Force VS Pacifism

[jfoges]

Lost,

You should stand up the fat bully, and let him know how wrong he is. Challenge his statements and don’t be afraid to show anger or disgust. Christians should not be violent, but being non-violent doesnt mean being a doormat. Being a pacifist doesn’t mean being passive. Non-violence is a philosophy of dealing with conflict without using violence, it is not an avoidance of conflict.

Now, if you need to avoid challenging the bully because you are afraid you may get hurt as a result, that is a different matter. If that is the case, I would just avoid him.

 

[JRKH]

Exactly - by trying to either physically or verbally ‘attack’ (ie by backstabbing or character assassination as you’ve said) you’d be doing the equivalent of Germany’s resort to a fascist leader.

In fact Hitler’s regime was uniquely one where a minister, Goebbels, was specifically placed in charge of propaganda (ie backstabbing and character assassination, such as spreading lies and rumours and general scuttlebutt about the Jews so that their extermination would be better accepted).

With his ministry actually being CALLED the Ministry of Propaganda, with no attempt to hide that this was what he was doing. And where this propaganda ministry and its work made Goebbels as influential and valued a member of Hitler’s regime as any of the leaders of his military, the SS or Gestapo or the like.

You mihgt want to be careful about how you apply this principle. While the term “propaganda” has taken on an almost purely negative meaing for most people, it has not always caried that stigma.

From Dictionalry.com
Propaganda:

1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.
4. Roman Catholic Church .
   
   a. a committee of cardinals, established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV, having supervision over foreign missions and the training of priests for these missions.
   b. a school (College of Propaganda) established by Pope Urban VIII for the education of priests for foreign missions.​

Please note that definitions three and four do NOT say or imply the use of “negative” propaganda. At least I would certainly hope that those here would not believe that the Hole See would establish an organization for the purposes stated in definition number 1 above.

Propaganda, the spreading and promoting of the, “particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement” can, in fact, be good or bad depending upon the movement and organization itself.

I believe that, so long as LW confines his discussions with others to the validity of the bullies arguments, and does not engage in personal attacks and character asasination, he will be OK.

Peace
James

 

[bosonhiggs]

You should be telling that to the pacifist here not me. I acknowledge the Last Resort label on violence. However, I’m not going to be blind at how likely I might actually end up using that last resort. As I said, I’m dealing with a college-aged thug who actually had scuffles with the police and threatened his teachers.

That’s always been my strategy. The only problem is half the time the person doesn’t take kindly to the blow I dealt to his/her pride and instead of being humbled, they mark you on their hate list.

Hm. Then I suggest a few karate lessons in case you need to use self-defense
I’m on a few hate lists myself haha. I shrug and ignore it, those people are not worth the effort.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Austria-Hungary took punitive measures against Serbia, Then Russia, a friend to Serbia, declared war on Austria-Hungary . Germany, who was allied with Austria-Hungary declared war on Russia. France and England who had Treaties with Russia then came into the war against Germany and Austria-Hungary.
Far from being the “instigator” of the war, Germany was merely acting in an honorable fashon by living up to her promise of her treaty with the Hapburgs of Austria-Hungary.

Sorry but you’re just plain being blind here. If Germany was so worked about the crimes of an idiotic schoolboy, they’d have taken their beef with just the Serbs (and maybe Russia). But no, they invaded neutral territory (Belgium). On the grounds of what? Because they wanted a quick trip to invade France and only because France had a treaty with Russia? You don’t go that far to involve entire countries just to avenge the death of some aristocrat. It’s quite obvious what the real agenda was and that was the total invasion of Europe. Germany was a barbaric power-hungry nation. Period. Thus, it’s no surprise why they tried so much to pin those militaristic fascists down after they won WWI.

Yet because Germany was the one who sued for peace, and she was the only one of the central powers still standing, she was made to bear the full blame for the war and the full econimic burden for all it’s devestation - not just part of it but ALL OF IT.
Take some time - and read the history of Europe from 1900 on and you will be surprised at how much greed, malice, backbiting and backstabbing was going on. In other words how much “unchristian” activity there was, and what the consequences of this were.
The Employment of Christian Principle could have prevented WW I. - If not, the employment of Christian Principles in the Peace at Versailles could have prevented WW II.

