Peace is Positive!

[Fellowship]

I believe energy spent can be either positive or negative and that positive energy carries with it a much larger return on investment.

I believe in the idea that higher creatures (humans) can choose harmonious cooperation and peace over conflict and fighting.

I believe that true leadership unites all and that politics divides.

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God." (Matthew 5:9) I believe this. (you don't have to)

Now before I get too far along with all this let me state clearly that I understand fully that we will never all "agree" on everything and that is of course all perfectly natural. The idea is to focus more on to what unites us all as opposed to focus placed on what divides us. This is the task which I believe we all must face and execute with due diligence.

For it is the alternative to this notion which I would argue that we fail ourselves and our neighbors if we do not act.

The alternative being many things:

Indifference
selfishness
hate
greed
waste etc.

Again the goal is to unite by that which we can all find common interest and focus far less on the things which we disagree.


I look at the world and I see the potential for two directional outcomes:

One a trend towards self destruction and disharmony fueled by bigotry, racism, greed, and power.

On the other hand:

One a trend towards harmony of human values which we all share with less focus on our differences and more interest placed on what will benefit the future for each of us.


As you have read above I have placed out some ideas to consider but as we all know ideas are great but when combined with action things start to take shape.

I ask you all for your ideas as to how each of us (no matter our location) can be an influence for peace and positive investment to our community, family and neighbors.


I give you this link to explore:


A link to Peace (http://www.worldpeaceemerging.com/main.php?page=home)


What are your thoughts?

Fellowship

[Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by Fellowship

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God." (Matthew 5:9) I believe this. (you don't have to)


So you believe Jesus is just one of many sons of God, a peacemaker, don't you?

Nightcrawler

[segovius]

Originally posted by Nightcrawler
So you believe Jesus is just one of many sons of God, a peacemaker, don't you?

Nightcrawler

I believe it. Question is: what do we do about those who don't?

[shetline]

Originally posted by segovius
I believe it. Question is: what do we do about those who don't?
Kill 'em all! For peace! :devil: :D

[jamac]

Originally posted by Fellowship


"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God." (Matthew 5:9) I believe this. (you don't have to)


Fellowship



The problem here is the term "peacemakers".
It involves someone who believes that they know what peace means for someone else. So they can make peace even if it means killing and going to war.

Peace can not be made. It just is.

If you do not feel peace you can not spread peace.

This quote needs to be changed into:
"blessed are the peaceful ones, for they are god." (freely after Matthew 5:9)

[Vargas]

Originally posted by jamac
[B]The problem here is the term "peacemakers".
It involves someone who believes that they know what peace means for someone else. So they can make peace even if it means killing and going to war.

Peace can not be made. It just is.


How about peacekeepers? Can peace be kept, or do life and the world need to be in a state of flux to really know peace?

[segovius]

Originally posted by jamac
The problem here is the term "peacemakers".
It involves someone who believes that they know what peace means for someone else. So they can make peace even if it means killing and going to war.

Peace can not be made. It just is.

If you do not feel peace you can not spread peace.

This quote needs to be changed into:
"blessed are the peaceful ones, for they are god." (freely after Matthew 5:9)

The thing is, one can't just bandy the word 'peace' around. It takes some sort of action also. It is a proactive thing.

Luckily - in the Christian context - Christ is very explicit about what sort of action is needed. He says unequivocally: turn the other cheek.

That's what it takes.

How many who aspire to be 'peacemakers', or even Christians, can really do that when it comes to the crunch?

[jamac]

Originally posted by segovius
The thing is, one can't just bandy the word 'peace' around. It takes some sort of action also. It is a proactive thing.

Luckily - in the Christian context - Christ is very explicit about what sort of action is needed. He says unequivocally: turn the other cheek.

That's what it takes.

How many who aspire to be 'peacemakers', or even Christians, can really do that when it comes to the crunch?

Peace is a state of non violence for some.
For others it may be death ("rest in peace"). If Christ would have been at peace the first blow would have never happened. Again this describes violence not peace.

I guess if we succeed in making our planet inhabitable in a way we are peacemakers and idiots.
If we can approach every action we ever take from a perspective of peace as in:
Peace with drugs. peace with the environment. peace with obesity, .... peace with our human traits and needs. Our minds would focus on peace instead of "fighting" for peace which is also completely irrelevant. We will never achieve peace by fighting.

