So the argument is about justice?It is an injustice to forgive a person who did wrong to another.
How do you "let him out of jail"?Say a person molests a child, and is sentenced to prison for it. As a neighbour of the molester, I go ahead and forgive him for his crime. I let him out of prison a free man.
No. It is about not getting caught up in the drama that perpetrators try to rope you into. Forgiveness largely isn't about the person who offended. It is about those who were offended. How to untie the knots which bind one to the perpetrator.That is what forgiveness is--a wiping of the slate.
Is it justice or morals? Either way, morals are like the sifting sands. I see no need to either condemn or condone Saul's actions in his political duty to Rome, any more than I feel the need to either condemn or condone Robin Hoods actions in killing deer that wasn't his.Lets take an example. Say there is a man named Saul, who has hunted down and murdered innocent people because of their faith. Is it right that an unrelated person forgive him for those murders? Any moral person will say no, it is not right at all. It is the exclusive right of those directly affected to forgive or not.
Saul's actions are beyond our ability to seek justice over, and we are not directly victims of his actions so how they require our condoning or condemning seems irrelevant.
The same would have to apply to all historical figures, factual or fictional.
Christians today may argue that Saul - as Paul - renounced his old murderous ways and took up a new vocation, and see such as virtuous. Even so, Paul may have had to face his victims in the afterlife where they required justice for his wrong-doing against them...we do not know, but if one is to believe no such thing happens - because death is the end - then I would say there is even less reason one should fuss over such examples.