Is Peace Ever the answer?

[Runa216]

I don't get it. Why is it that so many people resort to violence? the ultimate goal is peace and harmony between men, so why do so many people think that killing will acheive that goal?

I am a pacifist, I refuse to fight unless I'm being hammered beyond all belief, and I think that's the way to do things. Killing people because they disagree with you is not a good reason. Invading a country because they have a different beleif structure than you is foolish, and fighting over something so trivial as a disagreement is pointless.

Why can't we all sit back, relax, and have a civil debate? I mean, I know it's in the human condition to act irrationally towards a new situation, but I thought we would be past that. We're all intelligent human beings, is it really so hard to have a debate on War, Politics, Philosophy, religion, or what pizza we're getting without fighting?

There's always a peaceful solution, there's always a middle ground that will make everyone happy...unfortunately, that means that someone would have to sacrifice something dear to them, power. Power breeds more power, and a power struggle ensues.

you see, I have very extreme beliefs. I'm very tight wound around what I believe, but I do not try to tell others they are wrong for disagreeing with me, they are only wrong when violence is introduced. I can get along with someone with opposite beliefs to me, so long as he or she is not violent or hateful to me.

Does anyone have anything to add? There's so much to discuss concerning the human condition, and the importance of war and conflict in our society, and conflict resolution. I had more to say, but I'm very busy for now, so I'd like some others to respond or add coments before I respond again.

Thank you.

Runa

[Paul]

Runa216: > ["Why is it that so many people resort to violence?"]

The reason people resort to violence is that they refuse to believe and do Jesus commandments.

"You shall love the lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." - (Matt.:22:37-40).

"A new commandment I give unto you, That you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:34-35).

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say unto you, "Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you. - ( Matt.5:43-48 )

" He who says, 'I know Jesus', and does not keep His commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in Him." - (1 John 2:4-6 )

Pres. GW. Bush has said, "Freedom will bring about Peace; Freedom leads to Peace; Freedom is the basis for Peace". But the 'Man of Peace' says "Love will bring about Peace; Love leads to Peace; Love is the basis for Peace".

Why do people believe what Pres. GW. Bush said, but not what the 'Man of Peace' says?

Peace be with you, Paul

[The Dunedan]

Jesus was, however, no pacifist. He commanded his Disciples that "He who hath no sword, let him sell his cloak and buy one," thereby acknowledging the need for ( and righteousness of ) armed violence in legitimate self-defense. He said only that "They who will live by the sword shall perish by it," not that living ( or dying ) by the sword was an inherently bad thing. If it was, the Brothers Maccabees got royally screwed. Jesus also did not rebuke the Disciple(s?) who had brought weapons to Gethsemane; he rebuked their unprovoked violence against a non-combatant, but not their prior posession of weapons.

[Apologist]

Ok, I like where you were going Dunedan. Answer me something. If you walked into a dark alley and found a women getting mugged and you pulled out a gun (you are a licensed gun owner) and yelled at the guy. As soon as he saw you he grabed the women, put her in front of himself, and put a gun to her head. Lets say you were a great shot, and you knew you could kill this man. The man also says that he is going to kill her whether you walk away or not. I'm a little fusy on this issue because I think there is alot to take into consideration. It would seem from a Biblical standpoint never to take action against the man. But what if the women was pregnant, or a mother of 4 with no husband? Or what if it was your own wife? I think this situation can become very grey. I would like to know what you all would do given this scenario. Fell free to add whatever you like, but pull Biblical scipture to back your statements.

[The Dunedan]

Well, I havn't got my Bible in front of me at the moment, so I hope you'll forgive some more generalized citation.

Assuming that I have enough confidence in my weapon and my own skill to kill the attacker without harming the woman or any innocent bystanders, I would take the shot. The scriptural justification for this, IMO, is found in;
1: Jesus' endorsement of self-defense, ( the need for a sword )
1a: Jesus' command to assist those in need.

If Jesus allows self-defense, and expects us to tend the needs of those who are in trouble, why would he not expect us to defend the defenseless against their aggressors? We are commanded to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and care for the poor; why not defend the defenseless?

2: Jesus' own intervention to save an alleged adulteress from stoning. Jesus was, being the Son of God, able to stop her from being killed without resorting to violent means. However, His own intervention was ( as was everything else He did ) intended to serve as an example to us. Clearly, we are meant to intervene wherever possible to stop the unjustifiable ( pre-emptive, excessive, or brutal ) violence against others. Since violence under very tightly controlled and clearly delineated circumstances ( such as self-defense ) is allowed ( Jesus clearing the temple by force ), it could be argued that the justifiably violent prevention of unjustifiable violence ( shooting the mugger ) would also be allowed.

[Apologist]

Should Stephen in Acts received a defense?

[Gorgo]

War is different than one on one conflict, although I think that we can learn more about alternatives to violence in one on one conflict. War is different. War is a large group of people attacking another large group of people.

