Why do peace seems to scare some people?

[Spirit of Light]

Weapons are useful in some conflicts.
But I prefer peace with my enemies.

So says RF's only draft dodging weapon designer.

Personally I would not use weapons on living beings

 

[Revoltingest]

Personally I would not use weapons on living beings

That's why there are civil engineers.
They build targets.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you scared of dying for what you believe in?

To turn your question around: if death isn't to be feared, why be afraid of killing?

There are two Japanese idioms that speak to me on this issue:

- the killing sword is the life-giving sword: i.e. in the right situation, killing someone (e.g. an attacker) can prevent more death than not killing them.
- divine tactics do not kill: i.e. in a perfect world, there would be no killing

So... acknowledging that we do not live in a perfect world, we can both recognize times when violence is warranted while also striving to make the world a place where violence will no longer be warranted.

 

[Spirit of Light]

To turn your question around: if death isn't to be feared, why be afraid of killing?

There are two Japanese idioms that speak to me on this issue:

- the killing sword is the life-giving sword: i.e. in the right situation, killing someone (e.g. an attacker) can prevent more death than not killing them.
- divine tactics do not kill: i.e. in a perfect world, there would be no killing

So... acknowledging that we do not live in a perfect world, we can both recognize times when violence is warranted while also striving to make the world a place where violence will no longer be warranted.

To end a life of others is the worsed action one can do (for me) and I don't speak only about humans but all life.
To take ones own life is truly wrong too (for me)
But I am not afraid of death

 

[Link]

This might sound strange, but what is it with peace and peace loving people that seem to scare other people?

Statements like.
You must fight for your rights.
If you don't fight you are a coward
And when answer come back.

I walk in peace without enemies.
That person will be ridiculed for being a fool?

Do some people travel more or less around the world to find conflicts they can "solve" with weapons? How can that be a right way?
Why not speak of peace within each person they meet?

Believers are holding on to dear life but they can sell the cause of justice and just join the unjust world order. They probably would gained wordily gains if they do. But if they put their weapons down and let the Devil do what he wants, goodbye world.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Believers are holding on to dear life but they can sell the cause of justice and just join the unjust world order. They probably would gained wordily gains if they do. But if they put their weapons down and let the Devil do what he wants, goodbye world.

So God dont want peace between humans?

 

[Link]

So God dont want peace between humans?

God knows reality. He knows the devil and his companion among humans who is Gog/Abu Lahab. God knows without cutting of the system of Iblis, killing one Abu Lahab does nothing, as another rises. Yet Quran through God's Name says "may perish the hands of Abu Lahab", the name of God was Mohammad (s) and his uncle was Gog of that time. Within same family the whole battle between good and evil was found. Satan's champion vs God's champion.

Quran says to gather whatever we can of power against disbelievers and to be wary of them.

We should not trust anyone be they "Muslim" or otherwise, that tells us, to trust those who constantly plan against us.

It's not the ordinary people, it's that, forces are at play, and people have to join the truthful in this battle between good and evil.

Peace and justice is going to be established through the Mahdi and we should do whatever we can to prepare for him and struggle hard in the mean time.

If he comes back in bad terms, it maybe the prophecy that practically no city will remain on earth but destroyed comes true.

It maybe the world faces severe consequences. Both people disbelievers and believers wait, the former in a mocking way, "go ahead, bring him, come at me, I know it won't happen" way while believers are fearful and hopeful, they fear the bad results warned about in Quran and hope the good results advised for in Quran.

Even the Angels before humans even were on earth, could tell, there would bloodshed or it was highly likely and probable.

Abu Lahab of our time is responsible for all the misguidance and injustice like Quran says about the Pharaoh "and he was to blame". The question should be what do we do to diminish his power and the power of his successor who Iblis will be his personal Qareen?

I don't think giving up arms and trusting the Devil and his forces is the proper way personally.

We need to join the plan of God's Name on earth his word of light and not advocate for the Abu Lahab and his evil plans.

 

[Spirit of Light]

God knows reality. He knows the devil and his companion among humans who is Gog/Abu Lahab. God knows without cutting of the system of Iblis, killing one Abu Lahab does nothing, as another rises. Yet Quran through God's Name says "may perish the hands of Abu Lahab", the name of God was Mohammad (s) and his uncle was Gog of that time. Within same family the whole battle between good and evil was found. Satan's champion vs God's champion.

