2
   

Pacifism only serves to enable and support evil

 
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 07:04 pm
Amen
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 07:17 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
RexRed wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
RexRed wrote:
Pacifists mooch off of the freedom that others sacrifice themselves for. Pacifism is an oxymoron. It negates itself in morality. The pacifist has no value for life, because they does not fight to protect it.


As opposed to murdering warriors who destroy civilizations and innocent people by the millions. I call that real value for life.


And WHO would these "murdering warriors who destroy civilizations and innocent people by the millions" be? Suicide bombers?

When your neighbor tries to kill you you have to either retaliate or keep facing attack until they kill you. Even DUMB wild animals understand this. It is called SURVIVAL... Or, you can be a pussy wimp and let terrorists behead you in the name of countless virgins they will receive in paradise for killing the infidel! What idiots.

How can one respond humanely when other humans desire to "wipe you off the face of the earth"?. If humans are going to behave in a wild and uncivilized manner than we have to respond in a like manner in order to survive. Anyone who cannot see the danger in allowing the "enemy" to infiltrate your home base is a FOOL...

It would be nice if we could get all Buddha and Gandhi on people but as long as there is murder and evil in the world and people who desire to do harm to innocent people there will be the need for self defence.

Humans can be much more cunning and treacherous than lions. Anyone who cannot understand the concept of self defence needs to spend a few minutes in a cage with some lions at the zoo.

Pacifism is like swimming and drownding at the same time. Why bother to even exert the effort to stay afloat? Why bother to swim to shore? Why be born at all?

Christ Jesus, representing the kingdom of heaven, led ""ARMIES"" into hell... (So much for turning the other cheek.) Christ "triumphed" over evil and took of the spoils of war and gave gifts unto men...


I don't intend to respond to every point of this diatribe. In the first place, I made the point early on that I meant both sides in these wars. You think by calling people with the grit to refuse to play these stupid games "pussies" "wimps" and "fools" to inflict hurt on them, but that is because you hide under such words the fear that your version of reality will be exposed for all its weakness. Got to insult them and scream them down, hey? Work yourself into a manly lather? [Go home at the end of a day of warfare and tell yourself how it was justified you killed little children because they were in the way of your killing the enemy].

You have to lay a groundwork for peace. It can't just happen. If you wake up in the middle of the night with an army at your door, you have not pursued the peace diligently, or intelligently, enough.


Make wimpy peace with your enemy while they slit your throat as you sleep.

You should have realized they would slit your throat when they beheaded your neighbors too. Did you think you were special or something?

Can you show me one place in the Bible where God told his people to reduce their arms?

There will always be peace in the world but happiness? Happiness is dependant on if you don't have a gun pointing in your face with some blood crazed terrorist threatening to chop off your head!

Does that sound like a damned picnic to you Edgar?

War chooses you. You better be ready "before" it comes.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 07:17 pm
I know this will be taken as peacenikky.. as in, just roll over. That isn't what peace is about. It's about mutual connection, not blowhard-ivity.

But anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with edgarblythe here: If you wake up in the middle of the night with an army at your door, you have not pursued the peace diligently, or intelligently, enough.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 07:28 pm
You obviously don't understand the people who work to have peace, RR. Your first big mistake is to consider it wimpy [and to call peace lovers these names]. People such as you will not have satisfaction in life, ever. You are too full fear and vengeful thoughts. I have said all I intend to say to you. You number among the lost.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 08:03 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
You obviously don't understand the people who work to have peace, RR. Your first big mistake is to consider it wimpy [and to call peace lovers these names]. People such as you will not have satisfaction in life, ever. You are too full fear and vengeful thoughts. I have said all I intend to say to you. You number among the lost.


Peace is not something we can "work" for or "make" we "keep" peace and that takes BOTH parties participating...

Peace is from God and not men.

You are confusing happiness (the pursuit of) and joy with peace.

A person can have peace in the midst of war but they cannot have always have happiness. A person can have peace hanging on a cross but they would not generally derive happiness in that situation.

We must KEEP peace with God to have peace. So have you kept peace with God Edgar? You don't indicate it by your words. How can you spread peace when you do not have peace to give? You only have hypocritic words and another special interest get rich quick charity of the unscrupulous left.

Joy comes from knowing you have the peace of God.

We have happiness because we have joy and peace not because our neighbor worships our kind words and handouts. It is the duty of our neighbor to keep their own inner joy and peace with God. If they do not then what are we going to do about it? Force joy and peace on them?

...After they stop shooting at us? Maybe after they stop building only to attack us again and again? Maybe if they find peace with God they will find peace with their fellow man? Maybe after they stop trying to "wipe Israel (and anyone else who opposes their totalitarian dictatorship) from the face of the earth"?

Maybe when our virtuous neighbors stop making WMD to "make" peace (like you Edgar)... and start KEEPING peace with God?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 08:10 pm
You are bent on an us against them mentality, which is why you cannot fathom the meaning of "to work for peace". Sorry, RR.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 08:13 pm
Working at peace, so, even from the financial pov, think of the savings.

