I don't imply. I state what I wish to say and its written in my post. Where possible, I endeavour to communicate clearly as I have been following some of these threads for a while and I don't want to be misunderstood. If you are not clear about what I am saying, read the post again or ask me to clarify further.Originally Posted by skasian
"The reason I ask everyone is because I am interested in following the discussion to address the question itself. I notice as I'm sure you all do since many of you are in other threads under religious texts where lively discussions are taking place regarding religion specifically. This isn't, yet it finds its way there nevertheless. Is it because the primary contributors would rather use this context and are not really comfortable looking at other ways of addressing the question? I am interested to know. Can it be addressed effectively in many ways?"
You simply asked that can this thread be addressed in different ways other than religion. That is precisely my point and it seems I have not misunderstood you, it seems that you want us to bend away to link and discuss with different contexts other than religion. And no, we are comfortable looking at other ways of linking this context other than religion. If you read Darkmuses previous post, it says clearly how the context religion was used to support the idea that revenge is bad in her terms.
Skasian, I will take that to mean 'yes Delta, we can address this question in many different ways'
Thank you
Delta let me ask you a direct question. A person that you were arguing starts to swear, and in one culminating point, that person slaps you in the face, what is your first impulse towards their action? Would you hit them back or hold back.
Reason why I ask this is because I just want to see whether a random person will avenge themselves or not in reflex. I am not talking about action after consideration, I am talking about straight reflexes, the impulse we human being all possess as an innate behaviour which tell us to avenge ourselves as a form of defence. I wonder if there is any one that has the innate behaviour of accepting an attack without striking back at the offender. I believe morality is one of the few factors that help us decide not to attack back therefore avenge ourselves.
yeah, a wimp. its immoral not to strike back. the striker will get the idea he can go around hitting folks.
I dont think revenge can be classified as a good or bad thing. It is very dependant upon the person and i dont judge them for that. If you feel, in your heart - that it's okay, and you can live with the aftermath, then so be it. It depends on what ground your standing on, and your perspective.
If someone slaughtered my entire family, then id probably kill the person who did it.
Because in that sense my natural very human rage would take over and my sense of deciding what is wrong and right, which is a learned - in my opinion, behaviour, is overruled.
A wimp you say, mental and physically weak? This reminds me of The Idiot by Dostoevsky, where people claim he is intellectually weak just because he accpted people doing bad to him without striking back. The idea Dostoevsky wants to express is outside the value what people think about you, isnt the moral that is important?
Let look at why the striker wont get the idea to go around hitting folks. The average person is not insane, therefore wont go around hitting people for no reason. Let consider what happens if youdo strike back. A fight begins and punching and kicking involves. Do you think violence is the way of things? Do you think that a person must give up and surrender in bloodshed in order to finish a conflict? surely there must be a better method of dealing with conflict.
Say you killed the assassinator but their group comes along and burn your house down, a constant turns of revenge. What do you think revenge in this case is? As it magnified the problem, wouldnt this be bad?
Yeah i guess i never thought of it that way...
But then again, i guess in a situation where i would seek revenge, i wouldnt be thinking about the consequences.
If someone burned my house down, id probably burn theirs down - being even more illogical, it'd probably turn into a huge fight until one of us or both of us were dead.
Now - that is revenge at it's most dramatic.
If someone did something nasty to me, it would depend on the situation if i responded.
I was not implying that you were saying that. But making the point, if you
say that religion is against violence, becasue Jesus says turn the other cheek.
If there is another passage in the bible that supports violence
Well then you are suggesting that the passages that are against violence are more correct then the ones that support violence.
Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before. ~ Edgar Allan Poe
Do you mind if you could please give that passage that supports violence? I never been across a passage that supports violence in a way that tell us that it is acceptable.
I am suggesting that because there seems to be no passage that tells us that we should commit violence, and there is a very direct passage that tells us revenge should be avoided. (yes turn other cheek is one) As there cant be another interpretation that revenge is bad, it is simple, bible tells us that violence, especially in form of violence, is unacceptable.
Yes, if one of you ended up dead, then it would mean revenge is unacceptable as revenge resulted in avoidable death. This unacceptability would mean it is obviously bad no matter the measure of damage caused.
Yes but i still dont see it as "bad"
I mean, take cause and reaction.
Someone kills my family, my reaction - i kill them.
Sounds extreme yes, but to me, it'd be almost instinctual.
Most everything in our lives are simply reaction. The act of stealing an apple from a store because you are hungry can be regarded as a reaction. But in moral aspect, it is wrong. If you think this way revenge I believe is also wrong as it involves someone acting wrong (ie killing) in order to satisfy one self.
As a buddhist, it should be against my nature to kill, anything for that matter.
I mean, i save ants from the damn shower...
but..the thought of someone wiping out my family, its hard to banish the thought of killing from my mind
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
