Violence vs Non Violence

[Caleb]

To Lloyd -

I frankly don't care how people try to work things out.  If they want to try nonviolence CD ... fine.  If they want to try nonviolent politics ... fine. (How such a thing is possible unless you run on pushing the Rothbard button is another debate.) 

But the fact is, when the politicos say that Russell and others are ruining it for them, they are partially correct, at least to the extent that their names become associated with his.  Russell will admit this; he takes glee in it.  He wants to ruin politics because he considers politics immoral.  I don't think nonviolent politicians can ever ruin it for Russell.  They could throw him in jail, but the nature of his method is relatively immune to what others are doing.

But not entirely immune.  The FSP realizes that advocating violence can have a particularly destructive effect on what we are doing.  That's why those who advocate violence are not welcome in the FSP. 

Look at it this way:  I am currently resisting taxes.  It is quite possible that I could one day end up in jail for that, possibly for a very long time. I'm ok with that.  I don't mind going to their jail for doing the right thing.

But ... I am not ok with being framed for doing something I didn't do.  I do not wish to be indicted on some sort of "conspiracy to commit terrorism" charge, because it flat out isn't true.

If a person says, like Ed Brown does, that he will defend hearth and home, that is one thing.  I may not agree; hell, I've tried to talk Ed out of it.  I offered to try to smuggle him to Mexico.  He wasn't interested. 

But it is an entirely different matter to say that if people attack Ed, you will personally carry out "cleansings".  That sort of thought shouldn't even have a place in your mind.

Caleb

[MaineShark]

Ghandi's nonviolent effort toppled the British empire in his land.

How's that working out?  I know that I sure don't see India as some bastion of liberty, but maybe that's just me...

I don't think nonviolent politicians can ever ruin it for Russell.  They could throw him in jail, but the nature of his method is relatively immune to what others are doing.

How could a nonviolent person throw someone else in jail?  Ask him nicely?

"Russell, would you please enter this cell?"

"What happens if I don't?"

"Absolutely nothing; we're nonviolent."

"Um, I think I'm going to pass on your offer, then."

But not entirely immune.  The FSP realizes that advocating violence can have a particularly destructive effect on what we are doing.  That's why those who advocate violence are not welcome in the FSP.

I don't recall that being part of the SOI.  In any case, the FSP only exists outside of NH, really.  Like many people say, it's a bus to get people here.

Look at it this way:  I am currently resisting taxes.  It is quite possible that I could one day end up in jail for that, possibly for a very long time. I'm ok with that.  I don't mind going to their jail for doing the right thing.

You're "ok with that"?!  Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.  I guess they wouldn't actualy be using force against you, in that case, since you have no opposition to going to jail.

"Caleb, would you please enter this cell?"

"Sure, I love being locked in jail, as long as you get the charge right!"

If a person says, like Ed Brown does, that he will defend hearth and home, that is one thing.  I may not agree; hell, I've tried to talk Ed out of it.  I offered to try to smuggle him to Mexico.  He wasn't interested. 

But it is an entirely different matter to say that if people attack Ed, you will personally carry out "cleansings".  That sort of thought shouldn't even have a place in your mind.

There is zero moral difference.  There might be a practical difference, but if it is moral for Ed to defend himself, it is moral for me to defend Ed.  Not that I intend to; Ed seems perfectly capable of doing that, himself.

Of course, who precisely said they would carry out "cleansings" if Ed is attacked?  I haven't noticed anyone posting that...

Joe

[Lloyd Danforth]

Caleb, except for my pointing out the 'ruining' part, I don't have a clue why you are addressing me.
I have never advocated initiating violence of any kind, much less cleansing.
Clearly some of these 'guncleaners' are either nuts and/or talking crazy, but, if the unlikely happened and the shit hit the fan, I hope I have someone like Joe covering my back rather  than than you and Russell who avow you would not lift a fist to protect me, Kat, Kira, Roger, or any of your other friends.
I'd like to think if something was happening to a loved one in front of you, natural instinct would ensue and you  would  defend them, but, you might just pick that minute to light yourself on fire, or, start flagellating yourself.
Did you get my email?
Lloyd

[Lloyd Danforth]

Ghandi's nonviolent effort toppled the British empire in his land.

How's that working out?  I know that I sure don't see India as some bastion of liberty, but maybe that's just me...

Turned out the same as our violent revolution.  They got a big oppressive bureaucracy

[Dreepa]

"Those who take the sword shall perish by the sword" - Jesus

And if you have no sword they hang you on a cross.

