love your enemy

[sun rise]

Killing in and of itself is wrong no matter how its justified.

Letting him go or being preasured to kill him doesnt excuse that what I am doing is wrong. My protecting myself doesnt justify it as good just a necessity if the situation calls for it.

So we'd both do the same thing which I would label positively especially if done from a motivation of love and you'd label it negatively.

 

[Fool]

yes and misoginistic views are called the word of the lord, so don't think you're special when put under your lens. this is just the ancient art of cherry picking, you just pick different cherries.

paul was the spokesperson for the misogynistic statements. jesus had a retinue of female disciples. paul didn't.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

yes and misoginistic views are called the word of the lord, so don't think you're special when put under your lens. this is just the ancient art of cherry picking, you just pick different cherries.

"And there followed him a great company of people, and of women..."Luke 23:27 kjv Now I suppose there are a number of ways to interpret this, but, it might say that women are not people. In my experience they do seem to be an alien race.

 

[Revoltingest]

Killing in and of itself is wrong no matter how its justified.

Letting him go or being preasured to kill him doesnt excuse that what I am doing is wrong. My protecting myself doesnt justify it as good just a necessity if the situation calls for it.

This is a functional value system in a peaceful society.
But it is selected against (evolutionary sense) in more violently competitive settings,
where it has a low chance of survival. It can work in a special scenario wherein
relentlessly peaceful people are protected by others, eg, the Amish in Americastan.
This raises a question....
Is it right for those who benefit to criticize those who would defend them as immoral?

 

[Fool]

Why not destroy the enemy?

to convert an enemy into a friend generally implies you'll convert not only the new found friend but his family and friends too.


“Thousands of candles can be lighted from a single candle, and the life of the single candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared.”

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If we do not believe in a "God" who is responsible for death, we tend to simply accept that it is the natural order of things for life forms to die -and we do not blame nature -or we are less angry at nature than we would be at a God -because nature is not perceived to have made any decisions. What good would it do to complain?

This is what I believe. We are all in a cycle from life to life. Im mostly talking about the christian god. I dont know how the Quran, Torah (as Im told it is different than christian bible), pagan god/s etc.

It does not make sense that god created life but has the right to kill it. Thats like saying my mother has the right to kill be because whe bore me.

Life is to sacred to be taken outside the natural order. If the natural order is god, I understand. Nature doesnt make decisions. So, the decisions of the christian god is unjustified.

Life is sacred on its own accord.

If I were the creator I would not feel its right to kill humanity I created. That defeats the purpose of the sacredness of life and natural death if one chooses to kill for his own needs.

I dont agree with "god causes people to fall asleep". In scripture it does say sinners are punished. We cant sugar coat death.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

killing is not necessary. not speaking of an eye for an eye but a vicious animal must be controlled. as a reminder, it is written, he who lives by the sword shall die by it.

for every action there is an opposite but equal reaction and that is karma

We dont create someone else's karma. He created his own karma by his actions. Others should have nothing to do with it outside of necessity. Even necessity: protection and self protection- are sticky in itself.

Its still wrong nonetheless

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So we'd both do the same thing which I would label positively especially if done from a motivation of love and you'd label it negatively.

Yes. Its against my morals. It will always be negative.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This is a functional value system in a peaceful society.
But it is selected against (evolutionary sense) in more violently competitive settings,
where it has a low chance of survival. It can work in a special scenario wherein
relentlessly peaceful people are protected by others, eg, the Amish in Americastan.
This raises a question....
Is it right for those who benefit to criticize those who would defend them as immoral?

Can you rephrase and make this paragraph format please?

 

[Fool]

We dont create someone else's karma. He created his own karma by his actions. Others should have nothing to do with it outside of necessity. Even necessity: protection and self protection- are sticky in itself.

Its still wrong nonetheless

i don't disagree that the person created his action. but energy cannot be created/destroyed. it is simply transformed. 1st law of thermodynamics


and i'm definitely not condoning the idea of killing something as fun, nor restraining it as fun.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

i don't disagree that the person created his action. but energy cannot be created/destroyed. it is simply transformed. 1st law of thermodynamics


and i'm definitely not condoning the idea of killing something as fun, nor restraining it as fun.

I dont see how energy transforming relates to my post

 

[Fool]

I dont see how energy transforming relates to my post

you are defending your position in these posts. that is a form of energy. you're claiming that defense of self is wrong. so why defend here and not elsewhere too? the energy being focused on self is not wanted, then redirection of that focus is not an issue. i'm saying that defense is permissible if the energy, in this case hatred, is not wanted.

flip side of the coin, love is energy. if the focus is on love and self is agreeable, then the energy is incorporated and the two become ONE. friendship, love, is two bodies being of one mind. mencius.


for every action, whether it is love, or hatred, there is an opposite but equal reaction.

you reap what you sow, love begets love, hatred begets hatred.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can you rephrase and make this paragraph format please?