When I joined the War Resister's League, all I had to do was agree with the statement that war is a crime against humanity. I don't know everything about every war and don't know everything about any war, but I haven't found a war that isn't a crime against humanity.

[Runa216]

I hate it when people take the word of god and jesus as the one and only absolute truth to a problem. Sure, following the guidance of the messiah is a great way to guide your life and it offers hope, but I'm talking about the real world here. Who here has witnessed a fight over something trivial? who would agree that if both parties were civil, they could have resolved the conflict without violence?

"He who strikes first is the one to admit that their beliefs have given out"

a good quote, I agree with it, though sometimes you can be debating someone and they completely ignore all the points you make, meanwhile they call you ignorant.

not to mention that even if you do involve a bible as the ultimate form of guidance, it's up for interpretation. look at all the denominations of the roman catholic church?

but once again, when it all comes down to it, we as a race have evolved past the need for weapons, there's always another way, and the smart ones (not the politicians) understand this. I would never strike someone unless they struck me first, and even then, I would restrain, not harm them (I'm very good at that.)

Runa

[MerlinsByte]

Runa...I would never strike someone unless they struck me first, and even then, I would restrain, not harm them (I'm very good at that.) .

Merlin...This pacifist attitude may work ,or may not work, in a one to one confrontation. In a nuclear age the preemptive strike will be the (nearly last) one. Love of your fellow man is the answer. Easy to say difficult to follow. And has been out there for over 2000 years. It must take us a very long time to learn a very simple lesson! Man is devolving if anything as is the rest of the universe. Order into disorder, science says, (as well as some religious doctrine) not the other way round .(The second law of thermodynamics )

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...namicLaws.html

mb

ps ... I don't bring a knife to a gunfight....

[Pooeypants]

Your evocation of the 2nd law of thermodynamic is moot, especially when concerned in a biological system where there is external energy input. Carry on though.

[Paul]

Runa216: > ["Why is it that so many people resort to violence?"]

So many people resort to violence, because the self is the most important creature in the universe [ the god syndrome ]. It is this god syndrome , the self wanting to be the king of the castle at any cost, even to the cost of total self-destruction is why so many people resort to violence. The kings of this world have been deceived to think that the good can defeat the evil by surrendering to the rules of the evil one. You may not believe me that non-violence [ not even the threat of violence ] against violence does win, but not without cost. Do some research on the history of non-violent actions for change.

Peace be with you, Paul

[Gorgo]

Quote by: Paul the most important creature in the universe

It seems to me that the problem is not that they think that they are the most important, but that they think they have no worth, so attempt to build themselves up by seeming strong and important.

[Doug]

If an atheist may add a comment: there are many conflicts among humans, because resources are scarce, and living creatures have in-built drives to survive and reproduce and thus want to acquire resources. All conflicts over resources are ultimately settled by force and violence, although, in the ideal world, that force and violence has been rationalized and reified into a 'state' or an inter-state system, and rules for access to resources laid out.

Pacifists only exist in countries with strong states (militaries and police forces) that can defend the country from external predators and keep the internal predators under control.

Or, to put it another way, all armed prophets have conquered and all unarmed prophets have failed.

[Paul]

Gorgo: > ["that they think that they are the most important"] Thank you for that correction.

[' because ( they think/believe that) the self is the most important creature in the universe"]

Peace be with you, Paul

[MerlinsByte]

BY POOEYPANTS>>>Your evocation of the 2nd law of thermodynamic is moot, especially when concerned in a biological system where there is external energy input. Carry on though

.


Merlin ... Your opinion is noted pooey. However I disagree. Define your opinion as to a biological system being open or closed.

Define your position as to the universe as being an open or closed system.

Also you must define precisely your opinion on the energy type (in a biological system) There are many energy inputs to biological systems.

And please be brief as possible. If not for me, for the sake of the other members. I can answer the two above questions in one long or two short sentences.


mb

oh, and carry on pooey ; { >

[Wonderblob]

Most wars in this world are due to the self-righteousness of religious doctrines if not over natural resources. All you have to do is study history and it becomes abundantly clear that religion is not Gods way. Believing in any of the revealed religions is not what God had in mind for us. The bible and the koran are nonsense if you really study them with the natural wisdom that God gave you. It is only your wisdom that you develop through your natural reasoning instincts that God gave you by which he will reveal his purpose for you.

[Paul]

I found an essay 'The Dreadful Mystic Banquet' written by Aphonso Lingis. I coped a piece out of this essay that fits with the question asked. "Why is it that so many people resort to violence?"

[[[ "In the world of work and reason we acquire our individual identity from the future we project before ourselves and set out to realize.

When our ancestors descended from the trees and advanced into the savannah, they entered an environment where most of the plants are edible for seed eaters and for ruminants. The savannah teems with insects, rodents, large hoofed mammals. In the midst of such multitudes, there evolved predators that prey on them. When our ancestors advanced into the savannah, they too became prey, but they soon became predators.

