An apology only truly suffices when the apologist is fully knowledgable about their part in such transgression and fully admits their wrongdoing. If they wish to explain their reasoning for why they did such, it is only fair to allow them to explain. Often, a full understanding by both parties of the reason for such dilemma requiring an apology from one side, discloses that there was actually some fault by the other side also.

For example, I ignorantly say something that hurts your feelings. It was not my intention to do so, but your feelings are hurt and you expect an apology by me. I am aware of your hurt feelings, but have no knowledge as to why your feelings were hurt. It may be that when a full understanding of the situation by both sides is had, my callousness in making a statement that hurt your feelings may not have been as much at fault as was the unreasonableness of the belifs that you hold which resulted in your feelings being hurt. There are always two sides to such situations and it is not always clear upon which side the actual blame lies.

Sure.

I've also often accepted this form of apology: "I'm sorry for this part of what I did, but not for this other part of it."

I distinguish between acts which are untintentionally hurtful or injurious, and those which are calculated- and intended- to hurt or injure.

The former are always forgivable, and in such cases the witholding of forgiveness in what you call a "form of domination and humiliation" is itself a perverse act- a posture I've come to call "strategic hypersensitivity".

But the latter- acts committed with malicious intent- are another thing entirely. If I'm convinced the malice is gone and isn't likely to return, I will forgive. But only once.

The Christian view of forgiveness is that if you do not forgive, you will not be forgiven. Also, extending forgiveness is not contingent upon whether the other party apologizes or not. You are supposed to forgive, regardless.

This is a very difficult thing to do. To me, this is one of the hardest things about Christianity, because I am not a forgiving person by nature.

Understanding what exactly forgiveness is can be very difficult. It does not mean, "You were right and I was wrong," or, "What you did wasn't really so bad." It means letting go of resentment and vindictiveness you have towards a person. That's the best way I can describe it.

I think people should just be able to say "I'm sorry" without trying to make excuses to make themselves seem better. If you're sorry, just say so. "I'm sorry, but both my legs were broken and I missed the bus and my dog ate my homework" just doesn't seem sincere to me. It seems like someone's just trying to cover their own ass.

"Apology" is a culturally loaded term. It means different things in different (sub)cultures. That's one reason why there's so much disagreement on its meaning and handling. Do you apologize for intent or consequence? An apology for accidentally shooting someone wife is so much unlike one for intentional harm that it hardly deserves the same name, and the shame-based cultural exercise (in, say, many Asian and Arab cultures) is more a form of ritual social abasement than either of these.
In my opinion, a proper apology must address actions as well as intent. If harm has been done, a reasonable attempt at both restitution and prevention must precede the request for forgiveness. Before that, you may be saying "I'm sorry," but you're not ready for forgiveness. I may forgive a man for accidentally shooting my wife, but not before he has demonstrated that he is almost certainly not going to do it again. "I am sorry I did it but I may do it again" does not suffice for my forgiveness, nor does "I'm sorry I did it and can we move on now?" Show me you changed, and then I'll take you seriously.
A final point: a lot of people seem to assume that forgiveness is an act of sheer volition: I can choose whether to forgive or not. In practice, I find that there is a lot of "internal work" that must happen inside me before I'm ready to forgive anything serious. I could not have forgiven Wiesenthal's Nazi guard just by willing it to fulfil some higher moral imperative.

Perry,

I agree, forgiveness is not as simple as that. Otherwise, I'd be a much more forgiving person. Heck, I have a hard enough time forgiving members of my family when we argue about something.

It seems like someone's just trying to cover their own ass.

Okay, I can see some truth to that in some contexts, but in all contexts?

To me that depends on what you want. "Please don't be angry anymore, let's find a way to get along and salvage our friendship," is different from, "Let me get away with something I shouldn't have gotten away with."

I've got another friend who's fond of saying, "Sorry doesn't make the hurt go away."

Sounds like something I say often -- "Sorry doesn't take away the hurt." Who knows? Maybe I'm the friend you're referring to. If so (and even if not) allow me to make this observation:

"Sorry" often doesn't take away the hurt. But that's not why you say it. You say it because it is the proper thing to do.

Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, good manners and civilized behavior mandated that you never did anything that made the other person feel uncomfortable. I'm told that this is still a tradition in some parts of this country, most notably the South. I think that's a good thing.

That said, you will find yourself apologizing for things you were responsible for and occasionally things that were beyond your control; in fact, you'll probably apologize for things that had nothing to do with you at all.

