return a pricey electronic gadget, other people can to. On odd numbered days during leap years, I even believe that they do.

Originally Posted by Neruo

In our society today just about everything is fine to do, aslong as no one knows about it. However in ancient times, like the romans and the samurai (i think), a person would take it's own life if they found out they did something horrible. And not becouse of shame, becouse of that people know they are guilty, like people now would, but becouse they know for themselves that they are guilty.[/b]

I think much of the code of honor in the samurai culture came from preserving the respectable reputation of the family rather than the reputation of the self, actually. You're right about people behaving more in line with the cultural code of ethics when they believe they're being watched, though. I recall coming across several studies during a psych course I took. I don't give much credit to doing the 'right thing' in the presence of others, honestly. That's just image management. The true character of a person can only be determined by what they do when they think no one is looking and how they treat those from whom they have absolutely nothing to gain.

Originally Posted by Neruo

I think I actually kind of changed my opinion a bit, that doesn't happen alot [/b]

Glad to help?

Originally Posted by Neruo

But actually what I think really doesn't change or help you on this subject... Good luck still[/b]

It does help, actually ... hearing other people's thoughts on the matter helps me work through my own. And the very action of taking time to reply to this is unselfish, so thanks.

I think an important question is that of weather or not one really needs to be forgiven.

If you were to ask me, I'd say no.

Why should we need to be forgiven?

I know that I've personally done some things that I'll never forgive myself of. I'm sure there are others who won't forgive me either. I'll probably hold it against myself to the end of time. But that's all right. I don't think it's important weather or not you're forgiven. It's a weight I've brought upon my own shoulders. The only thing to do is pick it up and carry on, and if possible, seek redemption.

When it comes to redemption, I believe that it can only be given by oneself. If you have strong enough morals to seek it, chances are that you'll know when it's appropriate to claim to have obtained it. Unfortunately I can't give a more precise answer to "how much it takes". It just seems like it's far too subjective to really give a definite answer. However, I think that most people won't stop seeking redemption until they know for sure that they've done more than they had to.

As long as we do what we can to mend what we've broken as best as we can, then that's all that really matters.

The problem with redemption is that most of people want to escape from the guilty conscience as soon as possible. They have done some evil deeds, they feel uncomfortable with it, and they want to discard it the easiest, simplest way.
For example, Christians go to confession, purify their souls there, and within 5 minutes they feel redeemed. They feel free like a bird...
Illusion and complacency. What they really do is cheating themselves. They take the line of least resistance not even fully understanding the wrongs they did, not to mention to carry that burden for a bit of time and thereby understanding it.

p.s. I didn't mean to offend any Christian Believers, it was only an example. (I also went to confession in my youth until I saw the light)

Forgiveness is a great thing, if you give someone the second chance. But don't flatter yourself of being magnanimous, do it to make the person who has hurt you understood their faults and never repeat it again.

Something I'd like everyone to consider is..

If you had no episodic memory, if you did not remember any of your personal past, would you even be worried about redemption or forgiveness...? What implications does this have..?

~

Originally Posted by O

Something I'd like everyone to consider is..

If you had no episodic memory, if you did not remember any of your personal past, would you even be worried about redemption or forgiveness...? What implications does this have..?

~
[/b]

Good question. So don't do any harm to others and then you can feel free to not remember your past.
Clear?

Well, let's not forget that you would also not remember any wrongs done to you.

~

Originally Posted by O

Well, let's not forget that you would also not remember any wrongs done to you.

~
[/b]

That's also true. Maybe one should jot it down when happens. Or maybe it'd better not to dwell on it for the rest of your life.
Anyway the gaps in memory are serious problem. But this is the different kettle of fish.