Quran says to gather whatever we can of power against disbelievers and to be wary of them.

We should trust anyone be they "Muslim" or otherwise, that tells us, to trust those who constantly plan against us.

It's not the ordinary people, it's that, forces are at play, and people have to join the truthful in this battle between good and evil.

Peace and justice is going to be established through the Mahdi and we should do whatever we can to prepare for him and struggle hard in the mean time.

If he comes back in bad terms, it maybe the prophecy that practically no city will remain on earth but destroyed comes true.

It maybe the world faces severe consequences. Both people disbelievers and believers wait, the former in a mocking way, "go ahead, bring him, come at me, I know it won't happen" way while believers are fearful and hopeful, they fear the bad results warned about in Quran and hope the good results advised for in Quran.

Even the Angels before humans even were on earth, could tell, there would bloodshed or it was highly likely and probable.

Abu Lahab of our time is responsible for all the misguidance and injustice like Quran says about the Pharaoh "and he was to blame". The question should be what do we do to diminish his power and the power of his successor who Iblis will be his personal Qareen?

I don't think giving up arms and trusting the Devil and his forces is the proper way personally.

We need to join the plan of God's Name on earth his word of light and not advocate for the Abu Lahab and his evil plans.

I dont trust satan, and have nothing to do with satan.

 

[Link]

I dont trust satan, and have nothing to do with satan.

It has everything to do with Satan. Satan rules humans through Gog who he is his personal Qareen and is the chief of the sorcerers of Satanic sorcery, while Magog are Gog's elite followers and sorcerers too.

They are the ones who killed Imam Hussain (a) and they have taken over US and Europe.

 

[Spirit of Light]

It has everything to do with Satan. Satan rules humans through Gog who he is his personal Qareen and is the chief of the sorcerers of Satanic sorcery, while Magog are Gog's elite followers and sorcerers too.

They are the ones who killed Imam Hussain (a) and they have taken over US and Europe.

So you are affected by satan?

 

[Link]

So you are affected by satan?

Satanic magic affects me and everyone except for those who take flight and refuge in the sky connected to this world, where the weapons of God and his strong lights are found.

 

[Link]

If you want to join God's plan, you have to veil yourself by God's face and light so as for God's plan through his King on earth to be hidden from enemies - and this plan is spiritual and top secret. If they see you - plans won't be revealed to you. You have to become totally hidden from their visions and hearing for you to be revealed the plans of God and what he written on Laylal Qadr of all affairs.

There are prayers to teach you how to veil yourself by the light of God's face and cut off the sorcery and your spiritual enemies by God's sword of light.

There is in all times, a Guide who God plans through and is the center of attention of the believers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To end a life of others is the worsed action one can do (for me) and I don't speak only about humans but all life.

Hypothetical scenario:

A person is about to kill 3 people. You have two options:

1. Stop them by killing them. One person dies.
2. Not stop them. Three people die.

I would say that option 2 ends more lives than option 1.

To take ones own life is truly wrong too (for me)
But I am not afraid of death

So then what do you think makes killing wrong?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Hypothetical scenario:

A person is about to kill 3 people. You have two options:

1. Stop them by killing them. One person dies.
2. Not stop them. Three people die.

I would say that option 2 ends more lives than option 1.


So then what do you think makes killing wrong?

My answer is killing is wrong to me. I dont answer hypocritical question

 

[Clara Tea]

This might sound strange, but what is it with peace and peace loving people that seem to scare other people?

Statements like.
You must fight for your rights.
If you don't fight you are a coward
And when answer come back.

I walk in peace without enemies.
That person will be ridiculed for being a fool?

Do some people travel more or less around the world to find conflicts they can "solve" with weapons? How can that be a right way?
Why not speak of peace within each person they meet?

The last major wars were "supposed to be" about protecting America from terrorists. But, America attacked the wrong counties (Iraq and Afghanistan). The al Qaeda was the enemy.

In fact, the CIA funded the al Qaeda (calling themselves ISIS at the time), and bought them new Toyota trucks, weapons, trained, and funded them. In their defense, they thought that they were defending Syria (which they were).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My answer is killing is wrong to me. I dont answer hypocritical question

Hypothetical, not hypocritical.

Regardless, if you don't want to deal in hypothetical scenarios, we can speak about the issues directly.

It sounds like we have different approaches to ethics, particularly the question of whether we have an ethical responsibility to save lives, and what we should consider ourselves responsible for.