The predator instincts that made them hunters as well as gatherers soon made them warriors. Humans have become predators on other humans. Our World Wars were fought among the most advanced nations of this century, and the forty years of thermonuclear arms race have brought to the forefront of our consciousness the realization that not only thermonuclear war but modern warfare is Mutual Armed Destruction--MAD. It was something we saw already in the American civil war, in the European Hundred Years War.

But now our ecological science is showing us that our omnivorous, predator practices have amounted to a war on the planet. Deforestation, monoculture, cattle rearing, fishing the rivers and the oceans, damming the rivers and irrigation, pesticides and genetic engineering are not only overextending the possibilities of food production; they are devastating the planet's biodiversity and polluting the top-soil, the water table, the oceans. For us to face our nature is to face the enemy each is for the other species.

Until now we refuse to recognize the end to which our kind is destined. We put it out of our minds, restrict our perspectives to the traditional times of our lifetime, our civilization, our species; we see our species still advancing to take over deserts, oceans, and glaciers. Or we think we will have mastered interplanetary, intergalactic migration in time. We do not personally incorporate the visions of astronomical and of ecological science. Although movies have projected visions of our planet after global warming has raised the level of the oceans over all the continents, of our planet after interplanetary and intergalactic wars and migrations, they continue to depict humans as a predatory, dominating species.

We do not have visions which show the compulsion of one to whom so much was given, to give in turn. We do not have rituals to free that giving of that return to self, that recuperation, which is self-satisfaction."]]]

==============================================================================================

"In the world of work and reason we acquire our individual identity from the future we project before ourselves and set out to realize"

We acquire our individual identity from the future we project. Are the kings of these world and their armies until the last king is left standing alone. The problem with this is that, the WMDs we have will insure that there be no last king is left standing. It's not only the WMDs may be releast one day, but the issues mentioned in the above. To hates our enemies will no longer work with the knowledges we have, because with the knowledges we have hates will manifesst it self into such violence that we would not what to see. You have heard that an once of pervention is the same as a pound of cure, but this case a pound wouldn't be enough. The 'Man of Peace' says, "Love will bring about Peace; Love leads to Peace; Love is the basis for Peace". Why doesn't Pres. GW Bush believe what the 'Man of Peace' says

Until now we refuse to recognize the end to which our kind is destined. - WHY?

Peace be with you, Paul

[Paul]

sI made some corrections here. Sometimes I get in hurry and scew up in my writing. I don''t mind being corrected when I scew up in my writing.

"In the world of work and reason we acquire our individual identity from the future we project before ourselves and set out to realize"

"In the world of work and reason we acquire our individual identity from the future we project before ourselves and set out to realize"
We acquire our individual identity from the future we project. Are the kings of this world and their armies going make war until the last king is left standing. The problem with this is that, the WMDs we have will insure that there be no last king left standing. It's not only the WMDs that may be releast one day, but also the issues mentioned in the above. To hates our enemies will no longer work with the knowledges we have now and in the future, because with the knowledges we have now, hates will manifesst it self intouch violence that we would not want to experience and see. You have heard that an once of pervention is the same as a pound of cure, but this case a pound wouldn't be enough. The 'Man of Peace' says, "Love will bring about Peace; Love leads to Peace; Love is the basis for Peace". Why doesn't Pres. GW Bush believe what the 'Man of Peace' says

Until now we refuse to recognize the end to which our kind is destined. - WHY?

Peace be with you, Paul

[Runa216]

"Love of your fellow man is the answer"

wow, merlin and I agree on something.

and for the actual title, in reality I should have put "will peace ever be the answer" because I was trying to get at the fact that in this world, few people will be peaceful. they all claim to want peace, but their methods are not peaceful. Nobody seems to be able to live their lives, let others live theirs, and actually try to work towards utopian society where weapons are not needed under any circumstances.

I want to make it clear that I am not a fan of the US government in any of it's decisions. I don't like the lack of healthcare, I don't like the gun laws, and I really don't appreciate how they thought blowing the hell out of a third world country was the way to make world peace. lemme think, bomb them down, threaten them, then tell them it's all for the better good? I don't think so.

I'm a pacifist, always will be. I'm angry, I have some sickening ideals and methods to fixing this world, but I will never want to enact them because I hate to see suffering and death. I know everyone has friends and family that they care for.

Runa

[Runa216]

what I was trying to say was that there are always alternatives to war. If, in the most severe cases, violence is 100% necessary, then don't overdo it. that's why I restrain. I have never struck someone in anger, but I have hurt people when they attack me. I hold em down, I make a fool of them, I warn them not to attack me again, and I walk away. if they do it again, I do it again, and if they attack me a third time, I'd put some whuppin on them. not to say I didn't warn em, I didn't want to fight, but it's obvious that they were 100% intending to fight me, and the only way to get them off my back was to fight back.

It's never gotten that far, usually after the fisrt humiliation they get angry and walk away.

Runa