The problem is Christ did not have the same information that is available to us now which makes him irrelevent, just like all other thinkers of the past. His real message is in how he lived not in what he said:
Don't follow, make up your own minds, create ideas which advance mankind and stand up for who you are.

[jamac]

link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5077984.stm)

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by jamac
link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5077984.stm)

From posting guidelines (http://forums.appleinsider.com/guidelines.html):

9. Be descriptive with the title of new threads. Do not start a thread with an ambiguous title like "Guess what..." and then use the text portion of the post to explain. Give your post a headline. This courtesy is especially appreciated in the more highly trafficked forums. Furthermore, threads with no original content will not be allowed. Do not post a link or quote an article while contributing little to nothing of your own.

[southside grabowski]

It is much easier for an individual to live a peace-promoting life than it is for a leader of a nation. I can choose to "turn the other cheek" in my own affairs, but as a President or Prime Minister I can not "turn the other cheek" of the nation.

[sammi jo]

Fellowship, I so agree with you .. "Peace is Positive".

Unfortunately we live in world run by unpoliceable enterprises driven by profit maximization, for which anything less is terminally unacceptable.War is of the most profitable enterprises discovered by the terminally flawed human race. It has defined our history for millennia, whereas "peace" doesn't cut the cake.

We may as well start over from scratch, (if at all). Human history is a dismal failure, its "greatest achievements" being defined by its most ruthless acts, by those who wield the most power over others, or by the ability to kill as many people with as little effort as possible.

An asteroid 5 miles across may be the greatest gift the Universe could offer the Earth.

[Northgate]

Come on! American's really aren't a peaceful people. Far from it, actually. It's why liberalism is a minority ideology in this country.

Time and time again the American people will choose War as a method. Why? Because most white American males want to eat a thick steak while watching a war on CNN. It's part of the American past-time.

Who didn't run home from work to turn on Fox News to watch the start of the Iraq invasion? Come on. You know who you are. We all did.

[Northgate]

**double post**

[rufusswan]

To bandy the word 'peace' around can be as dangerous as bandying 'love' around. Both words have noun and verb definitions.

Once our technology has advanced to the point we everyone has more energy that they require (like desktop cold fusion) we can stop fighting our 'brothers' for limited resources and "work" for peace.

Paz

[BR]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
From posting guidelines (http://forums.appleinsider.com/guidelines.html):
Let the mods do their job. However, that guideline you quoted refers to starting new threads only. Typical you'd avoid actually discussing the topic of peace.

[ronaldo]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Fellowship, I so agree with you .. "Peace is Positive".

Unfortunately we live in world run by unpoliceable enterprises driven by profit maximization, for which anything less is terminally unacceptable.War is of the most profitable enterprises discovered by the terminally flawed human race. It has defined our history for millennia, whereas "peace" doesn't cut the cake.

We may as well start over from scratch, (if at all). Human history is a dismal failure, its "greatest achievements" being defined by its most ruthless acts, by those who wield the most power over others, or by the ability to kill as many people with as little effort as possible.

An asteroid 5 miles across may be the greatest gift the Universe could offer the Earth.

My goodnees don't we have a positive outlook.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by BR
Let the mods do their job. However, that guideline you quoted refers to starting new threads only. Typical you'd avoid actually discussing the topic of peace.

:rolleyes:

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by segovius
The thing is, one can't just bandy the word 'peace' around. It takes some sort of action also. It is a proactive thing.


so how does one confront the enemies of peace, without succumbing to the very thing they stand in opposition too?

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by ronaldo
[B]My goodnees don't we have a positive outlook.

Sorry there's no rose-tinted glasses on this face.

[segovius]

Originally posted by MarcUK
so how does one confront the enemies of peace, without succumbing to the very thing they stand in opposition too?

I've told you but you're not listening: 'someone who never existed' has already given you the answer.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by segovius
I've told you but you're not listening: 'someone who never existed' has already given you the answer.

Is funny how all the answers the world needs are spoken by someone who never existed. Sad really that all the people who did exist and do something worthwhile are all forgotten and labelled as heretics in order for us to follow guidance from a fairy tale character - And a bit sad that those of us who know better would still maintain this lie asif noble lying is the answer to all the problems.

Well, you keep following Jesus, im going to keep following all the real people who did exist and did contribute to humanity. The very people who the conspiritors of the Jesus story ripped off and then branded as evil.

