First off I want to make it clear I am not asking anyone to do my homework, I am simply looking for opinions. I have to write an essay.

"The principles of non-violence have been used throughout the world in an attempt to affect social and political change. how successful has it been and does it have a place in the modern world?"

I have already written 1500 words on this but am looking for some others opinions about it. I have basically said it has a place in the world but as of current it is a vacant position, some Gandhi/Mandela quotes et cetera.

- ♫.i.b.y.v.n.t.h.♫

First off I want to make it clear I am not asking anyone to do my homework, I am simply looking for opinions. I have to write an essay.

"The principles of non-violence have been used throughout the world in an attempt to affect social and political change. how successful has it been and does it have a place in the modern world?"

I have already written 1500 words on this but am looking for some others opinions about it. I have basically said it has a place in the world but as of current it is a vacant position, some Gandhi/Mandela quotes et cetera.

- ♫.i.b.y.v.n.t.h.♫

Apply it to everyday situations. Think about it, if you get in a fight with someone is anything solved? No, the person who loses is only more angry than before and seeks revenge.

You might want to bring up 9/11(thats today how bout that?) and how terrorism is a merely a response to our own violence towards the middle east?

Violence breeds violence. Thats the whole message. Peace can only come from peace (or absolute destruction of your enemey but even that isn't really possible)

Peace can only come from ... absolute destruction of your enemey ... that is... really possible

I agree.

peaceful lobbying to get what you want is more absolute because you are beating someone at their own game. violent action to get what you want is simply physically overcoming someone so they cannot say you are wrong...since their jaw is broken.

i think of it as the difference between winning at chess by putting your opponent in checkmate, versus flipping the board over and walking away.

obviously both have been shown to work (gandhi, US revolutionary war, etc.) and since they have worked, why wouldn't it work in the modern day? in fact, both are already at work today.

if anything you should show two examples of how both ways are working and contrast them.

Non-violence is a moronic idea promoted by the Pharisees ("Jews") in an attempt to suppress any sort of revolt by true Israel ("white Europeans"). Gandhi and Mandela are both heathens, so relying upon their opinions is rather foolish.

Matthew 10:34
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Non violence has a place as long as it meets it's goal, or serves the morality of the practictioner, being proactive, but not violent. Having a place in the world does not necessarily mean being ulitmately effective. The idea of resisting, but doing so in a manner that pleases god/the universe/ancestral spirits, and not necessarily meeting quick tangible benchmarks. I'd argue it's a case by case basis on whether it would be effective, depending what circumstance, or how long a resistor is willing to wait for change. There's no general rule. Though you could get cynical and proclaim the glory of war, and it's relatively rapid degree of effectiveness to attaining a groups needs, or wants.

'It makes no difference what men think of war, said the Judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way. Moral law is an invention of mankind for the disenfranchisement of the powerful in favour of the weak. Decisions of life and death, of what shall be and what shall not, beggar all question of right."- The Judge, Blood Meridian

Non-violence is a moronic idea promoted by the Pharisees ("Jews") in an attempt to suppress any sort of revolt by true Israel ("white Europeans"). Gandhi and Mandela are both heathens, so relying upon their opinions is rather foolish.

Matthew 10:34
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Wow...just wow.

I agree.

Even nazis still exist....I fail to see a real example.

We dropped the most powerful weapon known in exsitence on Hiroshima and you can still go there and see buildings that survived the bomb....


You can't possible wipe out an enemey unless it lies in one person.

Non-violence is a moronic idea promoted by the Pharisees ("Jews") in an attempt to suppress any sort of revolt by true Israel ("white Europeans"). Gandhi and Mandela are both heathens, so relying upon their opinions is rather foolish.

Matthew 10:34
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Yeah because the Bible doesn't say "Love thy enemy" and promotes killing. Granted there are verses like the one you just showed but when it comes to code of conduct (i.e. 10 commandments) it specifically says to LOVE your enemy.

