What would happen if no-one every forgave?

Should we forgive everything, any crime for example?

Should the second question be compulsory for any religion?

What would be the implications of complete forgiveness, to release all prisoners for example? Includes Sadam?

to forgive….

1. stop being angry about something: to stop being angry about or resenting somebody or somebody’s behavior
2. pardon: to excuse somebody for a mistake, misunderstanding, wrongdoing, or an inappropriateness
3. cancel obligation: to cancel an obligation, such as a debt

[Old English forgiefan , literally ‘to abstain from giving’. The underlying idea is of giving up resentment or a claim.]

resentment….

[Early 17th century. From obsolete French ressentiment ‘strong feeling’, from ressentir (see resent).]

resent…

[Late 16th century. From obsolete French ressentir , literally ‘to feel strongly’, from sentir ‘to feel’, from Latin sentire ‘to feel’.]

feel…

[Old English fēlan . Ultimately from an Indo-European base that is also the ancestor of English palpable.]

palpable….

[14th century. From late Latin palpabilis , from Latin palpare ‘to touch gently, palpate’.]

palpate …

[15th century. From Latin palpatus , from palpare ‘to touch gently’.]

touch…..

[13th century. Via Old French to(u)chier from assumed Vulgar Latin toccare ‘to strike’, originally ‘to make a sound by striking’ (the probable source of English toccata), perhaps of imitative origin.]

strike….

[Old English strīcan . Ultimately from a prehistoric Germanic base meaning ‘to touch lightly’, which is also the ancestor of English stroke and streak.]

stroke…

[Old English strācian . Ultimately from an Indo-European base meaning ‘to rub, press’, which is also the ancestor of English strike, streak, and stringent.]

press…

The Latin word pressare , from which press is derived, is also the source of English compress, depress, express, impress, oppress, repress, and suppress.

oppress..

[14th century. From French oppresser , from Latin oppress- , the past participle stem of opprimere , literally ‘to press against’, from premere ‘to press’.]


oppress..

1. dominate harshly: to subject a person or a people to a harsh or cruel form of domination
2. inflict stress on: to be a source of worry, stress, or trouble to somebody
3. suppress: to hold something in check or put an end to it (archaic)



and so from forgiveness shall bring forth oppression….

greg..

For those who cannot forgive they will commit themselves to bondage.

I'll give one example. Lindsays identification with the idea to agree to disagree.
One takes a position but does not change from that position but simply allows itself to remain in that position while other positions exist outside of the chosen position.

If the wind was not able to move the air in one place would become stagnant and the interaction of the wind in and out of each experience would remain forever separate.

The human soul is not bound to the clothes it wears and so does not sit in one place other than by choice to identifiy with its set of clothes, to agree to be that set of clothes and never wear another mans clothes.

This goes against the notion of love thy brother as you would love yourself, by disagreeing with what your brother represents.

In the world of choice and from the identiy of the ego the mind is locked into the belief that the intertwining of experience is only a concept within the physical limits of the boundaries created by human bodies.
Comparisons are made and union of individual perception is allowed according to preference and prejudice.

Consciousness however is not limited to these beliefs nor is it restricted to any physical boundaries.

To forgive is to give up ownership to ones position (Rise above the ego) and to surrender it to consciousness and to unite with another, heart mind body and soul. To realize Love without physical boundaries and conditions of mortal identifications that are created by the ego.

Any position is the position of the ego and it is illusion only, it is not static, it is transient and isn't something that needs forgiveness if it has no power or place in the boundaryless absolute consciousness.

Everyone knows from their own experience that any idea or belief changes so when on takes a stand in a belief or an experience it will change into something else and so they only grasp onto the winds of change.
The reality of making a stand or taking a position of thought, and measuring it against another belief is the activity of the unconscious mind, or ignorant mind. The mind that strays from truth into illusions of the ego.

There is only One truth and that truth never changes and that is Consciousness or the absolute. It is all and nothing at all.

There is only One.

I suggest that a person who has done harm should not be forgiven unless he sincerely asks for forgiveness.

How can we gauge sincerity? Here in the UK the issue of paroled prisoners re-offending hits the headline again and again.

What would happen if no-one ever forgave?
I think humans would adapt, and the lack of forgiveness would become a part of our culture. I think everyone would become more independant as well. A lack of forgiveness often seems to impede communication. Overall, I think it would have a strong negative effect, but I don't think it would spontaneously bring about the end of the world if that's what you're asking. Just a hypothesis.

Should we forgive everything, any crime for example?
Well, I don't know about society as a whole, but here's my philosophy:
By refusing forgiveness, I am hurting myself as well as the person I refuse to forgive. Whenever possible, I will chose to forgive but I will never forget. I believe it's important to learn from experience.

Should the second question be compulsory for any religion?
Lindsay, are you out there? I want to hear what you have to say about this.

What would be the implications of complete forgiveness, to release all prisoners for example? Includes Sadam?
To me, forgiveness is a mindset. Utter forgiveness allows all courses of action to be equally (and logically) considered. A lack of forgiveness inhibits us from taking certain courses of action. (e.g. the release of prisoners) Basically, I wouldn't expect emotions regarding a past transgression to take part in Person B's decisions regarding Person A if Person B has forgiven Person A. Yes, I know that sounds like the definition, but here's my point: just because we've forgiven someone doesn't mean we're forced to make decisions without evaluating the logic.