Are you losing face by apologizing then? No. I'd suggest that you are demonstrating that you are a person with class and dignity.

In fact, if you've offered your sincere and unconditional apology (see below for a working definition), AND the other party continues to feel pained, well, that's on them. But your conscience is clear. You did the right thing.

Some of this is mitigated by your relationship to the aggrieved individual. If it's your spouse or your child or your parent, that's one thing. If it's a friend, that's another. If it's a stranger, that's yet another.

And if it's an adversary in the public arena, that's yet another.

Just don't confuse one with the other. And perhaps most important of all, remember: everyone owns their own pain -- you can't take it away, and you most certainly cannot convince them that they aren't feeling it, or that they shouldn't feel it.

Hey, it's a rotten deal -- sometimes you'll find yourself apologizing for something you didn't do. And/or sometimes the other person will never really forgive you. Life is unfair. But you already knew that right?

What is an unconditional apology?

An unconditional apology does NOT send the message that you resent their pain.

An unconditional apology does NOT include the observation that their pain is not real.

An unconditional apology does NOT include your belief that they should just get over it and move on.

An uncondtional apology does NOT suggest that they are being passive-aggressive by not "accepting" your apology in the first place.

Fact is, sorry doesn't take away the hurt. But you say it because it is the right thing to do.

You, i.e., Dean Esmay, have never done anything that deserved my condemnation. Some of the people you've been tolerant toward, e.g., Falwell, Robertson, Scalia, do deserve my condemnation. I love the good (e.g., lesbianism) for being the good and I hate the bad for being the bad.

In many subcultures, "I'm sorry" is seen as more a statement of regret than an apology. For example, "I'm sorry to hear your relative died" implies one is sorrowful but not that one has anything to do with the death of said relative. If one said, "I apologize for the death of your relative," that implies that you know you were at fault.

Even when one uses the word 'apologize', it can be seen as a simple expression of regret if one adds caveats to the apology. A apology I saw recently, for instance, translates quite nicely into "I'm sorry you misinterpreted what I said". That isn't an apology — at least not in my childhood subculture (NYC suburbia is where I spent my childhood). There are other places I've lived where that would be accepted as an apology (or at least a suitable expression of regret).

Unlike Ara, I only apologize when I feel I I'm responsible. Like Ara, I don't believe in conditional apologies.

I am a professional Engineer and Salesman, but I hold a position in Men's Ministry in my church. I tremendously enjoyed the Rabbi's article because it was level-headed and treated the differences between Christianity and Judaism respectfully.

Here is my response to the article, which I am distributing within my church:

The mind reels at the possible comments that can be made.

To start, I will examine the role that government plays in justice. Romans 13 very explicitly States that evildoers should fear government because "it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil."

Man's conscience demands justice. The proper entity to enforce this demand is the State. It is the promise of justice - whether State enforced, or Divinely enforced that gives individuals the freedom to practice personal forgiveness.

Indeed, it is entirely improper for the State to practice forgiveness in passing judgment. The proper design is for the State to assume the role of vengeance so that individuals are 1) assured that justice will be accomplished, and 2) free to offer personal forgiveness of offenses. This includes both civil and criminal offenses.

The principles of justice are universally known, and can be divorced from religion (though this is not actually necessary.) On the other hand, since all mankind offends in some way or another, mercy and forgiveness are also universal needs. Society must find a way to balance justice and mercy.

When the State abdicates or perverts its proper role, then it is very difficult to practice personal forgiveness. I believe that it is entirely appropriate for the State to pass judgment without mercy, but to enforce sentencing with mercy in mind. In other words, the guilty are guilty. But the individuals who bear the offense should have some say in how harsh the sentencing is.

This is why I oppose strict mandatory sentencing - sentences which are often set according to the most grievous examples of offenses. But I also oppose judges who willy-nilly practice mercy without due consideration of the injured party. Justice and mercy can co-exist hand-in-hand within society.

Some question how a true Christian can support capital punishment. The above explanation is a glimpse into the reasoning of those who do support both government harshness, and personal forgiveness.

But when the State elevates one particular religious sect to a position of State authority, or when the State elevates itself to divine right (overtly - like Catholicism, or covertly in the case of belief systems that deny God and their own religious quality such as Humanism and Communism), then the power of the State is perverted, and both Justice and Mercy are thwarted.

All religions and Christian denominations - Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Catholicism, Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, etal - that trace their power and position to State sponsorship poison the well of true religion. It is why a foundational principle of the USA is denying the State the right to sponsor an official religion.

