Of course it is confusing. I wrestle with this almost every day. One thing I know for sure, we can control our own mind or should be able to. When we let others upset us, they control us.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yet more reason to despise people of violence
- Thread starter sandandfoam
- Start date
That isn't what either of those psalms actually says.
opcorn:
The Sum of Awe
Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Somewhat absurd, violence as a means to demonstrate itself I can agree is ineffective (considering there is nothing to effect). But violence as a means of revolution is necessary in most cases. Most of what you're seeing today would not exist without violence.
How do you tell the one from the other, Sum?
nazz
Doubting Thomas
I dunno. There's been some fairly peaceful revolutions lately.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Myself I don't despise violence in people, but I do feel sorry for them, sorry for them because of lowering themselves so low that they have to take their crap out on others.
The Sum of Awe
Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
That's a good question, and glad you asked it because I was going to mention something related to this but felt not to in case of lack of interest.
A terrorist is only a terrorist to the side it opposes. To the terrorist's side, though, they are revolutionary. A lot of the time, violence is a tool used to weaken a force in order to take control of it. While this is not always true, and not always a necessary tactic for such accomplishment, it isn't excluded.
Let's say a group of peasants, or people who live on the "lower" scale of dominance, is to go up against more powerful forces, there is a chance that violence is required. If they do not pay attention to your peaceful ways of promoting this cause, but you truly believe this cause should not be unconsidered yet, then you may have to weaken the powerful force a slight bit to bring it down near your level, and that is generally through the use of violence.
It's hard to differentiate what side is good and what side is wrong. The way to know, however, is to keep in mind what side you find more good, the side being terrorized or the side terrorizing. Let nature play it out, and if you strongly support said side, you may even wish to contribute. The sides both have chances of winning, and the winning side will take its tole.
Violence that is done just for the wish of violence, or terrors without a goal (other than appeasing the violence fetish) is, to me at least, where the matter of violence is definitely meaningless. I would be against that kind of violence.
That's very true. I recommend peaceful acts at first, but if all else fails I find it fair to consider violence.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
I have a big problem with this pov.
The Republic of Ireland was founded by a small group of violent people who looked into their hearts and knew that if and when they won they would be proved right.
They won and are celebrated by history.
Since then every nut-job Irish republican with access to arms and/or explosives can justify their murder on the basis that they are following in the same tradition as the founders of the Irish state.
Violence is never the answer.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
I feel that they're human beings?
I don't know them, I'm not in a place to judge them, and I'm not going to judge them. I'm not going to assume that their behavior somehow reflects their entire character, because that would be erroneous. I know that a typical human behavior is driven primarily by circumstance, not by personality. Most of the time, I tend to regard "criminals" as victims of circumstance and social constructs.
1. Do you feel that way about Bin Laden and the others responsible for 9/11?
2. If they're human beings and you are not going to judge them how can you ever justify war or violence against others?
1. If you're fishing around for an exception to the rule, good luck with that. I don't demonize people. Frankly, I don't demonize in general because I don't find it useful as a map of the territory.
2. I'm going to answer this question for you, not for me. This question you're asking? It's the entire bloody point of what I've been trying to get across. This is exactly why I'm saying that you - as an extremist pacifist - need to abandon hatred and judgmental attitudes. Hating people justifies all manner of atrocities. "This person is evil" isn't a very pacifistic way of thinking, sir. It just isn't. It's not far from there to "this person is evil and deserves to be punished [often violently]."
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
That's fair enough.
I'll respond to your points but would you answer the question I asked of you?
I am not a pacifist. I make no claim to pacifism. I do not think that being passive would be a stance that suits me. Non-violence is a different thing.
I despise people of violence. Again, I make no apologies for that. My attitude changes when the violence stops anbd I have no problem fighting against violence. For example Sinn Fein/IRA spent the best part of 30 years murdering people in this country - I despise everything they did in the name of their 'cause'. Likewise loyalist paramilitaries.
Now that the Provisional IRA have abandoned violence I no longer have a problem with them, nor with their representatives.
I'm not big on punishment and I see no shame in hating violence. Tell me, what do you think are the potential problems with a person committed to non-violence hating violence and despising those who perpetrate it?
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Pacifism should never be equated to passivism.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Fine. I was anticipating
(from wiki)
nazz
Doubting Thomas
How are you differentiating between pacifism and non-violence?
Just to clarify here... are you hating the act or the person? Because now I'm not sure. I find hating on people particularly inconsistent with the ideals of pacifism or non-violence (whichever you want to call it), but hating on the act I find more passable. I think I already explained pretty thoroughly in earlier posts what the problems are with this, and I'm not sure I can come up with anything to add to it. In simple terms, hatred is typically a negative or destructive emotion that seems very ill-suited for positions that aspire to be non-destructive or peaceful. I feel if people are going to tow the line of pacifism, they ought to do so from the most peaceable standpoint possible, and that means not hating generally, but especially not hating on people.
Sorry, I didn't think it needed answering considering I am neither a pacifist nor do I tout a philosophy of extremist non-violence. I don't have much issue seeing reasonable justification for war and violence; it just doesn't involve demonizing other human beings as "evil." It's not all that different from being capable of criticizing someone's work without believing they're complete failures as a person.
Last edited:
The Sum of Awe
Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
I don't see how you come to such an impacting conclusion from such a small, seemingly judgmental (by pointing the finger specifically at an Irish republican) baseline.
I believe you've avoided my question. I didn't ask you what your priority was, I asked you if you would consider it as an option.
We both know that situations like this can occur, where parents in rare cases do have to physically protect a child. Especially in areas that may not be so lawfully organized.
So it's a pretty straightforward question; if we're talking about immediate threat of violence to your child, would violence in protection of that child conceivably be a moral option to you if it was the best way, in that particular instance, to protect the life of your child?
Does it make it right if that happens to be the most effective way to protect your child in that instance?
What makes something right or wrong in your view?