[cyberdoo78]

I thought my previous statements stood on their own however I will reiterate for those who rely on emotion rather then logic. I do not oppose anyone who believes whatever they want to believe, so long as it doesn't infringe on my rights. If you want to be non-violent, then by all means, be non-violent. If you are going to be non-violent, please do so by word AND deed and not just claim it when you feel its convenient to do so.

You don't pay taxes, good for you. I'm sure alot of people don't pay taxes. If you -feel- that people who chose to use violence to solve a problem then berate them at your leisure. I honestly don't care. How you use your liberty is fully up to you so long as it doesn't infringe on my liberty. So far no one has currently done that to me, so I'm happy.

I live for debate. I'm working on being a self taught lawyer, much like some of our founding fathers. I believe I know much about the founding fathers and that you are correct that while their liberation from Britain was violent they did indeed use non-violent means as well. I'm surprised you didn't cite the most famous non-violent act of CD, the Boston Tea Party. But perhaps that goes to your credit as you know more of the less famous history which I personally find very interesting.

I think our country did rather well after the America v British war, up until the traitorous actions of President Lincoln. From that point there, we started this downward spiral.

Personally, I don't believe alot of the hype put into the name of Jesus Christ, so quoting his words to me, while I find interesting, isn't worth the time you communicate his ideas. Again, you may believe what ever you wish, the Universe is not obligated to keep a straight face.

Personally I don't like people who put words into other people's mouths so when you say the FSP says this, that or the other thing, I find it personally insulting to my intelligence. More so when you, if you don't hold a position within the organisation, do so.

Basically I flame broil my position thus: I don't care what you believe so long as it doesn't harm someone else or their rights. No matter who you are and even I don't like you, or your beliefs, I will stand next to you to protect your rights. See I don't see people as issues, I see people as people and believe they have the rights and that no one has the authority in any way shape or form to take those rights away, unless you give them away. If you want to goto jail, fine then I will allow them to take you away. If you don't want me to use violence to protect you, then you know what, I'll do just that. But the moment my rights are threatened, I resolve to defend my rights as I see fit, first by negotiation and apon failure of that, then by the use of violence. You know my positions and can ask me not to defend you, thats your right and I will comply with you, because I believe you have that right. But don't ask for my help and get mad when the results turn out the way you didn't want them.

Nuff said, I'm out of this topic, unless someone mentions my name and then I'll jump back it. I love tag team debates.

[powerchuter]

6 billion inhabitants are hereby put on immediate and indefinite notice...

Aggression against me will result in superior defensive force being applied, at my discretion, until you are unable to ever commit aggression against another again...

Shoot The Bastards!
(and, yes, that is anyone who directly or indirectly commits, approves of, advocates, encourages, and/or participates in the initiation of force against you or attempts to interfere in your sovereign right to exclusive contract with anyone you choose...)

"Those who take the sword shall perish by the sword" - Jesus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword

"The sword can symbolize violence, combat, or military intervention. Jesus' statement, "Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword" uses the term in this sense."

Caleb...you used "take the sword" when it is more commonly known as "live by the sword"...
Those who live by the Non-Aggression Principle and the Golden Rule and Superior Defensive Force DO NOT "live by the sword"...
Those who initiate force and aggression definitely do though...

I will agree to your version with reference to the fact that if anyone tries to take my "swords" they are going to die by them...and you can take that to the bank!

[Caleb]

"Live by the sword" isn't even a possible construction of the Greek:

???? ?????  ???? ?  '??????  '??????????  ??? ????????  ???  ??? ???  ????? ?????  ?????? ??? ??  ????????  ????????  ?? ???????  ??????????


then is saying to him the Jesus `Return the sword of you into the place of it, all for those having taken sword in sword they will perish.'


??????? in the New Testament
Definitions
Thayer

1) to take
1a) to take with the hand, lay hold of, any person or thing in order to use it
1a1) to take up a thing to be carried
1a2) to take upon one's self
1b) to take in order to carry away
1b1) without the notion of violence, i,e to remove, take away
1c) to take what is one's own, to take to one's self, to make one's own
1c1) to claim, procure, for one's self
1c1a) to associate with one's self as companion, attendant
1c2) of that which when taken is not let go, to seize, to lay hold of, apprehend
1c3) to take by craft (our catch, used of hunters, fisherman, etc.), to circumvent one by fraud
1c4) to take to one's self, lay hold upon, take possession of, i.e. to appropriate to one's self
1c5) catch at, reach after, strive to obtain
1c6) to take a thing due, to collect, gather (tribute)
1d) to take
1d1) to admit, receive
1d2) to receive what is offered
1d3) not to refuse or reject
1d4) to receive a person, give him access to one's self
1d4a) to regard any one's power, rank, external circumstances, and on that account to do some injustice or neglect something
1e) to take, to choose, select
1f) to take beginning, to prove anything, to make a trial of, to experience
2) to receive (what is given), to gain, get, obtain, to get back
Part of Speech: verb
Citing in TDNT: 4:5, 495
Strong

G2983
A prolonged form of a primary verb, which is used only as an alternate in certain tenses; to take (in very many applications, literally and figuratively [probably objective or active, to get hold of; whereas G1209 is rather subjective or passive, to have offered to one; while G138 is more violent, to seize or remove]): - accept, + be amazed, assay, attain, bring, X when I call, catch, come on (X unto), + forget, have, hold, obtain, receive (X after), take (away, up).