Germany sued for peace yet its generals didn’t even want to admit defeat. Can’t you see that they were asking for it? That’s how stubborn they were. Furthermore, I have done a bit of research myself in the university library for the sole purpose of this debate. I have found very few books that portray Germany in the sympathetic light that you are presenting. Is it just me or are you taking your info from that movement prior to the 70s that tried to soften that country’s image during WWI? I can’t remember the exact quote from the book but I’m certain that that movement has reverted back decades later.

With that said, I don’t even know if any of what I read was necessary. It’s only logical to have made Germany pay because she was the only nation standing. I mean if you take out a bunch of thugs to the point that they can’t even pay for any damage and only the ringleader is left standing, what good would it do to render him incapable of giving compensation?

There is no comparison between the two peoples or times.
Japan was not made to carry the entire economic burden for the war they had just lost like Germany was in1919.

Yeah, they didn’t make them pay. Instead they lost over 200,000 of their civilians in a single day. They didn’t have that when they defeated Germany.

Economic burden VS Atomic devastation.

They look pretty even to me.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

One of Chamberlain’s hopes was to forestall, if not avert, war while England rebuilt her military. Are you using the time to build up your responses, your sources, and your abilities and the abilities of your “back-up” in order to take on this bully again?

I’m sorry, what are you reading? Chamberlain did not want war at all. Heck I’m reading a 1940 article from Time on Neville Chamberlain that said he only rearmed Britain as some half-baked bluff. He had no intention at all for his country to fight.

Unlike him, I intend to fight and I’ve already got plans. However, I’m like a lone ninja here. I need to forge secret alliances, look around for other people who can’t stand him. See if I can trust them, etc, etc.

Sounds like a big problem for you. Two options here. Change the people you hang with, or see that those you DO hang with are well-informed and, hopefully, more religious or at least more tolerant and willing to defend the relgious view. Evangelize those neutrals and those who “lean” toward his views (without the ingrained hate) and you neatly slice his support out from under him.

Sorry but I detest proselytizing, no matter what the religion/belief (which is why I wish this guy would just can it). Furthermore, I am not religious myself. Why else would I be hanging around this joint? All the people here share the same interests/hobbies as I do. I just happen to be more conservative than the entire lot combined. Meanwhile on sites like this, that would make me the least conservative. See my sig? You can say it’s a reflection of that duality.

Many might care. I fact I’d bet most do care. they are probably just as tired of this guy as you are. Many might be looking for someone with courage enough to stand up to this fellow with good solid arguments. My bet is that he spouts off the same garbage, almost word for word every time. So it should be easy for you to narrow in on his specific arguments and sources and provide counterarguments to his.

Also - the thing you term “backstabbing” which I take to mean “personal attacks” and “Character assasination”- I’d not resort to that. Believe me he is already doing a good job of that on his own. But I would not hesitate at all to counter his arguments quietly. You can easily cut any support he has out from under him by “whispering” well founded and documented truth that will drown out the “shouted” lies. You will leave him shouting to an “empty house” where no few if anyone takes him seriously.

I’m afraid I wouldn’t be as hopeful. So far I have only met one person who can’t stand him as much and he’s quite a green joker himself. I told you, not many people care for the validity of what this guy says. They just drink it in or let it pass because of his rep. The way I see it, backstabbing is the only way I can find some common ground with people who can’t stand him. There wouldn’t be anything else to agree on. He’s made alliances by doing the same to me anyways. It’s time I gave him a taste of his own medicine.

I’m on the defensive when it comes to claims. If you spout misinformation, that’s when I’ll open my mouth. I rarely make claims myself (or fire the first shot as it were). The problem is, I’m not exactly in an environment where its safe to voice your religious views (even if they are in defense). I just cannot be sure just how many are on this jerk’s side right now to make a move. That’s why, I gotta get connections of my own. If I have to divide the place into two sides, I will. The point is, I gotta ally with people who won’t mind me defending myself and put him in his place when he starts crossing more lines (or worse, gets physical).

I really think that this is something you should consider too. On the other thread, you mentioned about how you get the adrenalen rush from the videogames and from hunting. My guess is that this new “Game”, this new “Challange” in the REal world could be a major “rush” as well. Do you think you could get as good at slaying real demons with the weapons of truth an Love as you are at slaying “demonic pixels” with virtual weapons?

Funny how you say that when even I need some co-op when I have to take out some reeaally nasty beasties. The same goes with real life beasties. There are too many unknown factors for me to take this guy on my own. (And no, don’t tell me “God is with me”. I hate to break it to you, but it’ll take more than some metaphysical voice and presence to reassure me of victory.)