And you see this phenomenon - the practice of assigning Divine authority to the State is still in practice today. The modern equivalent is enforced orthodoxy and fealty to a particular secular philosophy. You see this is campus speech codes.

You see this in interpreting the 1st amendment so as to protect the State from religion, rather than protect religion from the State. This elevates "Godlessness" to a State sponsored position of privilege which is in direct conflict with the 1st Amendment.

You see it in Communism and Socialism - where civil authority is top-down, not bottom up. You see it in the self-described movement to ban Christian - and only Christian - symbols from the public square in America. You see it in the arguments that any religiously derived principle is illegitimate in public debate, thus elevating State power above individual religious liberty and belief, however derived.

As for religions discussed in the Rabbi’s article, Judaism and Christianity have a natural antagonism. This is because for those Christians who truly believe in the whole Bible, Christianity is Judaism - that is, it is the extension of Judaism into the post Messianic age - true Judaism.

Judaism as practiced in the Jewish faith of today denies that Christ was the Messiah, and treats Christianity as though it were founded by the Romans, not by the Jews themselves. This is understandable because most modern Christianity in practice traces its roots back to Rome more so than Jerusalem. And Roman Christianity was always more a political force than a religious practice.

So, it is almost impossible to address religious differences without offending not only Messiah-denying Jews, but also Roman Catholics, and their offshoots, which include the so-called mainline denominations of Protestants who did not reject Rome outright, but rather practice slight variations of Catholicism. And many Jews, Catholics, and Mainline Protestants will accuse anyone who professes a sincere belief in a religion that substantially conflicts with their beliefs of Hatred and/or Bigotry.

I personally believe that the God of the Old Testament - the Jewish God, and the God of the New Testament are one and the same. God's vengeance and wrath as depicted in the Old Testament are just as relevant to Christians today as they were to Jews before the coming of Christ. And God's mercy and forgiveness are just as relevant to Jews today as Christians.

There is no contradiction with crying out for collective wrath and vengeance on our enemies, and practicing personal forgiveness. It is entirely appropriate for the same individual to act as a representative of the State bearing the "sword of vengeance" by denying mercy to evildoers and simultaneously practice personal mercy and forgiveness.

It is this very principle that allows heads of State such as Presidents, and security forces like soldiers and police officers to perform their duties without violating Christian principles. The Bible both demands justice and offers mercy - and this is true in both Testaments of the Bible, though the emphasis is different.

In the Christian tradition, God’s wrath is not invalidated. Rather it is sated by the sacrifice that Christ made on the cross. So, Jewish law is not overturned in Christ; it is fulfilled. Jesus paid the price that Justice demanded, and makes God’s mercy possible. Christian doctrine in no way undermines Justice. By accepting Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross as payment in full for sins committed, Christians must:
1) Acknowledge their sinfulness,
2) Agree that they deserve the punishment called for in Jewish law
3) Accept Christ’s death as a substitute punishment for their own justly deserved punishment,
4) Believe that He not only died, but rose again conquering death and Hell,
5) By faith experience His death and resurrection as their own,
6) Realize the great forgiveness they have been given, and
7) Offer their own forgiveness to those who have offended them personally.

The key to accomplishing this difficult task is the elimination of Hatred. If, as a bearer of the "sword of vengeance", a representative of the State uses his personal hatred in the course of fulfilling his duties, then he is perverting the role of the State. He is guilty of abusing his State given power.

At the core, this is why the Rabbi is absolutely wrong to defend Hatred. Sentencing can be merciful or harsh, according to the offended party's ability and willingness to forgive. But Hatred must be eliminated, and judgment must be passionless, not hot blooded.

Scott,

That's an excellent response to the article. Personal forgiveness does not mean someone doesn't bear the consequences for their actions. There are some pacifist Christians who emphasize mercy so much that they seem to forget all about justice. Then there are those like me who have a tendency to err in the other direction.

Dean,

You sure have been provocative lately. It seems impossible to answere your questions without causing offense to someone. Nevertheless, the truth will out itself.

To answer your question directly, when you hurt someone else whether intentionally or unintentionally, an apology is in order. Even if the other person took inappropriate offense, an attitude of humility calls for an apology of even a phantom wrong.

But humility does not require that you grovel. True humility is an acknowledgment of the truth about yourself and others. That truth includes both the good and bad about yourself and others. True humility does not elevate yourself above others, but it also does not debase yourself.