Either Jesus is wrong, or else those who advocate violence are.

[cyberdoo78]

Caleb,

Your point about the phrase construction is truly interesting. It is one of the points I like to point out when people quote the Bible, because they make an assumption that what they have read is the truth without questioning where the truth came from.

I have also read for example that the word door(or was it gate, my memory doesn't do well this early) doesn't exist in ancient Greek, so when translating the Bible, the Gates of Heaven, could be the Doors of Heave(or vice verse), which to me are a symbolically different.

I think the whole concept of Gates to Heaven are interesting given what Science has conceived about wormholes and the like.

Further I refute the ideas of the Bible because no one understands the original words that the books of the Bible were written. Take the word "cool" for example. If you would to use it as we would today 100 years ago, they would have thought you were referring to something relative to temperature. Greatest/Funniest example of this, is Star Trek: First Contact, when Zefram Cochrane says he has to take a leak, and Geordi La Forge replies with he doesn't detect a leak anywhere. And that was a difference of only, what 300 hundred years?

What differences in translation can occur when 2000 years of separation exist?

You will most likely respond with evidence of this or that which refute my statements, which is fine. I personally would rather you use the energy on something a bit more productive(unless you like, like me like to make debates) then challenging the belief of another person. I'm not challenging yours, I'm just making an observation of logic, which can't exist in religion.

Which brings me back to topic. People who believe in Jesus Christ will believe whatever they are told by those people who are in higher authority within their defined religion without question. Just as people do not question the actions of those who hold higher authority over then in government(present company excluded). The choice to use violence, like religion is a personal one. You may offer your ideas, but to challenge someone and state that they are wrong for what they believe in, because it goes against your beliefs, is illogical. We ought to make roads between ourselves, and not blow up bridges because we don't like the path. There is evidence available to show that each idea can accomplish the same goals.

[Caleb]

Caleb,

Your point about the phrase construction is truly interesting. It is one of the points I like to point out when people quote the Bible, because they make an assumption that what they have read is the truth without questioning where the truth came from.

My religious beliefs are quite different from the way I was raised; they are the product of my extensive search for truth. You are quite right that a person ought to fundamentally examine what he believes "truth" is before determing what is true.  I believe that there is such a thing as "truth" - that "truth" corresponds to what is actually, ontologically real.  Thus there is such a thing as "real truth" and "real error"; I believe that truth is not relative, that what is true for me is also true for you, even if I do not affirm it, that has no consequence on truth.  Truth is what it is.  I also believe that the truth is of such a nature that it is possible for us to know it, or at least approach it, in a substantive way.  Put another way, although we cannot know *all* truth (because we are not infinite in knowledge) that which we know can be known truly.

I have also read for example that the word door(or was it gate, my memory doesn't do well this early) doesn't exist in ancient Greek, so when translating the Bible, the Gates of Heaven, could be the Doors of Heave(or vice verse), which to me are a symbolically different. I think the whole concept of Gates to Heaven are interesting given what Science has conceived about wormholes and the like.

Greek has a word for door:  ???- (this is the stem, Greek nouns have different endings, depending on how the sentence is conjugated.)  This is distinguished from the word for gate: ???-
Regarding speculation on wormholes being windows to heaven, this is purely speculation.  Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it come into the heart of man what God has prepared for those who love him. We live in a material world-nothing in our experience correlates to heaven.

Further I refute the ideas of the Bible because no one understands the original words that the books of the Bible were written. Take the word "cool" for example. If you would to use it as we would today 100 years ago, they would have thought you were referring to something relative to temperature. Greatest/Funniest example of this, is Star Trek: First Contact, when Zefram Cochrane says he has to take a leak, and Geordi La Forge replies with he doesn't detect a leak anywhere. And that was a difference of only, what 300 hundred years?  What differences in translation can occur when 2000 years of separation exist?