There's one school of thought - which it sounds like you adhere to - that says that we aren't responsible for inaction. It's morally acceptable to stand by and watch someone die, even if we could have saved them, as long as our own overt actions aren't the direct cause of the person's death.

Another school of thought - the one I personally adhere to - says that we're responsible for inaction. If we have the opportunity to choose to do or not do some action, and those two options have two sets of outcomes, then we're responsible for the entire difference between those two outcomes (to the extent that this difference was foreseeable, of course).

IOW, I think that if I were to choose not to save someone's life when I was able to do so, I would be just as responsible for their death as if I chose to deliberately murder them. If not for my choice not to act, they would have lived, therefore I'm responsible for them not living.

It sounds like you disagree with this approach.

 

[Clara Tea]

Hypothetical scenario:

A person is about to kill 3 people. You have two options:

1. Stop them by killing them. One person dies.
2. Not stop them. Three people die.

I would say that option 2 ends more lives than option 1.


So then what do you think makes killing wrong?

That's the decision faced by every military commander. It is a matter of accounting to them. But many front line units never leave a man behind. They realize the horrible torture that they might face. So, they risk (and sometimes lose) their lives to save them).

In the War in Iraq, the US had a looming threat of terrorism, and had to fight a war (they thought) to end it. When faced with the death of people that we know, and buildings on US soil that we loved, vs. killing a million Iraqis, the decision was to kill many of them, to save our own skins.

It would have been better to fight the right enemy, and quit funding the enemy.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Hypothetical, not hypocritical.

Regardless, if you don't want to deal in hypothetical scenarios, we can speak about the issues directly.

It sounds like we have different approaches to ethics, particularly the question of whether we have an ethical responsibility to save lives, and what we should consider ourselves responsible for.

There's one school of thought - which it sounds like you adhere to - that says that we aren't responsible for inaction. It's morally acceptable to stand by and watch someone die, even if we could have saved them, as long as our own overt actions aren't the direct cause of the person's death.

Another school of thought - the one I personally adhere to - says that we're responsible for inaction. If we have the opportunity to choose to do or not do some action, and those two options have two sets of outcomes, then we're responsible for the entire difference between those two outcomes (to the extent that this difference was foreseeable, of course).

IOW, I think that if I were to choose not to save someone's life when I was able to do so, I would be just as responsible for their death as if I chose to deliberately murder them. If not for my choice not to act, they would have lived, therefore I'm responsible for them not living.

It sounds like you disagree with this approach.

Sorry, my translation tool messed up my first reply.

I would do everything in my power to save others, and exchanged my life for their wellbeing if necessary, but I will not kill. It is out of the question to do that kind of action.
Dedicating my life to non violence it would be wrong to suddenly start killing even in self defence.

 

[Clara Tea]

Hypothetical, not hypocritical.

Regardless, if you don't want to deal in hypothetical scenarios, we can speak about the issues directly.

It sounds like we have different approaches to ethics, particularly the question of whether we have an ethical responsibility to save lives, and what we should consider ourselves responsible for.

There's one school of thought - which it sounds like you adhere to - that says that we aren't responsible for inaction. It's morally acceptable to stand by and watch someone die, even if we could have saved them, as long as our own overt actions aren't the direct cause of the person's death.

Another school of thought - the one I personally adhere to - says that we're responsible for inaction. If we have the opportunity to choose to do or not do some action, and those two options have two sets of outcomes, then we're responsible for the entire difference between those two outcomes (to the extent that this difference was foreseeable, of course).

IOW, I think that if I were to choose not to save someone's life when I was able to do so, I would be just as responsible for their death as if I chose to deliberately murder them. If not for my choice not to act, they would have lived, therefore I'm responsible for them not living.

It sounds like you disagree with this approach.

Muddying the waters, if the person is a terrorist ally, is it right to kill, or put them in a torture camp? Not everything is black and white.

What if the person that you killed might have gone on to kill far more?

If you had a time machine, would you kill innocent baby Hitler before he committed a crime? Would you jail someone for something that they would do in the future? (They'd be miffed if you did, since they may have never thought of doing a crime before).

 

[Heyo]

Hypothetical scenario:

A person is about to kill 3 people. You have two options:

1. Stop them by killing them. One person dies.
2. Not stop them. Three people die.

I would say that option 2 ends more lives than option 1.

The Trolley Problem?
You know were that ends.