kortex64

Should we?

Lmao what does that even mean?

Did that sound good in your head?

Good one.

You may be bathing in it to the point you don't notice it anymore.

To have eaten frog legs twice in my life: it tastes like chicken.

That's not a slippery slope, that's the logical outcome of setting thresholds to forgivability.

I'm not exactly surprised people would disagree. I've been served the very same argument again and again (albeit, instead of mass murders, I usually either get rape or literal nazism). That's kind of the point of this thread to begin with, I didn't expect to be met with understanding.

Refusing the other your forgiveness is dehumanizing. I didn't mean to say that's it's quantifiably similar (whatever that would even mean...?), simply that's it's a similar effect on one's soul. It is unquestionable that pyschopathically hurting others (or commit atrocities of any kind and of any magnitude) takes a much greater toll on one's soul that being denied any shot at redemption. My point was they both take a toll on one's soul. Not that they carry the same weight. Apologies for poorly expressing my opinions. It's difficult enough in my own language, let alone in english.

I don't see anything morally warranted in defiling one's humanity any further under the pretense they brought it upon themselves. More often than not do we ultimately realise that evil roots in fear, pain and one's inability to handle these. I do believe the core of the human person deserves to be saved and it starts with presence and forgiveness.

The problem with this argument is that it has virtually no ceiling. You start with mass murderers, proceed with torturers, sadists, animal abusers, child abusers, rapists, and from abjection to abjection you end up justifying to yourself not forgiving your neighbour for letting his dog poop in your yard.

I think the greater the evil, the harder it is, most understandably, to forgive. But it remains a spiritual duty.

Although, I don't think forgiveness is a legal action. Breaking the law should always have legal repercussions. I take it more as a safeguard against hatred, a security net not to freefall towards resentment, hatred and ultimately a realm where no redemption is ever possible.

"Never forgive, never forget" sounds cool but from a spiritual standpoint, it's not much less dehumanizing than horrors such as mass murders.

I agree. I don't believe instant forgiveness is ever warranted. Albeit I don't take forgiveness for something that can be ponctually granted, more like an ongoing effort to let the door open for the other's return. It's still up to the other to make the effort, on his side, to crawl back out of the hell he let himself slip in.

Awful crimes necessitate forgiveness even more urgently than mere mistakes. To brag about deeming anything "unforgivable" is amoral and disrespectful of the nature of human soul. Anybody is eligible to redemption.