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Hm. Then I suggest a few karate lessons in case you need to use self-defense
I’m on a few hate lists myself haha. I shrug and ignore it, those people are not worth the effort.

Karate lessons? Hah, forget that, I’m getting a taser or worse, maybe even a gun permit. I mean all my younger siblings hang out here too and they look down on me bad enough as it is without this lard’s slander.

 

[JRKH]

Sorry but you’re just plain being blind here. If Germany was so worked about the crimes of an idiotic schoolboy, they’d have taken their beef with just the Serbs (and maybe Russia).

They did - they declared war on Russia because they had a treaty with Austria-Hungary. THEN because France and England had treaties with Russia, THEY declared war on Germany, who responded in kind. It’s not that any of these nations did not know about these treaties and surely Gemany knew what would happen when she declared War on Russia.
It is you who are being blind, or perhaps it’s just your age and your inexperience.

But no, they invaded neutral territory (Belgium). On the grounds of what? Because they wanted a quick trip to invade France and only because France had a treaty with Russia? You don’t go that far to involve entire countries just to avenge the death of some aristocrat. It’s quite obvious what the real agenda was and that was the total invasion of Europe.

War is a terrible thing and yes, sometimes there is, what today would be termed, “Collateral damage”. Germany did itself no great service by invading Belgium this is true,

Germany was a barbaric power-hungry nation. Period.

Germany was no more "power Hungry than England, or France who had vast and rich Empires stretching around the world.
Yes Germany did have issues in their national “Psyche” that needed to be worked out.

Thus, it’s no surprise why they tried so much to pin those militaristic fascists down after they won WWI.

“Pin down” the militarists is one thing - bankrupting and starving a nation and thus making it ripe for takover by yet another militaristic thug is quite another.

Germany sued for peace yet its generals didn’t even want to admit defeat. Can’t you see that they were asking for it? That’s how stubborn they were. Furthermore, I have done a bit of research myself in the university library for the sole purpose of this debate. I have found very few books that portray Germany in the sympathetic light that you are presenting. Is it just me or are you taking your info from that movement prior to the 70s that tried to soften that country’s image during WWI? I can’t remember the exact quote from the book but I’m certain that that movement has reverted back decades later.

My information comes from decades of study, primarily on WW II, but including the period back to about 1900. It incluides, not just the wars themselves, but also the factors and political conditions between the wars. I am not a professor, or even an historian, just an avid “history buff”. My conclusions are my own and not tied to any “movement(s)”.

Yes the German Generals did not wish to admit defeat. This is very true.
And when the leaders of the “republican” government were forced to sign the treaty at Versailles - I say again - forced to sign because, although they did not want to sign, Germany could not continue the war in hopes of gaining better terms, – The militarists, many of whom hated the republican government and hoped for a restoration of the monarchy had a “trump card” they could play against the civilian republican government.

With that said, I don’t even know if any of what I read was necessary. It’s only logical to have made Germany pay because she was the only nation standing. I mean if you take out a bunch of thugs to the point that they can’t even pay for any damage and only the ringleader is left standing, what good would it do to render him incapable of giving compensation?

Analogies between Nations and “a bunch of thugs” do not work.
First of all, although Germany was the strongest of the central powers and thus was the only one left standing, She could hardly be called the “Ringleader” since she is not thone who started the war. Russia has that honor for declaring War against Austia-Hungary over what was essentially an internal matter of the A-H empire. So you see - It was Russia who started the Domino’s falling, not the Germans.

Secondly, Making a single “Thug” pay for some crime is a darn sight different than making an entire nation of civilians pay for the crimes of a few aristocrats, and the Army leadership. The Treaty of Versailles bankrupted Germany and starved, not a bunch of bullies, but women and children, babes in arms and old people who had nothing to do with any war atrocities.

Yeah, they didn’t make them pay. Instead they lost over 200,000 of their civilians in a single day. They didn’t have that when they defeated Germany.

Economic burden VS Atomic devastation.

They look pretty even to me.

Getting even - - - - is the reason - - - That wars keep cropping up.
Getting even - - - - is the reason - - - That the Jews and the Arabs are still tossing bombs at each other.
Vengance - - - An Eye for an Eye - - - Makes the whole world blind.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I’m sorry, what are you reading? Chamberlain did not want war at all. Heck I’m reading a 1940 article from Time on Neville Chamberlain that said he only rearmed Britain as some half-baked bluff. He had no intention at all for his country to fight.