If you're going to be an ignorant moron at least do it where you can't be proved wrong so effortlessly.

Maybe think about the civil rights movement, the current middle east situation, and darfur. Furthermore, you could think about it as a categorical imperative. Ie universalizing the principle of non-violence vs the principle of pre-eminent attacking.

Yeah because the Bible doesn't say "Love thy enemy" and promotes killing. Granted there are verses like the one you just showed but when it comes to code of conduct (i.e. 10 commandments) it specifically says to LOVE your enemy.

If you're going to be an ignorant moron at least do it where you can't be proved wrong so effortlessly.

Please explain where it says to love your enemy in the ten commandments. Yes, Jesus did say to love your enemy, but he was referring to personal enemies who are also Christians or ethnic Israelites. Jesus wasn't including enemies the of God, such as the Pharisees.

Please explain where it says to love your enemy in the ten commandments. Yes, Jesus did say to love your enemy, but he was referring to personal enemies who are also Christians or ethnic Israelites. Jesus wasn't including enemies the of God, such as the Pharisees.

Exscuse me, being an atheist I've never looked at the 10 commandments, only hearsay.

However, you are right. It wasn't in the 10 commandments, it came from the MOUTH OF CHRIST , not a book written by people. Which means it's even more valid (in terms of Christianity) than what I took it for. Oh yeah it wasn't really in the bible...Jesus just said it ....That would make it even more true because it hasn't been misinterpreted by other people when recorded. It came right from him, primary source.

Also if everyone is a child of God, how can you be an enemy of God. The whole concept of God (remember he's make believe) is that he will save anyone willing to be saved, that is the fundamental idea of God, regardless of the whole angry pissed off God, which was created just to scare people. Besides, Jesus Christ (The basis for Christianity) would never take up arms or fight anyone and to say he would condone any kind of violence what so ever is fucking retarded.

Oh and would you happen to know the foundation for non-violence, since it is the subject, Jesus Christ. Wow, how about that. Looks like you're an idiot. Do you enjoy being stupid?

Also if everyone is a child of God, how can you be an enemy of God.

You're making a false assumption that everyone is a child of God, this is patently false.

Romans 9:13
"As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

The whole concept of God (remember he's make believe) is that he will save anyone willing to be saved, that is the fundamental idea of God

Wrong again, Jesus Christ specifically mentioned that the Pharisees, who have committed blasphemy against the Holy Ghost can never be forgiven:

Mark 3:29 (words of Jesus Christ)
"But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. "

Besides, Jesus Christ (The basis for Christianity) would never take up arms or fight anyone and to say he would condone any kind of violence what so ever is fucking retarded.

Matthew 10:34 (words of Jesus Christ)
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Luke 22:36 (words of Jesus Christ)
"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Don't quote or cite Gandhi; he was a coward who abandoned the British during their hour of crisis, and because you can't have the best of both worlds he was eventually murdered. Non-violence works if you have no motivation.

Non-violence either gets you personally fucked up, or proves that the aggressor is too merciful too silence a defenceless opponent.

If they're asking for it, you give it to them, suplly and demand. Non-violence is spitting on someones face then saying they started it when they do what any reasonable person would.

Nothing happened on tianemen square.

You can't possible wipe out an enemey unless it lies in one person.

Or species.
It is entirely feasible to genetically engineer a simple virus that can target the human population and eradicate it.

For example, creating a variant of the HIV virus that will continually replenish telomeres, it will evade the immune system AND cause most bodily cells to become cancerous.

The only problem lies in finding someone who is capable of engineering such a virus, who is also intelligent enough to realise the benefit of it.

Matthew 10:34 (words of Jesus Christ)
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."



You're an idiot.

http://frimmin.com/faith/jesusnonviolence.php

He said turn the other cheek and this is basic shit.

However, I will take back what I said if you can find a legitimate source (not some crazed radicals) who believed Jesus was a violent harbinger of death and not a peaceful activist. Because if you type in "Jesus and non-violence" or go to church (which I had to growing up) you can find 10 billion sources (legit sources) claiming his peacefulness..

















