- 20 Posts
- 61 Comments
22·2 months agoI think people are really good at lying about people, and subsequently just as good at not even bothering to even begin to consider that what they’re being told regarding someone else might be total bullshit, and nothing but the consequence of the lack of knowledge, or experience specifically, of the woes of slander.
Absolutely, my pleasure.
From what I understand, Tolstoy believed that a more philosophical, objective, non supernatural interpretation of the Gospels but especially of the Sermon On the Mount specifically (Matt 5-6: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=ESV) and its precepts, including to never take an oath at all (including promising to consider anything as infalliable), holds the potential in becoming a kind of constitution for our conscience so to speak, for our hearts, as a species. By constitution I mean something we can gather around and consider a common understanding of how we should be striving to live, something to unite us as a species and make us stronger the same way a constitution does for a nation and did regarding how weak the colonies here in America were back when we didn’t have a constitution to unify us; it only divided us and made us weak and vulnerable.
I’m not 100% on this next bit, but based on reading his non-fiction it sounds like he didn’t believe Jesus was the Messiah (savior) in the traditional sense—the Nicene Creed interpretation. I believe Tolstoy believed that Jesus, amongst all the humans that existed both before and after him, was the one that taught and suffered to transfer the knowledge of love so well (not perfectly; if Jesus was God he would’ve done it so perfectly to the point where it would’ve easily have done its job by now) that he considered Jesus to be the bee—amongst all those that came before and after him—that stirred (inspired) the hive (humans) so well that ultimately, one could argue that Jesus saved mankind from its inherency to itself: selfishness, being absent the knowledge of his teaching otherwise—the value and potential of selflessness; Messiah is defined as a savior of a people.
Little do the majority know that they’ve only smothered (yet again, like the Pharisees and Sadducees did in Jesus’ time) the “Law and the Prophets” as a whole: “Love your neighbor as yourself,” by all our (again, yet again) incessant, blind oath taking to our contemporaries. To the point where the precepts—born out of the logic of the “Law and the Prophets” as a whole—of the Sermon On the Mount (selflessness) are the last thing people are met with (in favor of the Nicene Creed, of things Jesus never spoke of or even hinted at when he mimicked Moses, bringing down new commandments during the most public point of his ministry, thus, the most accurate) or are taught when they go to Church or are taught of Jesus today, in favor of securing our or ones place in Heaven (selfishness).
Sounds like someone needs to read Tolstoy’s non-fiction.
I did say I didn’t agree with it at one point i remember, at that point in the war of course I agree with our response, I was disagreeing more with responding to Hitler and his regime with the opposite that he was advocating from the start, collectively.
That’s obviously not what I’m saying exactly. If you’re interested check out Leo Tolstoy’s non-fiction: Confession, What I Believe, The Gospel In Brief, and The Kingdom of God Is Within You
I’m not arguing who’s the better man, I’m arguing who’s the better groups of people when both are championing iniquity despite their justifications for it. In my opinion neither, considering iniquity to any degree to be nothing but that. I do agree of course it’s necessary in plenty of situations, especially considering how barbaric and individualized we still are as a species, but never something to be praised, encouraged or championed to this degree. It wasn’t necessary to assassinate yet another CEO in contrast to these more necessary extremes like Hitler for example; he was the farthest thing from a Hitler, thus of course not entitled to the same response. Luigi only put additional influence of violence and hate in the world, handing it over to those that loved the man he murdered, and the wake of their hate influencing others. Like all those that praise this man for stooping down to their level to eliminate the problem.
Healthcare is just doing what any other industry is meant to do: profit. As long as this is the emphasis the problem will continue to persist. So it’s not a matter of how many individuals we eliminate it’s more a matter of how many minds we change. Minds aren’t changed when they’re being threatened, insulted or screamed at; only the opposite has that ability.
I hope someday I can say the same for you my friend.
“Where an attacker does not want or need co-operation.” That’s the context in which I’m speaking. That’s the whole point, to not submit to both your inherent need to retaliate and there demand for you of something; to not just sit there and do nothing, but resist—non-violently. To not submit to them taking your land, your children, but to do so non-violently. To resist the aggressor, by never giving them your obedience, which includes allowing them to harm you or your loved ones, but without literally fighting back, but by never backing down at the same time.
It’s definitely an incredibly helpful one, that’s for sure. I agree it’s my opinion but yours falls more in line of that of a murderers considering you’re saying that there are circumstances when murder should be championed. Which begs the lesson I wish I would’ve made my original comment to connotate more efficiently: who’s the real bad guy when both are celebrating debately equally as terrible acts?
Violence didn’t result because Gandhi ever advocated for it, it was something that happened as a result of it. Because again non-violence isn’t just standing by and doing nothing, it’s about resisting evil via non-cooperation. Resisting it by not obeying it; not retaliating, but never to submit to evil at the same time.
