Thread: Should We Forgive, or Just Understand?

Matthew92, Do you want the best answer to your question? And, it is one that didn't originate in my mind, no sir, no way.

We have to do much more than understand or forgive--we have to love.

I'm still trying to figure out what we're talking about here - forgive or just understand what?

Originally Posted by Blood

I'm still trying to figure out what we're talking about here - forgive or just understand what?

Nothing in particular. Anything and everything people do that we consider wrong.

It is possible to understand and forgive; in fact one is necessary for the other. To be forgiven, someone must be understood. I do believe that someone might be understood at least factually without being forgiven.

I do believe that someone might be understood at least factually without being forgiven.

How do you feel about what the OP's question was getting at: Which should be done, understanding and forgiving, or just understanding?

I'm not sure it's necessary to understand to forgive. It certainly makes it easier, but it's not essential. I don't understand why a lot of people do some awful things, but I can appreciate that they feel there's a need for their actions. I can forgive despite being unable to understand it; them being in a position I cannot fathom, and having to deal with it in ways that I couldn't consider.

Originally Posted by KrisMunro

It's the need to fit into society that grants the convenient excuse of locking people away for murder, drugs, rape, stealing, etc. Without this need, people would coexist in a way that had no need for laws; much like animals do. It's not a fault of society that causes this.. but the conflict between our 'animal selves' and our need to be included in society (perhaps even the lack of ability to escape it). Is it fair that we need to restrain our instinctive responses or suffer punishment? Is it fair that some have stronger 'animal instincts' and suffer more because of it? You may as well ask if it's fair for more people to be born into this world where they are certain to feel oppression in some form or another.

Each person makes a choice each day as to what he's (or she's) going to do. Whether it's wake up and go to work, or write, or scam the government for cash, or rob someone, or anything else. I'd suggest that we need to organise our countries, states, cities, etc into areas of like minded people. If you steal, then you are moved into a state where everyone shares their materials. If you're caught beating on someone, you are moved to an area with others who like to fight. Granted, there are more serious crimes that would present problems for all areas, but those people can be dealt with by like minded people (in their own cities).



At the least, the divisional societies concept could make a nice story.

We have been close to having something like this already (with our sink-estates). Councils would build or buy huge areas of housing and the worst areas would house the ex-convicts, addicts, Jerry Springer people, etc, sprinkled with unfortunates who had fallen on bad times, or weren't up to getting good times.

I think recently there's more effort to spread all these people around, rather than make them all next-door-neighbours, because of all the trouble. These sink-estate people cause the police less trouble when housed next to people with mortgages and jobs.

btw, I know there's plenty of people in sink-estates who work and who are decent people, I'm just polarizing things to help me explain.

Also, yes. It has made a good story (Escape from New York to name one.)

Originally Posted by spider8

Also, yes. It has made a good story (Escape from New York to name one.)

Actually, that was based on a true story, it's called Detroit.