| || |
I think America was right for declaring war on Germany and Japan and for waging WWII.
The Nazis rounded up and exterminated millions of Jews.
I think we were right for not walking away from that one.
That's just one example...
We should probably walk away from more, but not all.
During one trial, the crowd chanted (reminiscent of the chants during the RNC) "crucify him, crucify him"...........Christ did not resist being forced to wear a crown of thorns and dragging the cross he would be nailed to through the streets and when nailed to the cross and speared in the gut by a soldier, he didn't call in an airstrike by God, he asked God to forgive those who crucified him.
All are in line with what he taught in the book of Matthew Chapter V (perhaps the most forgotten, ignored chapter of all the books of the Bible (while some obsess about abortion and homosexuality))
My interpretation of the often repeated statement that "Christ died for our sins", is that indeed, Christ did die as a result of human sins (they crucified him). That "he died for our sins" seems like some excuse to not follow his teachings because no matter what anyone does, they will be forgiven. Whether someone believes he was a demigod, a god, just related to a god or simply a human being that became legend in the eyes of many because of his way and his teachings and they saw the benefits of them, when people actually lived according to them, there are a lot of values shared across many cultures, religions and secular values. The key to it all seems to be societies of humans that actually try to live according to human values, shared across the board.
My belief about vengeance and revenge is that they only perpetuate evil, by doing the evil one has done to others, in return.
There is of course, an instinctual human survival reaction and response when under attack in the form of fending off the attack, yet there is no requirement to kill as part of fending off an attack, only to stop the attack. In that process, sometimes people get killed as a result, but Christ/God (and others, religious and secular) indicate that killing is wrong, yet some have taken it on as a policy even to the point of pre-emptive (premeditated) action, believed to be a "preventive" action in the name of zeroing out risk. The only problem is that it is a presumptive "response" that someone is going to do something before they actually do it. There was a book and a movie that delved into the pitfalls of pre-emptive "defense" especially where it involves force, more specifically, deadly force.
There was an interesting story the other day I about what I believe was an ex-marine who became a police officer and was trained differently (his Marine training) than police officers in recognizing and diffusive potentially volatile and deadly situation. He diffused a situation where someone had a gun and brought it to a safe conclusion, but was reprimanded for putting people at risk. While I totally recognize the need for law enforcement to be and remain safe in doing their jobs, I can't remember a period of time in my life when it seems the policy of law enforcement departments is to shoot first, not just to wound and disable, but to kill and ask questions later. The problem I see with this is that it tends to serve as a judge, jury and executioner at the same time and presents an irretrievable situation in the loss of life of people that may never have caused harm to anyone. I would like to think that there is absolutely no justification to consciously take another life. I'm not talking about trading the safety of law enforcement for killers, but about how anyone knows someone is a killer, until they kill and why potential threats need to be riddled with holes, not disarmed in their potential attack, by some other means that does not take their lives. Do all potential threats really need to be shot dead? To me, there seems to be a disturbing trend of law enforcement killing, instead of disarming or disabling a potential attack and and equally or more disturbing trend, that some are feeling that because in some situations, it appears law enforcement is given an inequitable accountability when it comes to killing and they fear that this, connected to personal prejudices and a certain freedom from the same level of accountability a non-law enforcement citizen would face for the same, heightens their level of fear of being killed without cause. Some appear to have sought revenge on law enforcement, others appear to be arming themselves in the event that are profiled and stopped and this only heightens the tension and chances that they actually will be shot because the presence of their weapon (intended to be a tool of defense against profiling and being shot by prejudiced law enforcement) makes them appear as a threat. Some people fear that unless they have a weapon, they will be shot without a means to defend themselves, but their weapon, at the same time, makes them appear to be a threat.
It is a real issue for those who feel caught between the fear of being defenseless and being shot by law enforcement and carrying a weapon to defend themselves against the chances they could be shot by law enforcement and each incident and subsequent investigation and the appearance of the benefit of the doubt being given to law enforcement only heightens the level of fear and tension for both law enforcement and citizens that feel they are profiled by those who are bad cops.
In line with this thread and your thoughts, it seems we need to seriously work on ways to diffuse and calm because things appear to have been escalating. Thoughts of vengeance and retribution always seems to contribute to escalation, not peace.......
My concerns are the same as yours in that there seems to be an attitude of people thinking they need to somehow prove they are "tough", physically and by action and in some ways feel a need to "act out" to demonstrate how "tough" they are and they do so when and where it is not necessary or by doing so against innocent people. In my experience, the truly tough people do not need to prove anything, they just ARE tough, when there is a real need to be so and they don't do it for show, to receive praise, thanks or notoriety. Today it seems the opposite amongst too many. Perhaps it comes from some feeling of inadequacy or low self esteem.... I don't know. I do agree with you that restraint often or mostly, takes even more strength than letting our tempers get the best of us. Restraint is truly hard to maintain at all times and I do not always check myself on boards like these. It is always very tempting to do unto others as they have done unto us, rather then do unto others as we want them to do to us.
Peace to you.....MA
In short, if those that believe in the teachings of Christ (or of anything, secular or religious) do not live according to their beliefs, who will? Granted, living up to our own standards may be the biggest challenge any human faces, but it would seem blatant and constantly "justified" or "excused" reasons to not adhere to one's own beliefs only seems to foment hypocrisy and in many ways seems to make a mockery of the beliefs anyone claims they believe in, but mostly ignore. It perhaps may be better to not make claims to follow the teachings of Christ or any God, spiritual or secular leader, than to claim to do what one does not do or even defies. Repentance and forgiveness seem to be all about not giving up and second chances and less about a license to not learn from mistakes and repeat the same frailties or sins over and over again without remorse and essentially taking advantage of some notion that one will always be forgiven so there is no incentive to be stop "sinning" or defying what one claims to believe in. It then seems to become a tool of deception to claim to be a believer in what one does not truly believe in, ignores and defies or makes a mockery of.
For a long time there has been a respectful association or reverence that came along with a spiritual belief, in that most religions seem to be based in observances and recommendations for peaceful and cooperative human existence and perhaps the notion that "religious" people were somehow at least trying to do good, for all those in the past that forced others to that belief instead of allowing them to come to it of their own accord because they saw something attractive in it.
Some or a lot of that respectful association has been or is being lost because of those who claim to be followers of religions/teachings/philosophies they ignore and defy when it comes to living by them.
Last edited by KnotaFrayed; 12th December 2016 at 06:32 PM.
I do like seeking peace though but you live in a free country whose freedom was paid for in blood.
As a free person, can you articulate what your first duty to others is if you were to live by the golden rule of doing unto others?
The way I see me living by that rule, and my first duty to my fellow man, is to insure by whatever means possible that all share in the freedoms that I enjoy.
If that is not your first duty as a free person then what is?
As Ingersoll said; 'no man would be fit for heaven who would consent that an innocent person should suffer for his sin.'
Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.
Do you agree?
I have been very hypocritical at times but I am trying to improve. Its not an overnight process.
If I were able to live by Christ's teachings he wouldn't have had to die for me on the cross.