Can somebody blame the "5" for being the result of a "3+2=" equation?
The "5" can only be a "5" because the "3" and the "2" were added together to produce it. The "5" is ...blameless.
Our opinions (and by extension our actions) are exactly like that: They are just a "5" arising out of math equations like the "3+2".
Disassembling opinions
Our opinions are produced by adding all the data that we have, processed by all the intellectual tools that we know, and then filtered through our cognitive biases to produce the end result (our conclusion / opinion). It's a mathematical, or algorithmic process - depending the viewpoint.
Just as the process applies to us, other individuals will add their data, use their intellectual tools, and filter this through their cognitive biases to produce another result, which will be their opinion.
Any attempt to try to say to another that our "5" is better than their "7" is futile - because for them, their "7" has a solid backing by something like a "3+4=7". How can others deny their conclusions, unless they have doubts on their own data or their way of processing their data (in which case they may be open-minded for alternative results) ?
Thus the best way to convey our opinion is to disassemble it to its constituent parts.
Once this is done, what we want to do is to share an assembly kit where the other party can take our "3" and "2" (in this analogy, these are our data, and the way we tried to analyse this data) to replicate a "5", while also pinpointing where possible cognitive biases exist that would prevent that from happening.
After doing so, the other party has far better chances of "assembling" a "5" as a result, and maybe seeing things from our perspective and getting convinced in the process.
Once one understands the mathematic and algorithmic substrate from which all opinions are generated, they will never again fault an opinion. They will only try to find the causes on why another individual reached such a conclusion. What are their data? What are their ways of processing their data? What are their cognitive filters/biases? These questions are far more important to understand than the end result.
Disassembling behaviors
Given that thought-conclusions can be the basis of consequent acts-behaviors, the elements that are used to arrive to our conclusions, not only hold the key to understanding how to properly discuss an issue, but also the key to understanding the behaviors of ourselves and others. This understanding can then allow for an expanded concept of compassion and forgiveness.
This definition of forgiveness is something like this: A "5" has never done something wrong. It can only be a "5" as a result of a "3+2". In other words, the end result from an individual who processed his data and opted for a certain action, was a mathematic / algorithmic inevitability from the moment the "3+2" were in place.
In knowing this, there is no reason to blame, or "forgive" someone for wrongdoing - as the result has always been "correct" in the context of the "input" of a certain equation. The "5" (opinion, or action arising out of an opinion) has always been correct in the context of a 3+2 background that the individual has.
It may sound naive in a world with all the "evil" that exists, that one can forgive anything based on mathematic or algorithmic inevitability... yet I will ask again: Can somebody blame the "5" for being the result of a "3+2=" equation?
This is no different.
The God-perspective
The above perspective, is really the God-perspective on human affairs. If you know precisely the conditions, data, intellectual tools, emotions and cognitive biases of a specific human being, you pretty much know, with deterministic precision, how their thought and actions will go.
An all-understanding God cannot be anything but an all-forgiving God - in the sense that he sees nothing to forgive - there is no wrongdoing involved: Everything is a result of a prior procedure which set the result into motion - into an ever ending chain of events extending from the past to the future. A gear pushing a gear. A mathematical equation feeding another mathematical equation. An algorithm feeding another algorithm.
What is there to "judge"? What is there to "punish"? The gear moving because it was directed by another gear? The result of an equation that had to process certain inputs? An algorithm that produced a certain action based on its inputs?
A God that would punish a gear for moving in response to another gear, or a 5 for being the output of a 3+2, would be an idiotic God: In the eyes of an all-knowing God there can only be infinite understanding and nothing less. And even we, as "mere humans", can approximate it.