Someone once imagined and wrote "Love thy Enemies", someone once imagined and wrote "Turn the other cheek", and someone once imagined and wrote a thousand other brilliant ideas, but that person wasn't Jesus, and whoever did contemplate those things deserves to be sought out, remembered and honoured, be it Plato, Apollonius, an Egyptian priest or an unknown peasant farmer. They are the real hero's in all this, and every single one of them deserves a thousand times more respect than some made up fairy tale character whose 99% of followers have caused 2000 years of trouble because they were too stupid to understand what mythical Jesus symbolized.

God is dead. Jesus is dead. Truth and wisdom live on.

[segovius]

Originally posted by MarcUK
God is dead. Jesus is dead. Truth and wisdom live on.

Certainly this is a ridiculous position. It would be far more logical to say God never existed - but dead: really this is a bit lame. Gods don't die. They exist or they don't.

But perhaps it is you that is dead somehow? I often wonder.

The problem is though that you don't know the truth - you are wedded to this particular belief regardless - you are as open to it being wrong as, say, Cuilla, is to you being right.

One of you is right and one of you is wrong but you are still both wrong in the sense that neither of you know what you're talking about.
And before you counter that I don't either - you're right. it's just that I am here admitting it and pointing out we are all in the same boat. But what are you really doing? I mean really?

At a push I would say bugger all - except maintaining your own psychological equilibrium. Fair enough - and we all thank whatever we believe in for that - it's just that it seems a trifle de trop to cast it in the framework of some historical significance. We are but dust after all - and some more dust than others.

:D

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by segovius
Certainly this is a ridiculous position. It would be far more logical to say God never existed - but dead: really this is a bit lame. Gods don't die. They exist or they don't.

well i thought that the whole point of the God is dead statement is that peoples perception of what God is had died. Same with Jesus.


But perhaps it is you that is dead somehow? I often wonder.

Certainly I wonder it quite alot aswell :D


The problem is though that you don't know the truth - you are wedded to this particular belief regardless - you are as open to it being wrong as, say, Cuilla, is to you being right.

One of you is right and one of you is wrong but you are still both wrong in the sense that neither of you know what you're talking about.

Yet if I am wrong, the only person here capable of pointing me in a better direction or helping me to better understand things I am unsure about, goes suddenly silent when posed with a question or asked for help. So why is that?

So tell me this - or perhaps dont;)

We both know certain things, which we don't seem to have a disagreement on, yet our implemtation of what we know seems to bring us to conflict. Assuming you know more about it than me, I should/ and am prepared to contemplate your opinions, yet you really need to explain why it is better to maintain a lie, no matter however noble it is, as opposed to searching out the truth however impossible or destructive that is.

So Jesus never said "Love thy enemies", but someone did. You're saying Jesus said this - knowing full well Jesus is an archetype of many characters, Im saying search out the person who had this revolutionary idea, and give them the credit and respect. Obviously, if you're intentions are decent and my intentions are decent, then there is no intent to mislead or deceive but ultimately IMO, your position is more misleading than mine. Perhaps you might explain why it is not.


And before you counter that I don't either - you're right. it's just that I am here admitting it and pointing out we are all in the same boat. But what are you really doing? I mean really?

well im sure you'd like to tell me. Go on I could do with a laugh.:p


At a push I would say bugger all - except maintaining your own psychological equilibrium. Fair enough - and we all thank whatever we believe in for that - it's just that it seems a trifle de trop to cast it in the framework of some historical significance. We are but dust after all - and some more dust than others.

:D

so what are you doing?

Your asking me, why i dont give in an just construct a state of mind that allows me to accept lies as the truth because they have noble intent?

well I dont want to. And if I did I would genuinely worship Apollo - simply because I like the way the word rolls off my tongue. Uh-Pol-low. Nice :D

[segovius]

Originally posted by MarcUK
well i thought that the whole point of the God is dead statement is that peoples perception of what God is had died. Same with Jesus.

Surely not - there are more fundies now than ever - you would have met none on a board like this 10- 20 years ago. It would have been so uncool. Now you can't move for them.

Certainly I wonder it quite alot aswell :D.

Maybe you need resurrecting?