The only way that Chamberlain could be and remain as Prime minister of Englans was if the majority of parliment and the nation agreed with him. The Fact is that NO one wanted war, except Hitler.
It’s interesting you you read something and then reword it ot fit your own viewpoint. The Article says, “Chamberlain determined that Britain must rearm. But he believed that rearmament would be used for negotiation, not for war. And so the rearmament of Britain was mostly on paper, and Hitler also knew that.”. A statement that you reduce to, “some half-baked bluff”.

Unlike him, I intend to fight and I’ve already got plans. However, I’m like a lone ninja here. I need to forge secret alliances, look around for other people who can’t stand him. See if I can trust them, etc, etc.

And so it beigns - the building of alliances.

Sorry but I detest proselytizing, no matter what the religion/belief (which is why I wish this guy would just can it). Furthermore, I am not religious myself. Why else would I be hanging around this joint? All the people here share the same interests/hobbies as I do. I just happen to be more conservative than the entire lot combined. Meanwhile on sites like this, that would make me the least conservative. See my sig? You can say it’s a reflection of that duality.

Well - Since you all yourself “Catholic” in your profile, and yet say here that you are - “Not religious”, I guess there is little else I can offer you.
I suppose you were baptized Catholic but obviously you do not hold to Catholic principles and teachings. Do you even go to Church??

I believed that I was talking to someone who, at least, theoretically believed in Christ and what He taught. I see I am wrong so my viewpoint of strength in peaceful ways, Forebearance, Forgiveness and Prayer can have little interest to you.
You choose to look at history from the viewpoint of War, conflict and vengence. In other words the militarists view. I prefer to look at war from the viewpoint of “failed peace”. Wars result, in most cases, from injustices, or perceived injustices. They result from all of the great sins of Pride, and Greed, and Sloth, and …
You see every effort at avoiding war as somehow weak…

I suspect much of this is due to your age and experience (or lack thereof).

At this point all I can do is to wish you good luck in your dealings with this bully and offer a prayer for you.

Peace
James

 

[jfoges]

Lost,

I am sorry but you seem really immature. Who cares what this guy says? Don’t you have better things to do than worry about some idiot and his friends? Why don’t you go get a girlfriend.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

They did - they declared war on Russia because they had a treaty with Austria-Hungary. THEN because France and England had treaties with Russia, THEY declared war on Germany, who responded in kind. It’s not that any of these nations did not know about these treaties and surely Gemany knew what would happen when she declared War on Russia.
It is you who are being blind, or perhaps it’s just your age and your inexperience.

War is a terrible thing and yes, sometimes there is, what today would be termed, “Collateral damage”. Germany did itself no great service by invading Belgium this is true

France and England only acted after the invasion of Belgium. The violation of neutral territory was what outraged them, not the fact that they had treaties with Russia. You accuse me of reading into what I read and you’re not?

My information comes from decades of study, primarily on WW II, but including the period back to about 1900. It incluides, not just the wars themselves, but also the factors and political conditions between the wars. I am not a professor, or even an historian, just an avid “history buff”. My conclusions are my own and not tied to any “movement(s)”.

Well I take my info from a republished compilation of one of the oldest volumes of books chronicling the war. I believe it was originally a 12-13 volume set and the new editions were compacted into six (at least that’s what my library had). I also read another smaller book, sort of a pictorial, and it was there that I read about people trying to soften up Germany’s image.

Yes the German Generals did not wish to admit defeat. This is very true.
And when the leaders of the “republican” government were forced to sign the treaty at Versailles - I say again - forced to sign because, although they did not want to sign, Germany could not continue the war in hopes of gaining better terms, – The militarists, many of whom hated the republican government and hoped for a restoration of the monarchy had a “trump card” they could play against the civilian republican government.

Which is why they tried to pin Germany down in the first place to weaken the chances of Germany rising up again. Sure it didn’t work (thanks to Hitler -_-;; ) but that had always been the real idea.

Analogies between Nations and “a bunch of thugs” do not work.
First of all, although Germany was the strongest of the central powers and thus was the only one left standing, She could hardly be called the “Ringleader” since she is not thone who started the war. Russia has that honor for declaring War against Austia-Hungary over what was essentially an internal matter of the A-H empire. So you see - It was Russia who started the Domino’s falling, not the Germans.