Lol you’re right I think over exaggerated the numbers in my mind for some reason, disregard that.
“India’s Freedom Struggle (1857-1947) was shaped by influential leaders who are called Freedom Fighters of India like Mahatma Gandhi, who pioneered nonviolent resistance”
Those riots wouldn’t have had any influence whatsoever, along with so much of all the other things done outside of the influence of MLK’s nonviolent influence, if it wasn’t for him sitting down with the president himself, and pressuring him via calm mindedness logic and reason, not to mention organizing the biggest moment in the entire movement by far.
I’m not saying they’re related I’m saying 9/11 would be an example of some of the woes that come with returning evil with evil. Like Japan learned unfortunately. Doesn’t mean however that it stopped anything in the future to happen as a result of it. That we more potentially gained a permanent enemy if anything.
cough India’s independence, Jim Crow Laws. cough cough
We have yet to see. 9/11 ring any bells?
What does that have to do with the relevance of returning the evil of that war with good?
This still doesn’t prove the irrelevance of it becasue who can say what else would’ve happened if evils to this degree were met with equal parts good?
I thought we were talking about war here? More specifically even murdering a CEO as a matter of fact. Of course that person should be trying to escape, people have a tendency of not looking at this idea reasonably, and especially to ge off topic and use these specific situations where of course we should be using any means necessary to get ourselves out in that situation. I didn’t realize world peace rested on this women trying to change the mind of this one serial killer apparently, I’m assuming.
How does naming all of that answer my question?
Check this out, Tolstoy’s Personal, Social, and Divine Conceptions to life: “The whole historic existence of mankind is nothing else than the gradual transition from the personal, animal conception of life (the savage recognizes life only in himself alone; the highest happiness for him is the fullest satisfaction of his desires), to the social conception of life (recognizing life not in himself alone, but in societies of men—in the tribe, the clan, the family, the kingdom, the government—and sacrifices his personal good for these societies), and from the social conception of life to the divine conception of life (recognizing life not in his own individuality, and not in societies of individualities, but in the eternal undying source of life—in God; and to fulfill the will of God he is ready to sacrifice his own individuality and family and social welfare). The whole history of the ancient peoples, lasting through thousands of years and ending with the history of Rome, is the history of the transition from the animal, personal view of life to the social view of life. The whole history from the time of the Roman Empire and the appearance of Christianity is the history of the transition, through which we are still passing now, from the social view to life to the divine view of life.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is Within You
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherent the Earth.” - Jesus, Matt 5:5
Not the traditional Christianity; Revelation, Corinthians this or supernatural, spirtual that. One that consists of a more philosophical interpretation of The Gospels that’s hiding underneath all the dogma ever since Paul. One that emphasizes The Sermon On the Mount, debately, the most publicized point of his time spent suffering to teach the value of selflessness and virtue, thus, the most accurate in my opinion. Tolstoy learned ancient Greek and translated The Gospels himself as: The Gospel In Brief, if you’re interested. This translation I’ve found to be the best:
Check this out, Tolstoy’s Personal, Social, and Divine Conceptions to life:
“The whole historic existence of mankind is nothing else than the gradual transition from the personal, animal conception of life (the savage recognizes life only in himself alone; the highest happiness for him is the fullest satisfaction of his desires), to the social conception of life (recognizing life not in himself alone, but in societies of men—in the tribe, the clan, the family, the kingdom, the government—and sacrifices his personal good for these societies), and from the social conception of life to the divine conception of life (recognizing life not in his own individuality, and not in societies of individualities, but in the eternal undying source of life—in God; and to fulfill the will of God he is ready to sacrifice his own individuality and family and social welfare). The whole history of the ancient peoples, lasting through thousands of years and ending with the history of Rome, is the history of the transition from the animal, personal view of life to the social view of life. The whole history from the time of the Roman Empire and the appearance of Christianity is the history of the transition, through which we are still passing now, from the social view to life to the divine view of life.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is Within You
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherent the Earth.” - Jesus, Matt 5:5
Not the traditional Christianity; Revelation, Corinthians this or supernatural, spiritual that. One that consists of a more philosophical interpretation of The Gospels that’s hiding underneath all the dogma ever since Paul. One that emphasizes The Sermon On the Mount, debately, the most publicized point of his time spent suffering to teach the value of selflessness and virtue, thus, the most accurate in my opinion. Tolstoy learned ancient Greek and translated The Gospels himself as: The Gospel In Brief, if you’re interested. This translation I’ve found to be the best:
How does this answer my question? I’m not following.
I can’t say for a fact of course, but are you assuming that I’m idolizing Gandhi?