I can't believe I am actually arguing with someone that Jesus didn't preach non-violence...Jesus and peace are essentially the same fucking word.

He said turn the other cheek and this is basic shit.

I already explained that, it applies to personal Christian Israelite enemies, one's brothers, not the Pharisees and other enemies of God.

However, I will take back what I said if you can find a legitimate source (not some crazed radicals) who believed Jesus was a violent harbinger of death and not a peaceful activist. Because if you type in "Jesus and non-violence" or go to church (which I had to growing up) you can find 10 billion sources (legit sources) claiming his peacefulness..

So you consider websites and churches more authoritative on Christianity than the Bible and the words of Jesus Christ?

He doesn't sound so peaceful here:
Matthew 10:34 (words of the Lord Jesus Christ)
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Luke 12:51 (words of the Lord Jesus Christ)
"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:"

I already explained that, it applies to personal Christian Israelite enemies, one's brothers, not the Pharisees and other enemies of God.



So you consider websites and churches more authoritative on Christianity than the Bible and the words of Jesus Christ?

He doesn't sound so peaceful here:
Matthew 10:34 (words of the Lord Jesus Christ)
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Luke 12:51 (words of the Lord Jesus Christ)
"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:"

Jesus said, "You have learnt how it was said to our ancestors: 'You must not kill; and anyone does kill he must answer for it before the court.' But I say this to you: anyone who is angry with his brother will answer for it before the court." Mt. 5.21-22



Jesus said, "You have learnt how it was said: 'Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.' But I say to you, Offer the wicked man no resistance. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; if a man takes you to law and would have your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you to go one mile, go two miles with him." Mt. 5.38-41


He says anyone. Not just turn the cheeck to certain people.


Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy; But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those whose persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Mt. 5.43-46



Jesus said, "you know the commandments: you must not kill..." Mark 10.18


Jesus said, "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly." Lk. 6.27-28


Sounds to me like he said no violence. He clearly beleives that only God has the right to judge, no human. That was his whole point. You're wrong, jesus was not an advocate of violence. Which is why he said:

Jesus said, "If there is one of you who has not sinned, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." John. 8.7

Implying no human has the right to judge since we are all full of sin. Meaing violence is wrong. Only god can judge because only god is without sin. Go be a dumbass somewhere else.

Jesus said, "You have learnt how it was said to our ancestors: 'You must not kill; and anyone does kill he must answer for it before the court.' But I say this to you: anyone who is angry with his brother will answer for it before the court." Mt. 5.21-22

Read more carefully, arguing with you is tiresome.

Read more carefully, arguing with you is tiresome.

1.) Brother applies to everyone and anyone. "We are all God's children" Implying we are all siblings in the eyes of God/Christ.

2.) Like I said, only God has the right to judge. Thats why he said "He who is without sin cast the first stone". Only a truly innocent person can judge, no one is innocent, no one can judge. End of discussion. You're wrong.

1.) Brother applies to everyone and anyone. "We are all God's children" Implying we are all siblings in the eyes of God/Christ.

Not all people are children of God, nor does God love everyone, the Bible makes this quite clear:

John 1:12
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: "

Romans 9:13
"As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

I am not interested in arguing over apostate theology with you, either provide Biblical references for your theological arguments or concede that you have lost the argument.

2.) Like I said, only God has the right to judge. Thats why he said "He who is without sin cast the first stone". Only a truly innocent person can judge, no one is innocent, no one can judge. End of discussion. You're wrong.

1 Corinthians 2:15-16
"But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ."

Not all people are children of God, nor does God love everyone, the Bible makes this quite clear:

John 1:12
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: "

Romans 9:13
"As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

I am not interested in arguing over apostate theology with you, either provide Biblical references for your theological arguments or concede that you have lost the argument.