We both know certain things, which we don't seem to have a disagreement on, yet our implemtation of what we know seems to bring us to conflict. Assuming you know more about it than me, I should/ and am prepared to contemplate your opinions, yet you really need to explain why it is better to maintain a lie, no matter however noble it is, as opposed to searching out the truth however impossible or destructive that is.

Well, imo, and this is only my opinion, one can and should separate the historical person from the archetype and even the bs projected onto that person by the Church.

All three things are separate and can be true or false depending on context. In many ways it is irrelevant whether Jesus existed or not and perhaps he didn't BUT because you invest it with such significance then YOU make it relevant. Whereas it is clearly irrelevant. That's why you are wrong. (imo)

So Jesus never said "Love thy enemies", but someone did. You're saying Jesus said this - knowing full well Jesus is an archetype of many characters, Im saying search out the person who had this revolutionary idea, and give them the credit and respect. Obviously, if you're intentions are decent and my intentions are decent, then there is no intent to mislead or deceive but ultimately IMO, your position is more misleading than mine. Perhaps you might explain why it is not.

Because it is doesn't matter who said it - many people have said it. The question is whether or not they are right.

so what are you doing?

I'm polishing off a 1992 Chateau Margaux. Saved for England crashing out but I thought I'd console myself....heheheh

Your asking me, why i dont give in an just construct a state of mind that allows me to accept lies as the truth because they have noble intent?

Well, why don't you? I'm not saying you should - just interested in the reasons (assuming you know they are lies that is - which you cannot and which calls into question therefore your own position).

well I dont want to. And if I did I would genuinely worship Apollo - simply because I like the way the word rolls off my tongue. Uh-Pol-low. Nice :D

Uh - you answered. Ok - anyway, Apollo is dead and never existed too (ha) and Dionysius was really the way to go. I would have thought you'd choose hedonism. Shame.

That's the difference between us really - I have always seen you as a bit of a moralist underneath it all. You should have taken my de-conditioning course while you had the chance...

:D

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by segovius
Surely not - there are more fundies now than ever - you would have met none on a board like this 10- 20 years ago. It would have been so uncool. Now you can't move for them.

Thats why IMO it isn't clever to talk in many contexts at once. Whats smart in that? Every time you say "Jesus" says this, 99% won't understand what you mean. You are confirming to the 99% that Jesus was the real person the Church says he was. You implant the idea Jesus was the historical character, make people receptive to it, and then the fundies come along, scare them to death with their morbid misreality and make bigots out of them.

If the reason for Jesus is so noble, that we can tell a little white lie about him talking in triple-tongues about context - If the point of Jesus is the message and wisdom, not the physical being of him - would it not be better to attatch the message and wisdom to another character, maybe my mate Apollo, where there is not the such easy potential for the fundies to come along and pervert the message and wisdom?


Maybe you need resurrecting?


any ideas? I tried the wrists and paracetamol, but didn't have the guts when it came to the crunch to do it properly.


Because it is doesn't matter who said it - many people have said it. The question is whether or not they are right.

Its the message not the person. So why attatch the message to the person who has spent 2000 years being misunderstood and misaligned, and has so much potential to have an outcome diametrically opposed to the intended message?


Well, why don't you? I'm not saying you should - just interested in the reasons (assuming you know they are lies that is - which you cannot and which calls into question therefore your own position).

by that argument, one would become a fundie, because if you don't wish to know the truth, you should accept whatever lie promised the most and required the littlest of thought.

On the other hand, if you reject pure fundamentalism or literalism, short of hovering infinitely inbetween you should move towards the position of most knowledge and least faith.

I've decided to go towards knowledge, because thats the only path I see that maintains personal integrity.


Uh - you answered. Ok - anyway, Apollo is dead and never existed too (ha) and Dionysius was really the way to go. I would have thought you'd choose hedonism. Shame.

That's the difference between us really - I have always seen you as a bit of a moralist underneath it all. You should have taken my de-conditioning course while you had the chance...

:D
Apollo isn't dead silly, look East out the window in the morning.:p

Trouble with hedonism, is that it isn't really me. It would be a false position where I deceived others and ultimately myself. I could get away with it I suppose, there is no God to answer to, no hell or judgement for my actions, just keep ducking and diving, talking shit, lies for my own benefit, manipulating the vulnerable for my own pleasure. Maybe it would be OK because thats what near everyone else does anyway, but that isn't my natural state of existance.