Other than idiomatic expressions such as the above, were Laforge and Cochrane able to communicate rather effectively? Was Cochrane able to explain to Laforge what he meant by the idiomatic expression?  What if Laforge had been a scholar of 21st century English dialects?  Is it possible that then he would have understood?  Do you only hold Scripture to this standard, or do you also believe that all of human history is inaccessible to us as a result of this inpenetrable language barrier?  Can we know anything of ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, or Roman periods?  Is Tacitus also unintelligible to us?  How about Josephus?  Are we unable to understand the works of Plato or benefit from Homer?

You will most likely respond with evidence of this or that which refute my statements, which is fine. I personally would rather you use the energy on something a bit more productive(unless you like, like me like to make debates) then challenging the belief of another person. I'm not challenging yours, I'm just making an observation of logic, which can't exist in religion.

Yes, I enjoy a good debate, although the subject of nonviolence is not a matter of debate.  Real lives are involved, as is the success of our movement for liberty. As such, I don't consider challenging those who want to be violent to be a waste of my energy.

Regarding your statement of logic being unable to exist in religion, I would challenge that statement.  Almost all of the most empirically sound scientists in the history of the world have also been religious people.  Einstein said that science without religion is lame.

Which brings me back to topic. People who believe in Jesus Christ will believe whatever they are told by those people who are in higher authority within their defined religion without question.

Where have you obtained this information?  Have you interviewed all professed Christians and subjected their beliefs and attitudes to rigorous examination, and thus deemed that 100% of Christians have renounced their right to choose what to believe?  How large was the test group of your research?  Did it include individuals from across the entire range of Christian denominations, including those without any professed denomination? What were the results from your sampling? Did you truly find the results to be at 100%?  If not, how can you make such an all-inclusive statement?

The choice to use violence, like religion is a personal one. You may offer your ideas, but to challenge someone and state that they are wrong for what they believe in, because it goes against your beliefs, is illogical.

Once again, we go back to the concept of truth.  Do you believe that objective truth exists?  Or is all truth relative - what might be right for me may not be right for you?  Is it objectively wrong for a terrorist to strap a bomb to his chest and blow up a bus full of children?  Or is that right for the terrorist, but wrong for you?  Is it right for a US Marshal to go into Ed and Elaine's place and seize them and throw them in a cage?  Perhaps that is right for him, but wrong for you?  If objective moral truth exists, why should you wish to muzzle me?

[Dreepa]

"Live by the sword" isn't even a possible construction of the Greek:

Jesus knew Greek?

[Caleb]

Greek was the universal language of Palestine. Jesus spoke Aramaic as a first language, but the gospels are all written in Greek, and he certainly knew Greek.  Pilate had Jesus' charges posted above his head in Greek, Aramaic, and Latin - the three languages spoken commonly in the region.  Actually, Jesus probably didn't speak Latin; one of the apocryphal letters attributed to Pilate mentions offhandedly that he was ignorant of Latin.

[cyberdoo78]

Caleb,

After reading your posting I must say that I am impressed with you. A majority of people would not ever taken the time to even debate most of my points. The fact you debated every point goes to your credit. Having taken the time to do the research has increased my personal respect for you. Nuff butt kissing.

Caleb,

Your point about the phrase construction is truly interesting. It is one of the points I like to point out when people quote the Bible, because they make an assumption that what they have read is the truth without questioning where the truth came from.

My religious beliefs are quite different from the way I was raised; they are the product of my extensive search for truth. You are quite right that a person ought to fundamentally examine what he believes "truth" is before determining what is true.  I believe that there is such a thing as "truth" - that "truth" corresponds to what is actually, ontologically real.  Thus there is such a thing as "real truth" and "real error"; I believe that truth is not relative, that what is true for me is also true for you, even if I do not affirm it, that has no consequence on truth.  Truth is what it is.  I also believe that the truth is of such a nature that it is possible for us to know it, or at least approach it, in a substantive way.  Put another way, although we cannot know *all* truth (because we are not infinite in knowledge) that which we know can be known truly.

I too believe in this concept of "real truth" and "real error". Can it be said that the Bible is this 'real truth' though would be my question. Take for example the various versions of the Bible that exist and other material discovered which will never be added to the Bible because it conflicts with the Tradition of the Bible. Evidence exists that Jesus was not divine but because it conflicts with other accounts that he was, it is rejected. I am not Biblical scholar by any means, and because of that I have to listen to both sides of the debate and decide which is truer then the other. I am open to listen.

I have also read for example that the word door(or was it gate, my memory doesn't do well this early) doesn't exist in ancient Greek, so when translating the Bible, the Gates of Heaven, could be the Doors of Heave(or vice verse), which to me are a symbolically different. I think the whole concept of Gates to Heaven are interesting given what Science has conceived about wormholes and the like.