The simple matter is, working at peace is an near unknown.

check my last post.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 08:24 pm
ossobuco wrote:
I know this will be taken as peacenikky.. as in, just roll over. That isn't what peace is about. It's about mutual connection, not blowhard-ivity.

But anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with edgarblythe here: If you wake up in the middle of the night with an army at your door, you have not pursued the peace diligently, or intelligently, enough.


I agree with this, ossobuco. Was just too focussed on the reply to RR at the moment.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jul, 2006 10:53 am
edgarblythe wrote:
You are bent on an us against them mentality, which is why you cannot fathom the meaning of "to work for peace". Sorry, RR.


I will agree Edgar it is work sometimes to keep the peace. I was just pointing out that peace is kept and not made. Just because we have disagreements does not mean we still cannot fellowship together in peace.

But MUTUAL peace (or happiness) is dependant on others.

I can have peace inside but if others don't want to keep peaceful then what am I going to do about it? Well I am not going to turn my back on them if they choose to be my enemy. But I will also continue be an example of a person who has kept peace with my creator and fellow man.

I have experienced rank prejudice and numerous attacks from others all of my life. Yet I am one of the most peaceful people you will ever meet. Now why is that? Because God forgives me and I recognize that God is my peace not what others say and do.

Every time I have to defend myself from an attacking enemy I keep the peace through the tribulations.

Every time God moves, people need to respond accordingly. Some people reject the movement of God. So their peace is born out of rejecting the father of peace.

Peace with God can be kept in the midst of war.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jul, 2006 11:13 am
Peace is not something we artificially make, create or organically graft on the outside. Peace begins outside and manifests itself outward.

There can only be the appearance of peace on the outside if there is not peace inside with God. People become bullies on the outside when they are unrestful inside.

Though we kill in the name of peace it is for peace that we kill.

Yet we know that we are only killing the outer flesh and blood. The true enemy is the ideology that was planted inside the mind and festered and grew into external war.

The inner spirit was corrupt and evil thus it corrupts the flesh.

So we are not fighting flesh and blood but the evil that possesses it.

So to spread peace would be to spread the message of a God of peace and liberty.

To reject God and truth is to leave the inner soul in total darkness. This only leaves it susceptible for prejudice to plant itself and superstitiously take hold of the will. This leads to a waring within the mind. This waring is manifested into the five senses realm and this is where war comes from.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jul, 2006 04:24 pm
"Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death"

A speech delivered by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded;
and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 10:14 am
mysteryman wrote:


But why no hatred of or outrage about what Hezbollah and Hamas have done to innocent people in Israel?


But why no outrage at what the USA has done to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?

Why no outrage at what the USA has done to millions of Vietnamese?

Why no outrage at what the USA has done to tens of thousands of South Americans?

Outrage? There isn't even the slightest acknowledgment.
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 11:36 am
Amigo wrote:
"If the peace movement really were a peace movement, its members would be denouncing the true threats to peace and trying their damndest to disarm and neutralize the likes of Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah etc. etc. Instead, they champion these groups,"

Does anybody have an example of a pacifist that has championed Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah etc. This is one of the stupidest things iv'e ever heard. an out right contradition.

What are the grounds of this argument?

Peace through war?

Peace causes war?


Amigo,
There are sins of commission and omission...in this case, the peaceniks are guilty of the latter more than the former. They don't champion terrorist groups as much as ignore them and their murderous actions. They engage in long-winded rants against Israeli, British and American actions while ignoring the Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah acts that usually precipitated the conflict.

A good example is the following excerpt from Lindsey German, touted on the web site as "convenor, Stop the War Coalition".

Quote:
The BBC news website reports today that Tony Blair and UN secretary general Kofi Annan have called for an international force (aka Britain and the US) to be sent to Lebanon..to stop attacks on Israel. Tony Blair explained this is to 'stop the bombardment coming over into Israel and therefore gives Israel a reason to stop its attacks on Hezbollah'.

Sorry? Hezbollah kidnapped 2 Israeli soldiers and Israel responded by bombing Lebanon, blockading its ports and airports, bombing its roads, and killing so far more than 130 Lebanese civilians.

Yet the main news channels in Britain led yesterday on 8 Israelis killed by a rocket in Haifa, only then going on to mention 16 Lebanese dead in Tyre, bombing of civilian convoys and the fact that Lebanese/Israeli deaths are running at a ratio of more than 5:1.

This painting of Hezbollah as the aggressors against 'plucky little Israel' is sickening enough. But then there's the accusation that Iran is arming Hezbollah. And who's arming Israel, the only nuclear power in the Middle East and the one possessed of the largest and most deadly arsenal? Israel is the biggest recipient of US military aid, and the only state in the world that can buy arms directly from US arms corporations without the oversight of the US government.


Notice that her criticism is entirely directed at Israel for responding too harshly, in her opinion. As for Hezbollah's kidnapping, she effectively dismisses that little detail with a "boys will be boys..." argument. The essay could just as well have been written by Hezbollah itself. They too are incredulous that Israel has reacted such to the mere kidnapping of two soldiers and murder of 3 others.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 07:50:19