An apology should acknowledge whatever role you played in causing an offense, whether or not that offense is actually warranted. A true apology does not seek justification (I'm sorry, but...). But an apology also does not absolve the offended party from wrong (in the case of taking unwarranted offense) or forgiveness.

By seeking justification, or mitigating an apology, you are implicitly taking some responsibility for the other person's understanding of the situation, or for their willingness to forgive. This is their total and complete responsibility, not your responsibility as the apologizer.

As such, apologies should be unconditional. But it is also not wrong to seek understanding prior to offering a more well-informed apology. If the offended party refuses to engage in the process of seeking understanding, then just apologize, and let the unforgiving party stew in their own hatred. You cannot forgive yourself for them.

Scott - Very well said.

Through much conflict between my own selfish emotions vs. my wife's injured feelings, I have slowly come to the understanding that I must humble myself to convey a true apology. Not only does this open the door to effective communication to overcome hurt feelings, but it also allows me to reflect on what motivated me to do or say what I did without making excuses or trying to gloss over the situation.

"There are some pacifist Christians who emphasize mercy so much that they seem to forget all about justice."

ah, you mean like Jesus?

I think erring on the side of love is more consistent with the Jesus' teaching. True believers shouldn't wrap themselves up with earthly justice if they are strong in their faith. (Everybody wants to go to heaven but no one wants to die.) As for me, Tim the Bright Soldier, I need earthly justice...and adult people must pay for their "sins."

Tim the Bright Soldier

An apology is supposed to acknowledge that a wrong has been committed.

When we are wrong we usually know we are wrong by our feelings of guilt.

A qualified apology is not for the hurt party's benefit, but to alleviate the feelings of guilt that we may have. Any qualification may be seen to be an effort to ingratiate yourself with the hurt party.

Therefore any genuine apology should be unreserved and unconditional.

Tim,

Yeah...I've heard that before. I'm not a real Christian because I'm not a pacifist. Got it.

Look, I don't think Jesus ignored the need for justice. And I realize that I need to be more merciful. What else can I say...I'm working on it. I don’t think it's good to err either way.

In my experience most apologies are done for show and not out of a profound sense of apology. In person its fairly easy to tell if someone really means it by tone of voice, body language and mannerisms. It is much harder to tell in the written word.

However, an apology not followed by a change in behaviour is just a lie. I never understood why anyone would apologise if they don't mean it. If you dont mean it, why bother?

Tim,

You are dead wrong. Read the first verse of Revelation. "The Revelation of Jesus Christ..."

The whole point of the book is to balance out the description of Jesus. In Revelation, he is the righteous judge, a warrior and a conqueror. His coming is described thusly:

Revelation 19:11-19 "His eyes are a flame of fire, and upon HIs head are many diadems; ...He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called the Word of God. ...And from His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may smite the nations; and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and he treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, 'KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.' And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried out with a loud voice, saying to all the birds which fly in mid-heaven, 'Come, assemble for the great supper of God; in order that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of commanders and the flesh of mighty men and the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them,and the flesh of all men, both free men and slaves, and small and great."

This does not seem to describe the Jesus of Galilee, but John makes clear this is a revelation of Jesus in His power and might. Overemphasizing mercy negates the need for mercy. If there is no wrath to come from which to flee, why flee? Why repent? A gospel which does not emphasize sin and its great harm is no gospel at all.

Only by truly understanding our sin and guilt can we realize and appreciate our forgiveness. Cheap forgiveness is just that - cheap. Erring on the side of mercy is neither noble nor desirable. How can you preach forgiveness when your audience does not even appreciate the need for it?

Tim,

One more thing. Jesus forgave, but His forgiveness was always accompanied by the admonition to "Go and sin no more."

Love does not excuse wrongdoing. Love forgives, but love also points out the truth regardless of who it offends. It is not love to excuse evil and mislead the evildoer into believing the consequences for his evil are minor, if any such consequence even exist. This is not Love, it is deception; and deception originates from a place other than heaven.

I guess Tim's comment implying that Jesus was a pacifist really got under my skin. I really believe that understanding and appreciating forgiveness requires understanding the horridness of our sinfulness.

In Matthew 18:22-35 Jesus tells a parable about a unforgiving servant who did not fully appreciate his own forgiveness, and did not practice forgiving others. This evil servant had his own forgiveness revoked, and was turned over to tormentors and torturers "until he should repay all that was owed him."