Greek has a word for door:  ???- (this is the stem, Greek nouns have different endings, depending on how the sentence is conjugated.)  This is distinguished from the word for gate: ???-
Regarding speculation on wormholes being windows to heaven, this is purely speculation.  Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it come into the heart of man what God has prepared for those who love him. We live in a material world-nothing in our experience correlates to heaven.
[/quote]

I don't know Latin, kind wish I did, it would open many doors to other languages, perhaps when I have more time on my farm I will devote time to investigate this. For now, you have disproved me on this point so I stand corrected.

Further I refute the ideas of the Bible because no one understands the original words that the books of the Bible were written. Take the word "cool" for example. If you would to use it as we would today 100 years ago, they would have thought you were referring to something relative to temperature. Greatest/Funniest example of this, is Star Trek: First Contact, when Zefram Cochrane says he has to take a leak, and Geordi La Forge replies with he doesn't detect a leak anywhere. And that was a difference of only, what 300 hundred years?  What differences in translation can occur when 2000 years of separation exist?

Other than idiomatic expressions such as the above, were Laforge and Cochrane able to communicate rather effectively? Was Cochrane able to explain to Laforge what he meant by the idiomatic expression?  What if Laforge had been a scholar of 21st century English dialects?  Is it possible that then he would have understood?  Do you only hold Scripture to this standard, or do you also believe that all of human history is inaccessible to us as a result of this impenetrable language barrier?  Can we know anything of ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, or Roman periods?  Is Tacitus also unintelligible to us?  How about Josephus?  Are we unable to understand the works of Plato or benefit from Homer?
[/quote]

Sure both were able to communicate effectively, they both had a root language in common, and even if they didn't the universal translator would have translated the basic syntax correctly. I can not, without some doubt, say that he did understand the idiomatic expression. He's expression and utterances would lead one to believe he did. However, spoken communication is not the most effective means of communications, more so then written due to inflection of tones, it relies on equal understanding of concepts and their associated words to be fully and "truthfully" understood. If Laforge had been a scholar of 21st languages, he may have discovered this idiomatic expression, however he just as well may not have due to the passages of time and that nothing is written in stone, and responded the same.

I do not contend that scripture or history is inaccessible due to the various differences in passages of time and languages. It could be held true that a message can last 2000 without losing meaning, however even stone wears with age. If you take a puzzle of some 1000 pieces and randomly take out 100 or so pieces. From there you take the remainder and throw them out the door of an airplane some 10,000 feet up. Can you honestly say, you can tell what the image contained in the puzzle was? This is akin to my point about scripture, and can be said honestly and truthfully about anything, including history.

You will most likely respond with evidence of this or that which refute my statements, which is fine. I personally would rather you use the energy on something a bit more productive(unless you like, like me like to make debates) then challenging the belief of another person. I'm not challenging yours, I'm just making an observation of logic, which can't exist in religion.

Yes, I enjoy a good debate, although the subject of nonviolence is not a matter of debate.  Real lives are involved, as is the success of our movement for liberty. As such, I don't consider challenging those who want to be violent to be a waste of my energy.

Regarding your statement of logic being unable to exist in religion, I would challenge that statement.  Almost all of the most empirically sound scientists in the history of the world have also been religious people.  Einstein said that science without religion is lame.
[/quote]

Let me restate myself as I didn't believe I would be taken so literally(sounds good in the head, but not so well if you weren't in my head). Logic can exist in religion, and usually does to a certain extent. However just because a thing looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, doesn't automatically make it a duck, such as a robotic duck. Religion and logic(science), I think complement each other. Logic however does not allow for such a concept as faith. A thing that can not be proved to exist, does not exist. We think, therefore we exist. Such as the debate of when does life begin? Some in science would contend that life does not began till one is born. Other would contend that life begins at the creation of the components of life, such as the ovum or sperm cell. Still others would contend that life begins when egg and sperm combine. Faith could contend all is true, science could contend the same. However all who have faith and all who are scientists do not believe all are true.

Which brings me back to topic. People who believe in Jesus Christ will believe whatever they are told by those people who are in higher authority within their defined religion without question.

Where have you obtained this information?  Have you interviewed all professed Christians and subjected their beliefs and attitudes to rigorous examination, and thus deemed that 100% of Christians have renounced their right to choose what to believe?  How large was the test group of your research?  Did it include individuals from across the entire range of Christian denominations, including those without any professed denomination? What were the results from your sampling? Did you truly find the results to be at 100%?  If not, how can you make such an all-inclusive statement?
[/quote]

Again, I made a general statement that was taken literally. So let me restate. A majority of the people who I have met, whom state they are Christian, which I understand to mean they are true believers understand their faith to the fullest, make the statement that they truly believe that what their religious leaders say is the "real truth". Does this make everyone that says they are Christian thusly so? No. But as a general statement it does hold true for most people.

