What was Jesus like?

kx000 said:
Imo non-violence is opposed to violence. Being passive means one does not hate, but can rely of the assailants own suffering. All of hell will suffer and go to naught on its own all you need is to be passive to it.

If there were no violence there wouldn't even be a non-violence... It would just be a no and it would go away too... To a passive mind.
Click to expand...
If you think throwing tables around(innocent people) is pacifism, then you really need to think.
 
spidergoat said:
Low levels of violence are permitted. Technically, a sit-in that requires police to move you encourages a form of violence. The civil rights march over the Edmund Pettus Bridge was going to result in violence, and the brave marchers suspected that ahead of time. They could have avoided violence if they wanted to.
Click to expand...
I don't think you grasp the context. Jesus went into a temple and started throwing tables around, random honest business vendors, that would of been charged money for their stall. He wasn't a pacifist in both words and actions.
 
davewhite04 said:
I don't think you grasp the context. Jesus went into a temple and started throwing tables around, random honest business vendors, that would of been charged money for their stall. He wasn't a pacifist in both words and actions.
Click to expand...
He could have murdered people and did not.
 
spidergoat said:
He could have murdered people and did not.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying he was a violent man, but he did have a temper which can(and did) result in verbal/physical actions. Who cares if he wasn't a pussy? He was at least 50% human according to the writings that brought him to life.

EDIT: Pussy wrong word, I actually respect pacifists.
 
davewhite04 said:
I'm not saying he was a violent man, but he did have a temper which can(and did) result in verbal/physical actions. Who cares if he wasn't a pussy? He was at least 50% human according to the writings that brought him to life.

EDIT: Pussy wrong word, I actually respect pacifists.
Click to expand...
I think pacifism is immoral.
 
davewhite04 said:
As a concept or a person choosing to be a pacifist?
Click to expand...
Mostly as a concept. I could see an individual making a decision not to do violence for personal reasons, perhaps they were victims of violence, or their religion demands it. But as a philosophy, it's immoral because it may recognize evil, but insist that nothing concrete should be done about it. I tend to see things through the lens of the holocaust, where pacifism towards Nazism would have been morally indefensible.
 
spidergoat said:
Mostly as a concept. I could see an individual making a decision not to do violence for personal reasons, perhaps they were victims of violence, or their religion demands it. But as a philosophy, it's immoral because it may recognize evil, but insist that nothing concrete should be done about it. I tend to see things through the lens of the holocaust, where pacifism towards Nazism would have been morally indefensible.
Click to expand...
Let's make this clear, you mentioned the holocaust. The Jews had no choice, literally, like every prisoner, even of the state. There is no concept about it, you are either born a pacifist or you aren't. Consider violence being red blood, while non violence is white blood. Normal people have roughly the same amount of each, some have alot of aggression which many use martial arts, meditation to prevent it blowing up into anger followed by aggression, and mayhem. Then the ones like the kung foo guys(top red blood, no white), violence is always in their thoughts(Just like David Bowie Song: Life on Mars - "oh, look at those cavemen go! it's the freakiest show").

Pacifism, is full white blood.

People can't help the way they are.
 
Not true. You can choose to act or not act in response to a situation. Martial arts teach being ready for violence, but to avoid it as much as possible. Pacifism is a moral choice, not an immutable quality like the color of your skin.
 
spidergoat said:
Not true. You can choose to act or not act in response to a situation. Martial arts teach being ready for violence, but to avoid it as much as possible. Pacifism is a moral choice, not an immutable quality like the color of your skin.
Click to expand...
You get your knowledge from a book, I get mine from first hand experience. Subjective, unless you've got some footage, which would you know? I ain't got.
 
spidergoat said:
Mostly as a concept. I could see an individual making a decision not to do violence for personal reasons, perhaps they were victims of violence, or their religion demands it. But as a philosophy, it's immoral because it may recognize evil, but insist that nothing concrete should be done about it. I tend to see things through the lens of the holocaust, where pacifism towards Nazism would have been morally indefensible.
Click to expand...

Violence is murder and must suffer in order to defend itself, where as non-violence can fight without becoming a monster. You can be passive to hell and it will burn itself and everyone within it including the common hater, and the evils, thus peace of mind can defend itself. If anything you should apply the dual path to pacifism and self defense. At all no matter what pacifism is the opposite of transgression (anger) and you need it for love and happiness.
 
Last edited:
Non-violence is the moral and the key... Love, and happiness are the pleasures and the treasures... Equanimity is the safe... the secret is omnipresence...
 
I acknowledge non-violence is the best strategy for the civil rights movement. But non-violence towards Nazism wouldn't have accomplished anything.
 
sideshowbob said:
As for interpretations, I was talking about His message, not His actions. Since He advocated both peace and violence, you can't take both literally unless you concede that His words can't be trusted.
Click to expand...

This ought to be demonstrable as a matter of exegesis.
 
Perfect is a funny word. What is perfection? If we assume Jesus was perfect, then perhaps perfection in the context of humans, would involve righteousness, as this is what inspired Jesus to throw tables and chickens around. He was convinced he was right, and maybe he was. I've never seen any scripture that says you can't sell goods in a temple though.

Personally I think perfection is unattainable for mere mortals as we are always improving and getting worse at the same time. Maybe you mother makes the perfect apple pie, with her secret recipe and special ways. We can make perfection in that sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top