Actually no, Germany used the assassination as an excuse to claim Serbia and that’s when Russia stepped in. The official declaration was actually just a response to the obvious threats Germany was starting to exhibit. Face it, that country started the whole thing.

Secondly, Making a single “Thug” pay for some crime is a darn sight different than making an entire nation of civilians pay for the crimes of a few aristocrats, and the Army leadership. The Treaty of Versailles bankrupted Germany and starved, not a bunch of bullies, but women and children, babes in arms and old people who had nothing to do with any war atrocities.

Look the point is somebody had to be held accountable and make up for all the losses. In fact, U.S. was a debtor country while England was center of the world capital market prior to World War I. You can’t blame them for asking compensation after the cost they had to pay to end it.

Getting even - - - - is the reason - - - That wars keep cropping up.
Getting even - - - - is the reason - - - That the Jews and the Arabs are still tossing bombs at each other.
Vengance - - - An Eye for an Eye - - - Makes the whole world blind.

Staying silent is the reason Christianity is portrayed as weak.
Staying silent is the reason the New Atheism is on the rise.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

The only way that Chamberlain could be and remain as Prime minister of Englans was if the majority of parliment and the nation agreed with him. The Fact is that NO one wanted war, except Hitler.
It’s interesting you you read something and then reword it ot fit your own viewpoint. The Article says, “Chamberlain determined that Britain must rearm. But he believed that rearmament would be used for negotiation, not for war. And so the rearmament of Britain was mostly on paper, and Hitler also knew that.”. A statement that you reduce to, “some half-baked bluff”.

Yeah it was on paper and used for “negotiations”. Translated: Show off in order to convince.

You do realize that’s also known as, you guessed it, bluffing!

Well - Since you all yourself “Catholic” in your profile, and yet say here that you are - “Not religious”, I guess there is little else I can offer you.
I suppose you were baptized Catholic but obviously you do not hold to Catholic principles and teachings. Do you even go to Church??

I believed that I was talking to someone who, at least, theoretically believed in Christ and what He taught. I see I am wrong so my viewpoint of strength in peaceful ways, Forebearance, Forgiveness and Prayer can have little interest to you.

Oh that’s just classic. Just because I don’t pray the rosary five times a day or go to an adoration chapel for two hours, makes me an amoral dissident? (I’m going to make a thread about that by the way.) The passage in the Catechism on self-defense says I have every right to tell people not to treat me like a doormat. I find nothing but a neutral attitude reading it.

Christ drew a line. So have I.
Christ went wild when that line was crossed. So will I.

The only difference is that I’ll need to be more subtle about it.

You choose to look at history from the viewpoint of War, conflict and vengence. In other words the militarists view. I prefer to look at war from the viewpoint of “failed peace”. Wars result, in most cases, from injustices, or perceived injustices. They result from all of the great sins of Pride, and Greed, and Sloth, and …
You see every effort at avoiding war as somehow weak…

It is weak when avoiding war/conflict is seen to be futile in the first place. The next thing you’re going to tell me America caused 9/11 (or worse, was an inside job).

I suspect much of this is due to your age and experience (or lack thereof).

At this point all I can do is to wish you good luck in your dealings with this bully and offer a prayer for you.

Really? You say you’ve been picked on in Catholic school. How long? I remember shocking a lot of people here when I told them my history of being bullied covers around ten years.

Give my age, that’s half of my life being treated like dirt and cast out.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Lost,

I am sorry but you seem really immature. Who cares what this guy says? Don’t you have better things to do than worry about some idiot and his friends? Why don’t you go get a girlfriend.

What so he can victimize her too? Funny how you’re condescending enough to treat the things he says as trivial when you’ve never even heard them.

“If I had my way, I’d kill every last American.”

“Americans don’t deserve to live.”

<On JP2’s death> “I’m GLAD he’s dead! vulgar hand gesture”

I don’t need to go to America to know the ramifications if such statements were made on U.S. soil. Just look at how you guys treat the Westboro wackos.

It’s even funnier when you tell me to get a girlfriend when “meek and religious” are actual turn-ons for me. However, while those traits make a girl a potential partner for me; for bullies like him, they make her potential prey.