The choice to use violence, like religion is a personal one. You may offer your ideas, but to challenge someone and state that they are wrong for what they believe in, because it goes against your beliefs, is illogical.

Once again, we go back to the concept of truth.  Do you believe that objective truth exists?  Or is all truth relative - what might be right for me may not be right for you?  Is it objectively wrong for a terrorist to strap a bomb to his chest and blow up a bus full of children?  Or is that right for the terrorist, but wrong for you?  Is it right for a US Marshal to go into Ed and Elaine's place and seize them and throw them in a cage?  Perhaps that is right for him, but wrong for you?  If objective moral truth exists, why should you wish to muzzle me?

[/quote]

It is not that I wish to muzzle you, I just ask that you be as respectful in the beliefs of others as they are in yours.

I find the logic of non-violence to be difficult to understand. If one acts non-violently to all situations, and all the time, then what happens when a violent person acts violently towards a non-violent person? What is life for if one does not defend themselves from violent people? If a violent person didn't like what the non-violent person was doing, they could simply kill the non-violent person and throw them in the ground. We see this many times throughout history, that non-violence can not over come violence all the time. How many people are slaughtered throughout the world who object to what violent people do and are killed because of it.

Let us take the recent happenings at Virginia Tech in to consideration. Here were 32 people who did not have a gun, did not have a means of defense against a violent attacker. Most likely they were non-violent to this crazy individual and they died. A teacher who non-violently tried to stop him from entering into the classroom lost his life as a result.

Logically, it would seem to me that non-violent people will always die when confronted by violent people. The logic of non-violence to me seems illogical when placed next to violence. How would a situation between two non-violent people be resolved if both refuse to agree. How can a situation be resolved? Perhaps I am just to unknowledgible about non-violence. I won't say I disagree with non-violence resolution, in fact I'm more open to it then I was previously to joining the liberty in our lifetime movement.

I do not see the solution of how we can overcome people who choose violence over those us who would rather not use violence. I don't want to goto jail or give up my property for victimless crimes. I like everyone want answers but I can not see them. Logically non-violent people understand only non-violence. Logic also then means that violent people only understand violence. If you speak the language of one, to one who understands only the other, its like two people, one speaking French and the other speaking Russian, you can not understand each other.

I simply want to understand.

[Caleb]

I too believe in this concept of "real truth" and "real error". Can it be said that the Bible is this 'real truth' though would be my question. Take for example the various versions of the Bible that exist and other material discovered which will never be added to the Bible because it conflicts with the Tradition of the Bible. Evidence exists that Jesus was not divine but because it conflicts with other accounts that he was, it is rejected. I am not Biblical scholar by any means, and because of that I have to listen to both sides of the debate and decide which is truer then the other. I am open to listen.

Well, the issues you raise are not particularly germane to the discussion at hand, but I do understand where you are coming from.  An effort has been made by some to discredit the Scriptures by arguing that the canon was selected so as to exclude other books which are just as legitimate. This argument has some appeal on the face of it, but my challenge to you would be this:  Read the gospel of Luke.  Then, read the gospel of Judas Iscariot.  Then, make your own determination as to which work is of higher quality.  Many of the people who have bought into the idea that there are additional books which belong in the canon have never read the books they would propose to add.  In general, the books in the canon were selected over others because they a) are of greater antiquity, ie closer to the events they describe b) attributable to an apostolic authority c) have achieved the respect of the church at large.  That is not to say that there are not disputed works.  Revelation, Jude, James, and the letters of John are still not universally accepted by the church.  A decent case can be made for the gospel of Thomas, (though it belongs to the genre called "Sayings gospels" and doesn't really add any new information.)

Then there are those on the opposite end of the spectrum who say that the Bible is "THE WORD OF GOD" and in my opinion are guilty of idolatry.  Anyone who tells you that "the truth" is infallibly in any book doesn't understand the power of God, in my opinion.  Regrettably, there are a fair number of Christians who are in that category. I believe that a fair representation of the New Testament would be this:  It is an anthology which accurately represents the beliefs and history of the first century church.  Beyond that, it is also somewhat more, but going into that would require a detailed explanation of the mission of the Church, which I don't wish to go into at this time.

I do not contend that scripture or history is inaccessible due to the various differences in passages of time and languages. It could be held true that a message can last 2000 without losing meaning, however even stone wears with age. If you take a puzzle of some 1000 pieces and randomly take out 100 or so pieces. From there you take the remainder and throw them out the door of an airplane some 10,000 feet up. Can you honestly say, you can tell what the image contained in the puzzle was? This is akin to my point about scripture, and can be said honestly and truthfully about anything, including history.