1 Corinthians 2:15-16
"But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ."



1st thing. I did provide biblical references, fuck you. Second thing, have you ever been to church? The whole concept of Christianity is to be a peaceful person and believe god loves and forgives everyone if they ask for it.


if you don't want to admit you're wrong due to some social inferiority issue or self-esteem reason...fine...but i no longer care about this or your opinion, which is just wrong.


























biblical passages contradict each other, that is a fact. However the basis for christian theology does not. and it simply says love everyone for everyone is a child of god.


~peace

"It would not be a good world for weaponless dreamers if evil men were not now and then slain."
- Rudyard Kipling

if you don't want to admit you're wrong due to some social inferiority issue or self-esteem reason...fine...but i no longer care about this or your opinion, which is just wrong.

So in other words, your "Christian theology" has little or nothing to do with what's in the Bible. :rolleyes: Sure you love it when you can mangle Jesus' words about peacefulness, but you freely ignore all of the time he and his father demand violence.

Chimmy, I know you're a troll....but...lol.

Non violence is noble. You're gonna take shit for your cause and move at a snails pace at times but in the end you will be essentially clean of sin. To try to invigorate people toward change without threats and advances and whatnot can be frustrating I'm sure.

So in other words, your "Christian theology" has little or nothing to do with what's in the Bible. :rolleyes: Sure you love it when you can mangle Jesus' words about peacefulness, but you freely ignore all of the time he and his father demand violence.

I'm not Christian, I'm an atheist....The Bible contradicts itself because it was written by people, not Jesus or god.

However, history tells us that Jesus epitomized the ultimate pacifist (regardless of the bible, which also supports this). God doesn't count because God isn't real.

I don't know if you recall but he forgave a murderer and allowed him into heaven.

First off I want to make it clear I am not asking anyone to do my homework, I am simply looking for opinions. I have to write an essay.

"The principles of non-violence have been used throughout the world in an attempt to affect social and political change. how successful has it been and does it have a place in the modern world?"

I have already written 1500 words on this but am looking for some others opinions about it. I have basically said it has a place in the world but as of current it is a vacant position, some Gandhi/Mandela quotes et cetera.

- ♫.i.b.y.v.n.t.h.♫

Depends on the target. Some people can be persuaded by arguments whereas others have to be "appealed to" by force.

I'm not Christian, I'm an atheist....The Bible contradicts itself because it was written by people, not Jesus or god.

However, history tells us that Jesus epitomized the ultimate pacifist (regardless of the bible, which also supports this). God doesn't count because God isn't real.

I don't know if you recall but he forgave a murderer and allowed him into heaven.

The bible is a special selection of the writing that could have been, Jesus killed a boy in another gospel (Thomas I think).

Violence is an inherent part of humanity, just like the way other primates fight each other for power.

The bible is a special selection of the writing that could have been, Jesus killed a boy in another gospel (Thomas I think).

Violence is an inherent part of humanity, just like the way other primates fight each other for power.

This is why I said the idea of Jesus is peace. The bible contradicts itself...

This is why I said the idea of Jesus is peace. The bible contradicts itself...

Your idea of Jesus is peace, that doesn't mean that Jesus is universally accepted as a symbol of peace.

Your idea of Jesus is peace, that doesn't mean that Jesus is universally accepted as a symbol of peace.

"Christians believe that, as the Messiah, Jesus was anointed as ruler and savior of humanity"

That's just one, but all religions view Jesus in one way or another as a peaceful figure who has come down as a messiah to save mankind...other than the jews but thats due scripture crap...like everything else i suppose..

back on topic though, Jesus is supposed to represent faith, hope and salvation...Thats objective.

And to go with pragmatism for a second....

When you learn someone "follows Christ" do you consider them a violent, malicious person?

How does it feel to have your serious thread get hijacked by religious nuts?

How does it feel to have your serious thread get hijacked by religious nuts?

I'm an atheist and a materialist...

How does it feel to be fucking stupid?

You know what side usually wins in a war? The more violent one.