This guy hates those defending the Christian religion. The things he says aren’t petty teases. Its unwarranted attacks on my person and on my religion. He also has a history of violence that makes me wish I carried a gun with me.

 

[bosonhiggs]

Oh that’s just classic. Just because I don’t pray the rosary five times a day or go to an adoration chapel for two hours, makes me an amoral dissident? (I’m going to make a thread about that by the way.)

That will be an interesting thread, I look forward to reading through the replies you get.

 

[JRKH]

France and England only acted after the invasion of Belgium. The violation of neutral territory was what outraged them, not the fact that they had treaties with Russia. You accuse me of reading into what I read and you’re not?

Well I take my info from a republished compilation of one of the oldest volumes of books chronicling the war. I believe it was originally a 12-13 volume set and the new editions were compacted into six (at least that’s what my library had). I also read another smaller book, sort of a pictorial, and it was there that I read about people trying to soften up Germany’s image.

After a review of dates etc I find that I was in error regarding who declared war when. My apologies.
According to the timeline HERE:

05/07/1914 Kaiser William II promises German support for Austria against Serbia.
28/07/1914 Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia and Russia.
29/07/1914 Russia begins to mobilise her armed forces. Austria-Hungarian troops invade Serbia.

01/08/1914 Official outbreak of World War I. Germany declares war on Russia.
02/08/1914 Germany invades Luxembourg.
03/08/1914 Germany declares war on France.
04/08/1914 Germany declares war on neutral Belgium and invades in a right flanking move designed to defeat France quickly. This violates a treaty signed by Prussua respecting Belgian neutrality. As a result of this invasion, Britain declares war on Germany and Austria-Hungary. Canada follows suit and joins the war. U.S President Woodrow Wilson declares policy of American neutrality.

Which is why they tried to pin Germany down in the first place to weaken the chances of Germany rising up again. Sure it didn’t work (thanks to Hitler -_-;; ) but that had always been the real idea.

An Idea which obviously failed just as misirably as Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement did after Hitler’s rise to power. If the Germans had been dealt with more magnanimously in 1919, it is possible that conditions would not have become so bad in the 20’s and early 30’s and perhaps Hitler would not have risen to power.

Actually no, Germany used the assassination as an excuse to claim Serbia and that’s when Russia stepped in. The official declaration was actually just a response to the obvious threats Germany was starting to exhibit. Face it, that country started the whole thing.

Wrong - If you look at the timeline above it was Austia-Hungary, not Germany, who used the event to “claim Serbia”. Germany offered her support to A-H in dealing with Serbia.

Also, according to the Book, “The Guns of August” (Pg 71), Russia, weakened by the Russo-Japanese war of 1905 had been forced to “acquiesce” in 1909 when A-H had absorbed Bosnia and Heszegovenia. The book goes on to state that, “To avenge that humiliation and for the sake of her prestige as the major Slav power, Russia was now prepared to put on the shining armor (of baltic protector) herself.”

So Germany - who promised to support A-H now found itself drawn into a war with Russia.

Look the point is somebody had to be held accountable and make up for all the losses.

Why??

In fact, U.S. was a debtor country while England was center of the world capital market prior to World War I. You can’t blame them for asking compensation after the cost they had to pay to end it.

Certain compensation yes. But the amounts were excessive and everyone knew it.

Staying silent is the reason Christianity is portrayed as weak.

How something is portrayed does not make the portrayal true. Prior to WW II the Japanese were portayed in the US as little, servile, "copycats’ with bad eyesight. Many people (not all) bought into this and underestimated their capacity ot wage modern war.
The portrayal of the Japanese was wrong. The Portrayal of Chritianity is wrong.

Staying silent is the reason the New Atheism is on the rise.

Then speak up.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

The do something - But be careful that what you do is not evil in itself or you’ve acheived nothing of worth.

Peace
James

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

An Idea which obviously failed just as misirably as Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement did after Hitler’s rise to power. If the Germans had been dealt with more magnanimously in 1919, it is possible that conditions would not have become so bad in the 20’s and early 30’s and perhaps Hitler would not have risen to power.

Yet yourself did not respond when I presented a case that the Japanese suffering after the atomic bombings in WWII were the same as the heavy fine imposed on Germany after WWI. However, did the former turn to a ranting racist to rebuild them? No.

Wrong - If you look at the timeline above it was Austia-Hungary, not Germany, who used the event to “claim Serbia”. Germany offered her support to A-H in dealing with Serbia.