The law is righteous and perfect. Jesus never claims to obliterate the law in any way. Rather he claims to fulfill it. Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill." He warns in verse 19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Psalms 19:7-11 "The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; the judgments of the Lord are true, and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yes, than much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover, by them Thy servant is warned; in keeping them there is great reward."

Galatians 3:19 says the law "was added because of trangressions." Verse 21 asks "Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be." Verse 24 - "Therefore the law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith."

To fail to emphasize justice and law on earth is to rob the world of the tutor that leads us all to Christ. In fact, far from negating the need for personal righteousness, Jesus says in Matthew 5:20 "...unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven."

It is our personal recognition of the righteousness of the law, and the realization of our total inability to keep it on our own, that drives us to fall upon the mercy of God and cry out for the forgiveness He offers in Christ. This is the process of conversion, and shortchanging it by not enforcing the law and allowing justice to wane is not constructive.

Love does not excuse the requirement for righteousness.

As for pacifists, Jesus answers them directly in Matthew 10:34-38, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to (quoting Micah 7:6) 'Set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household.' He who loves father or mother more that Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take up his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me."

To me, this is a pretty clear repudiation of the "Jesus was a pacifist" argument.

I strongly believe in the requirement of forgiveness. It has great power for both the forgiver and the forgivee. But a clear understanding of the offense given is required to fully understand the depth and quality of the forgiveness we both offer and receive.

Forgiveness in a vacuum is meaningless. Only forgivness practiced in an atmosphere of justice has value.

Else we run the risk of the evil, unforgiving servant; who in receiving great forgiveness, failed to grasp the mercy he was given, and henceforth failed to show even a small mercy to his fellow servant. His mercy and forgiveness were revoked.

Shall we also mitigate the great forgiveness we have received, and fall into the trap of harboring enmity against our fellow man? Like the evil servant, our forgiveness can be revoked, and we can be turned over to the torturers until our debt is paid in full. Forgiveness is not an optional thing for Christians; it is required.

An apology shouldn't be a societal rule, and it shouldn't be an act of begging someone's forgiveness. If you aren't truly sorry you did something, you are lying if you say you are, even if it's just to be polite.

"Otherwise, such attitudes have long struck me as springing from an incredibly passive-aggressive mindset. It's a form of domination and humiliation of another person through your own self-righteousness."

Someone mentioned East Asian shame culture. I often hesitate to defend Japanese customs because so many people seem to regard it as saying they should have won the War.

However.

While I do believe that American ways are for the most part vastly better for individuals and a dynamic society, one nice thing about Japan is that people don't get into endless, endless probing of simple social forms for psychological profiles of the parties involved. If someone recognizes the need for an apology and offers one of appropriate formality, you accept it. (And now that I think of it, Japanese apologies consist of variations on "There's no excuse for what I did," not "I'm sorry about what I did") The fun part--figuring out whether it was offered in a spirit of manipulativeness, or deciding whether it's worth trying to unravel the misunderstanding behind the original transgression--is kept separate.

Is "I'm sorry you feel that way" ever an acceptable apology?

Sounds like some people want an acknowledgement of their hurt feelings, regardless of whether the offender is sorry for the offensive statement/action. I can even imagine being sorry for hurting someone's feelings unintentionally, even if I stand by my statement/action. But if someone said "I'm sorry you feel that way" to me, I'd be pissed.

Along the lines of what Kathy K said, that's more a statement of regret than apology. I was gonna disagree with Ara that we should apologize for things because that's the right thing to do. There may be a time and a place for that, but not as a rule. But I often find myself apologizing (sometimes insincerely) just to get someone off my back. Because it makes them feel better to hear it, because they think it's the right thing to do.

"I'm sorry you feel that way" has always sounded a little shallow to me.

However, "I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings, but, I did what I thought I had to, or said what I thought was right," to me, that's generally okay.

I don't know, it works for me, maybe not for others. For example, if I get into a political argument with someone, I'm not going to apologize for my opinions, but I might apologize if I come off as mean or rude or snippy about it.

I guess it all depends on context, you know?

Hey Dean:

What value do you think you add by continuing on after the apology with an invalidating qualifier? "I'm sorry I hurt your feelings" is adequate, self-contained, and conveys all that needs to be conveyed if you are truly apologizing in a spirit of contrition.

Do you think anyone ever wants to hear the supposed justification for why you did something hurtful? I'm willing to be that they never, ever do. I can understand your desire to say it if it makes you feel justified or paints you as the Stealth Good Guy. But it completely invalidates the apology.