Well, let me give you another analogy to go along with yours. What if 5,000 people had taken a picture of your original puzzle before the 100 pieces were taken out?  Because that's sort of the picture we have with the NT.  There are still some Greek phrases that are somewhat unclear.  But there are over 5000 manuscripts in many different languages.  We might not understand the Greek that well, but someone in the second century translated it into Syriac, and that gives us a better understanding of what the passage meant.  Is it possible that certain passages might be a little cloudy to us?  Sure, but I think that is a rarity, and if that troubles a person greatly, he's probably too tied to the texts anyway.  Christianity is not a religion that you learn in a manual.

Let me restate myself as I didn't believe I would be taken so literally(sounds good in the head, but not so well if you weren't in my head). Logic can exist in religion, and usually does to a certain extent. However just because a thing looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, doesn't automatically make it a duck, such as a robotic duck. Religion and logic(science), I think complement each other. Logic however does not allow for such a concept as faith.

Life demands the concept of faith. Logic is just a way of analyzing conclusions to see if things follow from the premises.  It is a deductive science, and is mathematically precise.  But there's the rub:  the premises are almost always impossible to *prove* in any substantial way.  We use inductive reasoning to try to show the reasonableness of the premises, but they cannot be *known* in a mathematical sense the way logic operates.  Faith is just another word for *trust*, and as such makes up for what we lack in knowledge.  We all have faith.  It isn't really a religious word.  I set my alarm clock last night, and went to bed.  I had faith that the alarm clock would ring. This wasn't a guarantee, it was a probability based on experience.  I had a conversation the other day about your senses.  How do you *know* that the world is as you see, hear, touch, and taste?  Couldn't the outside world be a delusional fantasy in your head?  You cannot mathematically prove that your senses are not misleading you, but you take it on faith.  You trust them. Religious faith is not in a different category.

A thing that can not be proved to exist, does not exist. We think, therefore we exist.

No.  A thing that cannot be proved to exist may exist, or may not exist.  It is simply unknown. *You* think, therefore you exist.  But you do not *know* that I think.  Once again, I could simply be a delusion in your head, as far as your experience can determine. 

Again, I made a general statement that was taken literally. So let me restate. A majority of the people who I have met, whom state they are Christian, which I understand to mean they are true believers understand their faith to the fullest, make the statement that they truly believe that what their religious leaders say is the "real truth". Does this make everyone that says they are Christian thusly so? No. But as a general statement it does hold true for most people.

There is, I will grant, a fair amount of subservience within those who profess Christ. I do not believe these attitudes are compatible with the teachings of Christ. Christ predicted that many people who confessed him would not do what he said.

It is not that I wish to muzzle you, I just ask that you be as respectful in the beliefs of others as they are in yours.

I will respect a person's opinion if it differs from mine.  But morality is not mere opinion.  "I like chocolate" and "I like NAZI concentration camps" are not morally equivalent statements. One is a preference.  The other is immoral. I believe that all violence is immoral?  Would you have me wink at it?

I find the logic of non-violence to be difficult to understand. If one acts non-violently to all situations, and all the time, then what happens when a violent person acts violently towards a non-violent person? What is life for if one does not defend themselves from violent people?

This happens routinely, as you note.  But let me ask you this:  Is physical harm the worst harm that can befall a person? I do not believe that it is. I believe that moral, spiritual, and emotional harm are worse than physical harm.

If a person attacks me and causes me physical harm, that is all that he can do to me.  I am still ultimately empowered; my mind is my own, no matter what he does to me.  This is what Jesus meant when he said, "Do not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul."  Any attacker has only very limited ability to harm me.

But if I use violence against him, I have committed not only a physical act against him, but an emotional assault on myself.  I have allowed the individual attacking me to get within my psyche, to do real damage to myself.  I have allowed him to transform me from a creature of love, to a creature of hate.  The emotional and spiritual damage is incalculable. Love transforms from within.  So does hate. And we reap what we sow. If I plant hate and anger in my heart, I will reap that fruitage in my life. If I plant love, that fruitage I will also reap.  No one can take this away from me. I will be what I choose to be.  This is the freedom that no one can take from me.  I can only take it from myself. 

We see this many times throughout history, that non-violence can not over come violence all the time. How many people are slaughtered throughout the world who object to what violent people do and are killed because of it.

There are no guarantees.  Sometimes evil wins out over good.  For a time, anyway.  But love is the only thing that is capable of conquering evil. One form of hatred can replace another.  But only love has the potential to diffuse hate and eliminate it.