Also, according to the Book, “The Guns of August” (Pg 71), Russia, weakened by the Russo-Japanese war of 1905 had been forced to “acquiesce” in 1909 when A-H had absorbed Bosnia and Heszegovenia. The book goes on to state that, “To avenge that humiliation and for the sake of her prestige as the major Slav power, Russia was now prepared to put on the shining armor (of baltic protector) herself.”

So Germany - who promised to support A-H now found itself drawn into a war with Russia.

For a country that you imply was dragged into the A-H VS Serbia conflict, it was pretty eager to look for any excuse to invade what were initially countries that had no part at the start (e.g. Belgium, France, England).

Why??

Uh for the same reason you sentence people to prison? Or are you going to go back to that analogy and say that we shouldn’t even be doing that.

Certain compensation yes. But the amounts were excessive and everyone knew it.

And the costs and casualties weren’t?

How something is portrayed does not make the portrayal true. Prior to WW II the Japanese were portayed in the US as little, servile, "copycats’ with bad eyesight. Many people (not all) bought into this and underestimated their capacity ot wage modern war.
The portrayal of the Japanese was wrong. The Portrayal of Chritianity is wrong.

Yet what proved that portrayal wrong? You guessed it. Pearl Harbor.

 

[JRKH]

Yet yourself did not respond when I presented a case that the Japanese suffering after the atomic bombings in WWII were the same as the heavy fine imposed on Germany after WWI. However, did the former turn to a ranting racist to rebuild them? No.

Apples and oranges. The two times and situations are not comparable.

For a country that you imply was dragged into the A-H VS Serbia conflict, it was pretty eager to look for any excuse to invade what were initially countries that had no part at the start (e.g. Belgium, France, England).

If you want to get into the reasons for this we would need to look even further back into European History, which we could do and see time and again where unchristian attitudes, postures, decisions and actions that aggrivated situations and tensions that left Europe, at the beginning of the 20th Century, a smoldering powder keg.

Uh for the same reason you sentence people to prison? Or are you going to go back to that analogy and say that we shouldn’t even be doing that.

Look being held “accountable” is one thing. The Treaty of Versailles went well beyond this. The results of such vindictive and punitive actions are self evident in how history played out.

Yet what proved that portrayal wrong? You guessed it. Pearl Harbor.

The event that proved it wrong is beside the point. The point is that “portryals” are not the same thing as “truths”. In your post you said, “Staying silent is the reason Christianity is portrayed as weak.” Which is what I was responding to.

Silence no more bespeaks weakness than noise bespeaks strength. The two are unrelated.

Peace
James

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Apples and oranges. The two times and situations are not comparable.

Uh yeah they are, they were both means to bring nations to their knees.

If you want to get into the reasons for this we would need to look even further back into European History, which we could do and see time and again where unchristian attitudes, postures, decisions and actions that aggrivated situations and tensions that left Europe, at the beginning of the 20th Century, a smoldering powder keg.

You wanna make a mess trying to connect all the wars of the past and claim them to be a dominating factor in World War I, be my guest but don’t waste my time doing it here. The point is, in this war and in the second, Germany was and has always been the villain. End of story.

Look being held “accountable” is one thing. The Treaty of Versailles went well beyond this. The results of such vindictive and punitive actions are self evident in how history played out.

Given the costs and casualties the Allies suffered, I’m not surprised why they imposed the burden on Germany. Like I said, it was just a matter of some convict managing to break loose and people like you blame the wardens and the ones who wanted him locked up in the first place.

The event that proved it wrong is beside the point. The point is that “portryals” are not the same thing as “truths”. In your post you said, “Staying silent is the reason Christianity is portrayed as weak.” Which is what I was responding to.

Silence no more bespeaks weakness than noise bespeaks strength. The two are unrelated.

On the contrary, it just proves the point; my point. It took action, force, and assertiveness to completely flip the people’s perception of the Japanese. In the case of this goon (and with the rest of the anti-Christian/religious movement), I wouldn’t be surprised if doing the same thing produced the same thing: a change in portrayal.

 

[JRKH]

Uh yeah they are, they were both means to bring nations to their knees.

Might depend on how narrowly you want to define the issues. My reference to apples and oranges had to do with many factors including cutlurald differences betweenthe Japanese and Germans, the time frames and economic factors after each war, the type of peace imposed etc. The mere idea of imposing financial santions vs nuking them is a tiny part of an overall understanding.