Peace is an awesome idea, and I truly hope that one day it will become real but it hasn't yet and it still seems to me that humans are the only species that will kill another of it's kind for personal gain.

You know what side usually wins in a war? The violent one.


That doesn't make any sense. Both sides are violent in war.

That doesn't make any sense. Both sides are violent in war.

Fine, motherfucker. I edited it.

It was a stoned thought which I posted too quickly.

You know what side usually wins in a war? The more violent one.


No?

Its clearly boils down to luck, skill and intelligence...How the hell do you measure violence anyway?

I think you mean to say that violence usually beats peace, we're not talking about war here...


But the reality is you can't be general here. You have to relative to the location. Peaceful protest is extremely effective in 1st world countries (because the government can't get away with killing it's own citizens)...However, in third world countries the government has no problem with wiping out the entire resistance through sadistic violence because the only relationship they have with the people is one of fear and dominance...As opposed to democratically elected governments...


And since the OPs question was about the modern world, I think it's safe to say that peaceful resitance is the most effective method at producing positive change.

No?

Its clearly boils down to luck, skill and intelligence...How the hell do you measure violence anyway?



The will to win. The will to do what the enemy will not. Maybe due to superior technology or stoic morals. Although you are right, luck, skill, intelligence, economy, and many other factors play a much more key role in winning wars.


No?



I think you mean to say that violence usually beats peace, we're not talking about war here...




Fair enough.





But the reality is you can't be general here. You have to relative to the location. Peaceful protest is extremely effective in 1st world countries (because the government can't get away with killing it's own citizens)...However, in third world countries the government has no problem with wiping out the entire resistance through sadistic violence because the only relationship they have with the people is one of fear and dominance...As opposed to democratically elected governments...




It's true. Location is very important. I think non-violence will only work if practiced by those who could easily resort to force if they chose too. Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Caesar Chavez, all had enough followers to incite a violent revolution if they chose too but they made the smart decision not too. Nonviolent tactics will be of little or no use to groups that are traditionally considered incapable of violence or at least much less effective. Take the poor monks of Myanmar for example. I believe the threat of violence must be there, but the leaders must refrain from exercising it.




And since the OPs question was about the modern world, I think it's safe to say that peaceful resitance is the most effective method at producing positive change.

Can't argue you with that.

Violence is pretty obviously a part of human nature. Paleolithic man was both a gatherer and a hunter, to varying degrees - usually much more of a hunter. There were big inter-tribal conflicts for territory (ultimately to get the most/best prey), settled with weapons. The losers were killed, enslaved, eaten. You could probably say something about how we evolved from the best and most violent warriors - the losers probably make up a genetic minority.

First off I want to make it clear I am not asking anyone to do my homework, I am simply looking for opinions. I have to write an essay.

"The principles of non-violence have been used throughout the world in an attempt to affect social and political change. how successful has it been and does it have a place in the modern world?"

I have already written 1500 words on this but am looking for some others opinions about it. I have basically said it has a place in the world but as of current it is a vacant position, some Gandhi/Mandela quotes et cetera.

- ♫.i.b.y.v.n.t.h.♫

I'd say it's a bad move.

If the person you're using it on is really worried about your opinion it's ok. However even in western countries actions of that nature by young people can be ignored because often they will not vote in enough numbers to warrant the changes being made.

Ghandi quotes might be good, but mandela and the ANC were certainly not "non violent".

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable'

-John F. Kennedy

"The concept of nonviolence is a false ideal. It presupposes the existence of compassion and a sense of justice on the part of one's adversary. When this adversary has everything to lose and nothing to gain by exercising justice and compassion, his reaction can only be negative."

- George Jackson

Ghandi quotes might be good, but mandela and the ANC were certainly not "non violent".

I know that, I had a small quarrel with the teacher over it since those were the only three people I was aloud to talk about. Just keep in mind I am in a modern western school.

I finished this before the thread got to page two but I am interested in this anyway and some posts are good to read.

- ♫.i.b.y.v.n.t.h.♫