mentally, i mean. and spiritually. and emotionally. some say that one is better than the other, but typically won't give supporting details. so i would like them now. if anybody has an opinion on this, please post it.

If football defence is better lol. What are you talking about, you need to explain what types of situations you mean.

Always attack. Even on the defensive, it must be an offensive defense.

The sword is better than the shield. Eventually, the shield will either splinter or defend the wrong side of an attack.

To defend is to endure.

My friend this can be a very tricky subject. Some would say that attack is the best, but this leaves room for error. Some would say that defense is best, but that leaves room for weakness. To answer your question, you would have to have both. Because in order to survive in these days of so much questioning if you dont have one or the other you leave room for error.

Attack, offense, initiative. All synonyms.

I note that the Christ took the initiative in all things. He didn't sit around waiting for others to pass by, and then try to defend his position.

He took the initiative and went out "amongst them."

He didn't even play defense when he was taken by the Romans and Sanhedrin. After all, that was part of the plan.

Spiritually speaking.

The old saying the best defense is a strong offense holds true even here I would think. If you cannot attack strongly how are you going to defend?

Originally posted by SpaDe_
The old saying the best defense is a strong offense holds true even here I would think. If you cannot attack strongly how are you going to defend?

I have had to put up with 17 years of mind control, and defence is the best of the two. Nothing i can do about the evil that came into my life.

But defence for me is best, even in things like sports, like soccer.

I have had to put up with 17 years of mind control, and defence is the best of the two. Nothing i can do about the evil that came into my life.

But defence for me is best, even in things like sports, like soccer

But my friend you have to consider with the evils that have came into your life, what if you werent able to "attack". Defense is there so you can gain the hand to attack. Like I said before you cannot have one without the other.



[edit on 25-10-2009 by therighthand18]

Depending on the situation at hand. One really cant answer this question unless you are currently in a perdicament that leads you to make a decision.

The very notion of differentiating the concepts of attacking or defending relies heavily upon ones individual moral standards. For example we can interpret a preemptive attack as a form of defense if we so choose. If you strip away the smoke from it all the issue really comes down to action versus inaction, regardless of which label one applies to either choice, what moral imparatives are served by either course, and the end result that either path leads us to.

In the end it is all relative and falls less into a spiritual realm and more into the realm of survival.

Yeah, what others have said. There's really no way one is better than the other. It's kinda like a game of chess. Even if you're being a highly defensive player, sooner or later you're gonna get attacked and you best be frontin' with a powerful attack too. You can't spend the whole time defending.

It's like if someone with 100 tomatoes at their disposal threw one at you until they ran out. You can stand there with one leg in the air covering your groin, and both hands over your head, but after a while, you'll find yourself pretty beat.

Best to do well with both.

[edit on 25-10-2009 by Whine Flu]

Actually, the question is essentially meaningless. It's like asking which half of your body is "better", the left half, or the right. You can't have one without the other.

All attack has elements of defense, and vice versa. If it does not, then you lose the fight. You need to adapt yourself to the circumstances, which are constantly changing. Trying to hold to any attitude leads to defeat.

Very good question. Armies have been trying to figure that out for thousands of years. Read the Art of War by Sun Tzu.

In general it will depend on one's personality and ability to perform. I have heard the best offense is a good defense.

Mentally----Positive is always the word. Offensive comes to mind with the word positive. Moving forward. Learning. Attacking knowledge until you have conquered it. Knowledge is peaceful so easily conquered unless it is defended, then you have to attack anyway.

Spiritually---- To thy own self be true. The search for Truth. Regarding truth it is best to have offense and defense. Attack for your own growth and defend against what you sense is false. I have found that reasoning with the other party in this area provides wisdom for both.

Emotionally---- Regarding emotions, the instinct to guard your emotions plays a big part in relationships so you do not get hurt. So if dealing with loved ones who care for you make peace and do not attack nor guard. When dealing with people you do not know, guard them until you decide if they are allies or enemies.

All of this is only my opinion. Again great question. S&F.


[edit on 25-10-2009 by Conclusion]

I think someone once said

You can only postpone fighting to the advantage of your enemy.

or something like that.

Defense followed by attack. Defense can be used to locate your opponents weakness allowing you to make a precise and deadly attack. A keen balance of both is needed to prevail. Sometimes a mere resistance is both a defense and an attack. What an enemy can't conquer makes him waste time and resources making him weak and tired of the fight, than you can attack. So there may be different methods to achieve the ultimate goal of victory.

Well guys, y'know how the saying goes? "It's not the size of it, it's how you use it?"

Yeah well, that saying has nothing to do with this subject!

I'm still adamant that you need an even balance of both to actually be able to do anything in conflict.

a good offense is the best defense.