You wanna make a mess trying to connect all the wars of the past and claim them to be a dominating factor in World War I, be my guest but don’t waste my time doing it here. The point is, in this war and in the second, Germany was and has always been the villain. End of story.

No I don’t intend to go digging further back if we don’t have to. In fact I feel that the current line of discussion is not really resolving the core issues. Our conversation earlier forced me to bring out a very good book called The Guns of August, by Barbara W. Tuchman. If you can get a copy I believe you would enjoy it.
In the opening chapters, reviewing the background of WW I, it really shows how the whole of Europe was sitting on a “powder keg” of interlocking alliances, failing monarchies, emergent ideologies, national pride, hatred, envy and just plain foolishness. The book then goes into the events of August 1914 before everything settled into trench warfare.

Given the costs and casualties the Allies suffered, I’m not surprised why they imposed the burden on Germany. Like I said, it was just a matter of some convict managing to break loose and people like you blame the wardens and the ones who wanted him locked up in the first place.

You like to use the analogy of a single person (convict) to equate an entire nation but it harldy is a fair analogy. It’s one thing to capture and punish a single person responsible for an outrage. Every cell in his body is equally responsible and every cell in his body is equally punished. Nations are not like that.
When Germany was forced to underwrite the entire cost of the war for every nation that suffered loss, it was not the military that paid that bill, nor was it the Kaiser who had fled to the Netherlands, never to return. Those left “holding the bag” were those trying to build a peaceful and democratic republic in Germany. Those who paid, out of what litte they had were the German population, struggling at the end of 1918 just to kkep from starving as a result of the Allied naval blockade. In addition, many children not yet born in Germany, and so not at ALL responsible for the war or the costs suffered.
Instead of these starving people, and this fledgling republican government in Germany getting a sympathetic hearing at the peace conference, they were not even allowed to participate. They were simply called in and told to sign.
The men who signed this document did not start the war and their children did not start the war. But they were blamed for it.

So in your analogy of the “Criminal”, the Criminal (The Kaiser and General Staff) got away and those who were punished were innocent of any crime beyond national loyalty.

On the contrary, it just proves the point; my point. It took action, force, and assertiveness to completely flip the people’s perception of the Japanese. In the case of this goon (and with the rest of the anti-Christian/religious movement), I wouldn’t be surprised if doing the same thing produced the same thing: a change in portrayal.

But the same “flip” could have been achieved by peaceful means. Did not the Japanese build a fine airplane in the “Zero” fighter? They could have build fine things for peaceful use as well, just as they did after the second world war. Before WW II they tried and faild to build a military empire. After the war the tired and succeeded in building an economic empire.
Same results achieved - different methods employed.

Peace
James

 

[I_Fortuna]

We need to stop being control freaks.

You cannot control anothers thinking or behavior only God and prayer can.

 

[kinja]

Uh yeah they are, they were both means to bring nations to their knees.

You wanna make a mess trying to connect all the wars of the past and claim them to be a dominating factor in World War I, be my guest but don’t waste my time doing it here. The point is, in this war and in the second, Germany was and has always been the villain. End of story.

Given the costs and casualties the Allies suffered, I’m not surprised why they imposed the burden on Germany. Like I said, it was just a matter of some convict managing to break loose and people like you blame the wardens and the ones who wanted him locked up in the first place.

On the contrary, it just proves the point; my point. It took action, force, and assertiveness to completely flip the people’s perception of the Japanese. In the case of this goon (and with the rest of the anti-Christian/religious movement), I wouldn’t be surprised if doing the same thing produced the same thing: a change in portrayal.

I think it is a grand waste of time trying to justify force or pacifism based on wars and those involved in them. Most of the battles sited in this thread have been fought not for truth and goodness but for money and to maintain the balance of power. Any economist or politician can verify this and many have already. The intervention or retaliation of the US or Britain or any super power with respect to war has been shown historically to have been driven by power and money. It is not about protecting the innocent or else many travesties of justice occuring right now all over the world would be stopped by the “powers that be”.

Instead we see China invading Tibet and other nations in modern times and the so called freedom fighters remain silent. We know why President Bush really had Iraq invaded and why his dad was fighting for Kuwait. It’s about protecting the oil interests of America and maintaining the balance of power. Non of it is done out of love and kindness. Let us not be naive enough to believe this.