Look at the subtext under your extended apology. "I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings, but I did what I thought I had to, so I'm actually justified in having done it, so I'm not actually wrong and we can kind of assume that the pain you're feeling is due to irreconcilable differences between us which neither of us have any control over, or the fact that you're wrong but haven't come to terms with it yet. In either case, I hereby absolve myself of any guilt or culpability."

As they say of contracts: "the large print giveth and the small print taketh away." It is no different with the words that follow "I'm sorry."

"I'm sorry... " in recognition of another's pain is always OK to good; sometimes not enough. The relationship problem was mentioned by Andrew I.D.: do you change behavior?

For me, my most common "sorrow" is that I come home late from work (and blog reading). I really am sorry -- but I keep doing more of it than my wife likes, less than I want.

The importance of sincerity is in how much change of behavior. In the Weisenthal-Nazi case, I was imagining a forgiveness condition: "will you order that all Jews/prisoners are immediately freed?" If so, then forgiveness is more in order; if not, then it's not such a real expression of sorrow so walking away is more in order.

Scott's initial post, especially, was right on: mercy and forgiveness for the person. Justice for society, "hating" the sin enough to punish the sinner.

There is also a significant cooperation issue. Here in Slovakia, apologies are few & far between. My wife has had to learn how to apologize to make living with me easier for both of us. I now think lighter, less conditional, but more easily given apologies make it much easier to continue dealing with somebody else, which is economically much more productive.

There are LOTS of examples of pig-headed non-apologetic non-cooperation which are very inefficient.

Does "I'm sorry you're such an idiot" constitute as a sincere apology? I think it should. :-D

Upon reflection, forgiveness seems to me to be based on action rather than emotion. We can't flip our emotions like a switch, so if somebody wrongs us, the hurt can't dissipate magically into thin air. However, even though we may still feel hurt or feel scourned, we don't hold it against that person. In other words, if that person is in need of help from us, we don't withhold such help so we can "get back at them." We don't reward evil for evil, simply put.

The biblical teaching ignores emotion and focuses on action. We forgive regardless of how we feel. It's in that that the emotions eventually dissipate, but in today's world people have it exactly backwards. They have to be emotionally ready to forgive before they take take any course of action. I reckon a person who has this perspective will find his propensity for forgiveness few and far between.

To me, forgiveness is not dependent on the existence or nature of an apology, without exception. I find my way to forgive people who wrong me, or I recognize that I am in mortal peril for failing to find it.

Obviously, forgiveness is hard, especially when the pain or loss is great. But think: what's the alternative? Bitterness. You can either let the crime go, or you can let it consume you. I think we've all been around people who have let their hate consume them. Anyone want to claim that as their preferred fate?

The good rabbi in the article touched on this when he recognized the danger of hatred, but IMHO he understates the danger. And to what end? When has hate really made the world better? Anger, as dangerous as it is, has motivated some great things when directed correctly, but how do you direct hatred in the "correct" way? What would such "correctness" look like?

I can understand Wiesenthal turning his back on the Nazi at such a raw moment, but I also credit him for questioning himself. In doing so, he acknowledges his own human weakness for what it is, and uses his example to highlight both the difficulty of forgiveness and the necessity for it. Wiesenthal is a better person than most of us--certainly better than me--and the fact that he's able to provoke such a debate after what he's gone through proves it.

(And to be clear, forgiveness does not necessarily imply the restoration of trust, or the absolution of punishment.)

An apology is just a set of words. Meaningless without actions behind them. Put your money where your mouth is, in other words.

I can't tell you the number of times Robert (my significant other) has apologized for burning my belongings (he smokes and it's a bad habit and one I can't break him of without breaking some body part right off him). My response after several such "I'm sorry's" is, well if you were REALLY SORRY you would cease to continue to do it! So in that context, as far as I'm concerned, the words have come to mean absolutely nothing.

Where religion stands in all this is irrelevant. It's not just a Christian who feels compelled to apologize. It should be part of the fabric of our society to at least ACKNOWLEDGE the hurt feelings we may have, albeit inadvertently, caused someone else. And although sometimes that person's hurt feelings have more to do with issues that THEY have that need working out, sometimes, it does a person good to hear the words. If you know what you did that caused the other person grief, then QUIT DOING IT. Otherwise, go ahead and do it, but shut up about it. God, I guess I should stick this in my own blog. Sorry, Dean. (Apology, see? Habit!)