Hmmm...I'm not sure how to be clearer, but here it goes.....

To not defend oneself is a deadly choice when people are bent on attacking one.
It only works when other people take up defending one.
Is it wrong for them to use violence in defense, when one survives because of it?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

you are defending your position in these posts. that is a form of energy. you're claiming that defense of self is wrong. so why defend here and not elsewhere too? the energy being focused on self is not wanted, then redirection of that focus is not an issue. i'm saying that defense is permissible if the energy, in this case hatred, is not wanted.

flip side of the coin, love is energy. if the focus is on love and self is agreeable, then the energy is incorporated and the two become ONE. friendship, love, is two bodies being of one mind. mencius.

Im saying killing is wrong and it is not justifyable. If I kil, I am in the wrong. If it is to protect myself, that does not change it is wrong it just means I am protecting myself (or others) from harm. If I had a choice, I would not do so.

Also.

I dont understand. Im not defending my point (aka trying to justify A is right and B is wrong). I just dont get how murder can be right in any situation.

I am focusing on morals about the actions not the reasons behind them.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hmmm...I'm not sure how to be clearer, but here it goes.....

To not defend oneself is a deadly choice when people are bent on attacking one. It only works when other people take up defending one. Is it wrong for them to use violence in defense, when one survives because of it?

It is wrong "and" that does not mean one shouldnt defend oneself. If I had a choice, I would not. If I dont, I wouldnt be thinking "well, I think its wrong. Bad guy, can you stop pointing the knife at me".

Id be upset about it and Id be safe.

 

[Fool]

Im saying killing is wrong and it is not justifyable. If I kil, I am in the wrong. If it is to protect myself, that does not change it is wrong it just means I am protecting myself (or others) from harm. If I had a choice, I would not do so.

Also.

I dont understand. Im not defending my point (aka trying to justify A is right and B is wrong). I just dont get how murder can be right in any situation.

I am focusing on morals about the actions not the reasons behind them.

murder is premeditated. defense isn't.

it isn't murder; unless it was premeditation.
manslaughter isn't premeditation. it is the negligent behavior, or indifference, by the criminal that causes the death of the victim.


if you are driving down a road and a drunken driver kills you, that is manslaughter.
if you are driving down a road and someone intentionally singles you out because they know it's you and your car, that is murder.

now in either case, taking a defensive stance is not murder or manslaughter. it's allowable to defend oneself against an assailant; whether they do it intentional or negligently.

 

[rusra02]

well, in the end it was easy for him. I mean, he was the son of god, he knew first hand what was waiting for him after his own death.
i don't believe in afterlife, therefore it would be pointless for me to sacrifice my life for the life of an enemy for such reason. I can do that for the life of a friend eventually, but why an enemy?
I can understand in some situation "love your enemy" may come handy for me too, but if we're talking about a life or death situation where he put me in, than between me and him, i pick me every single time.

So, the difference lies in our hope for the future, or lack of hope. Since true Christians have absolute confidence in the hope of a resurrection, they do not morbidly fear death nor those who can cause it. (Matthew 10:28)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

murder is premeditated. defense isn't.

it isn't murder; unless it was premeditation.
manslaughter isn't premeditation. it is the negligent behavior, or indifference, by the criminal that causes the death of the victim.


if you are driving down a road and a drunken driver kills you, that is manslaughter.
if you are driving down a road and someone intentionally singles you out because they know it's you and your car, that is murder.

now in either case, taking a defensive stance is not murder or manslaughter. it's allowable to defend oneself against an assailant; whether they do it intentional or negligently.

Taking a life is wrong. I dont even like seeing animals do it. Regardless if its premeditated or not, a life has been taken. I believe that is wrong even if I have to go against my morals to keep myself safe at split second thinking.

 

[Fool]

Taking a life is wrong. I dont even like seeing animals do it. Regardless if its premeditated or not, a life has been taken. I believe that is wrong even if I have to go against my morals to keep myself safe at split second thinking.

so it's ok to be indifferent and watch a life be taken? even if it's murder, or negligent vs defensively?

I don't like life being taken callously either but being indifference to abuse and suffering of others at the hands of antagonist is loving and moral?

 

[truelight Mike]

You dont see the contradiction between god killing people and planning to judge people who dont believe in him?

Yes I completely understand what you're saying. But if God is love and he is good and our perspective Him contradicts that then our perspective is probably wrong.

Evil won't belong in heaven
Good won't belong in hell