So no, we wouldn't necessarily have to release all prisoners. But we may choose to release them if it would somehow benefit a large proportion of society. (No matter how unethical the origional crime was)

That's a big problem. Many criminals are accomplished con artists. However, the burden of proof is on the one who commits the harm, so if the victim is uncertain, the perp can wait until Hell thaws out for his "forgiveness."

What would be the implications of complete forgiveness, to release all prisoners for example? Includes Sadam?

Why would you have to release them from prison? If there is a law requiring mandatory imprisonment for any convicted murderer, they should be forgiven for their crime, but they should also still be punished. Just because you forgive someone does not mean that they should not face consequences...

Here's another question: If a person serves out a prison sentence, should they be forgiven?

I vote no because I believe in the seperation of morality and the law. What about you guys?

Then the person has nothing to look forward to other than ridicule and may continue to deal with their own frustration about the unfair reality of the world and commit another crime.

Do you think that lack of forgiveness creates more tension amongst humans who are looking for love and drives them to acts of desperation in order to get attention.

They say negelected children do this, how about adults? Are they continuing the psychosis that developed from their childhood when they meet insensitive adults who treat them like their parents?

What about the world exactly is unfair?

Oops, that sounds really bad. I actually meant that they should not be forgiven just because they served a sentence.

Porque?

My last statement sounded like I thought we should never forgive people who have committed crimes. That's certainly not what I meant.

Why should we forgive them? (I agree with you btw, I just want to know your justification)

Why should we forgive criminals? Well, if we do not forgive, we are strongly influenced by our emotions. This can inhibit our logical analysis of the situation. This effectivly limits us and hurts everyone involved (ouselves included).


I believe experience is "stored" as knowledge. That which we pass on is collective knowledge/experience. That which we keep to ourselves is individual knowledge/experience.

By that statement, I mean that all experience is knowledge (if we reflect on it), but all knowledge is not experience.

Great questions! I agree that understanding must be derived from experience. I guess understanding would be relating (analyzing and comparing) some concept with the sum of all of the experiences of an individual. Since each individual has their own perception of any given event, I think it is safe to assume that no two individuals could possibly have the same understanding of anything. how can anything be fully forgiven if it is not understood? It seems like to fully understand something you must first understand yourself; your experiences and perception (have a strong ego). I would have to agree with you, forgiveness is understanding oneself...

There are no victims, We choose our parents and we choose the environment. The road is layed out from beginning to end by our choice and when we get to the road we make more choices. Every thought feeling and action is chosen.

I didn't know I chose to be born into this world! I wasn't really capable of making an informed decisions when I was born...If I only knew...Who knows what the world would be like~

I think it was kinda my parents choice that I was born, no?

But I do agree that there are no victims...

Knowing Truth is not something that comes to you, in waiting while you entertain yourself with illusions of ignorance.

A knee jerk reaction would be your subconscious making your decisions for you, no? In this case, your collective consciousness is still making the decision~Your body is just reacting asap to preserve itself.

My question to the J-man: if everything is determined by our choice, how do you explain events in the past prior to the existance of man? If you truely do control everything through choice, it would be interesting to do a little experiment--try taking a few blots of acid, and function normaly. I know I have tried such things, and for the most part I am able to controll myself fine, but some substances for me are simply impossible to control.

Conditioned response to something familiar.

There is a story about the arrival of european ships to the shores of a small island where the indigenous peoples had never seen such things. The native shaman was the first to spot the ships, but when the ships fired their cannon the natives didn't hear the sound because it was not within their range of experience.

The absolute tho within all manifest reality is not something the mind tends to pay attention to because the attention is taken outward on the senses into illusions based on identification with past experiences and the belief in fear and separation.

Perception of reality is based on the choices one makes in awareness of reality according to experience and belief

But this does not mean the awareness cannot be redirected back to its source.

What is experienced may be judged as separate from the intentions and desires of the experiencer.

What someone reacts to when it falls within the realm if the unfamiliar is still due to past impressions. Most knee jerk reactions are based on the memory of a previous reaction, which is built into the nervous system prior to birth and supported as the mind continues it's journey within the realms of internal programs supported by the natural laws of the physical reality, chosen prior to birth.
The unrecognized reaction is preprogrammed through choices made prior to the experience.

After the experience one still having the ability to make choices follows the direction if illusion or truth to the source of the experience.

A knee jerk is not a conditioned response, it is an involuntary reflex. We should not use figuratives or confusion will inevitably arise. After all, this is Brainmeta!

I agree, emotions are key in our judgements. In fact, emotions affect almost every aspect of our lives. They can even alter our biology (to some degree).

More often than not, I see emotions as a limiting factor for logical reasoning in the same way our biology is a limiting factor (e.g. the eye's resolution). Emotions tend to distort the information we need to use to make judgements. It may make trivial matters more intense, and it may downplay important ones. As they say, we see though a lens of perception.

Of course, emotions do have a few advantages as well. They allow us to make very important decisions very quickly. If a lion jumped out of a closet at you, you wouldn't want to stop and logically determine a course of action.

Do you believe emotions are important for judgement?

As for the knee jerk reaction...that's nothing. Try shocking yourself with a high frequency, electrical probe! (WARNING: do not try at home)