[cyberdoo78]

Well, let me give you another analogy to go along with yours. What if 5,000 people had taken a picture of your original puzzle before the 100 pieces were taken out?  Because that's sort of the picture we have with the NT.  There are still some Greek phrases that are somewhat unclear.  But there are over 5000 manuscripts in many different languages.  We might not understand the Greek that well, but someone in the second century translated it into Syriac, and that gives us a better understanding of what the passage meant.  Is it possible that certain passages might be a little cloudy to us?  Sure, but I think that is a rarity, and if that troubles a person greatly, he's probably too tied to the texts anyway.  Christianity is not a religion that you learn in a manual.

The problem as I see it is that far too many people quote the Bible, you yourself did to prove a point, and not one of them can say with any provable certainty that what they are quoting is the true word. I'm not saying the Bible is wrong, nor am I saying it is right. The Bible is a product of man based on the word of God, perhaps even by the word or spirit of God's guidance. Its an imperfect being quoting a perfect being. The logic of such a statement means that what is testified as being the word of God is at best a eyewitness account of an accident(which is always doubtful), and at worse the words of an individual who is crazy.

5000 translations of the word "go" being wrongly translated into "stop" do not make the word "go" mean "stop". Now obviously this is a ridiculous example, but it puts a point to what I'm trying to say. I am not a language expert so I can not argue the point as well as someone who is. I do know that various languages have roots and other languages, and I believe that it is true(call it faith if you will) we can not trace all languages back to one single root language. As such, we can not be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that what is contained in the Bible is the "true truth".

Life demands the concept of faith.

I take this to mean that Life can not exist without faith? Can you live without water, possibly, not well but it is possible and maybe not for long. Can you live without food, again possibly, not well but it is possible even if not for long. So if I don't eat or drink today, can my faith sustain my life till I can eat again in a month? Faith itself can not sustain life, therefore I argue that life can exist without faith. Do I need to worry about my alarm clock waking me up the next day? No, because I will not die if it does or if it does not. Does it matter if the world is in my head or if it is real? Does faithfully believing either way change the outcome? See, I do not believe that life demands or requires faith. Do I have faith, yes, I believe I do. But life doesn't demand I do, my life exists with or without it. Can I prove this, obviously not, but I can take it on faith.

A thing that can not be proved to exist, does not exist. We think, therefore we exist.

No.  A thing that cannot be proved to exist may exist, or may not exist.  It is simply unknown. *You* think, therefore you exist.  But you do not *know* that I think.  Once again, I could simply be a delusion in your head, as far as your experience can determine.

You are right, I am wrong. You are correct I do not know that you think. You could be a simple delusion in my head. I can not disprove either of these things so the could be true or they could be false.

I will respect a person's opinion if it differs from mine.  But morality is not mere opinion.  "I like chocolate" and "I like NAZI concentration camps" are not morally equivalent statements. One is a preference.  The other is immoral. I believe that all violence is immoral?  Would you have me wink at it?

If you wink at it, thats fine with me. All I was asking was that people with differing opinions not be treated like the devil, even if they are such.

But if I use violence against him, I have committed not only a physical act against him, but an emotional assault on myself.  I have allowed the individual attacking me to get within my psyche, to do real damage to myself.  I have allowed him to transform me from a creature of love, to a creature of hate.  The emotional and spiritual damage is incalculable. Love transforms from within.  So does hate. And we reap what we sow. If I plant hate and anger in my heart, I will reap that fruitage in my life. If I plant love, that fruitage I will also reap.  No one can take this away from me. I will be what I choose to be.  This is the freedom that no one can take from me.  I can only take it from myself.

I don't think in these same terms. I love everyone, even those I hate. I believe in true balance, that people can exist as both true hate and true love at the same time. Its my love for that person that I hate them and the reason I don't allow them to trespass apon me. I do not grant anyone the power to make me believe one way or another or to change how I feel about anyone including me.

Like the water that falls from heavens onto the ground, and that flows from the mountains to the sea, so am I, indestructible and unyielding. You may change me from gas to a liquid, or from liquid to solid, but you can never truly destroy me. You may disrupt my life by killing me, but you will never be able to destroy me. Just because you believe that my corporal death will stop me from being able to affect you, doesn't make it so. For once released from corporal form, my power over you does not diminish. Like water in a container, it is contained and suppressed. Once the container is broken, it is free, and can create a tidal wave which no living thing can survive from. So take my life from me, grant me the power over your corporal life.

Many times we see movies in which the dead can affect the living in ways they could not previously. Is this just some desire to scare ourselves or do the ideas come from a part of us that is ingrained to the point where we can't break away from it? Energy can not be destroyed, it can only be changed. When it comes down to it, we are all energy, stored in one form in life, and changed into another form in death. We don't ever truly die. This is one concept that every religion believes, or so I have found.