It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by notsoperfect
Jesus died because he caused resentment among the authorities of the time. The contemporary authorities of Jesus’ time were regarded as representing the truth by the people. But they were threatened because Jesus revealed that those were false authorities with evil inside. Before Jesus, no one could discern those authorities were hypocrites. The truth is like that.
You have to have someone who can tell you what is the truth who is not necessarily one of the contemporary authorities.
Originally posted by Dystopiaphiliac
reply to post by daskakik
Everything that happens does so because of what has happened before. Were you raised to believe that you're better than someone because of skin color or because they are richer/poorer than you? (That's a question to all of humanity). We've evolved out of the need for violence. You might pull the trigger against someone who is about to fire upon you, but why are they choosing to end your life? Why should they believe that killing you is a positive thing? Why did our ancestors kill each other? Killing another person for any reason only perpetuates violence which has spread across humanity through out known history. Only love can conquer hate but love has to be taught, just in the same way hate is taught. When confronted with our basic necessities it is in our genetics to survive regardless of the cost. A human can't willingly drown themselves if escape is possible. A human can always choose whether or not to end a life.
Originally posted by DancingBear
It seems to me that people are either intentionally missing the OP's point or are truly lost. I think that every individual is responsible for their own behavior and thus the thoughts that influence that behavior. Violence does not bring about good in any forseeable conjecture. I read someones post about protecting your mother from being attacked and thus bringing violence upon the person attacking your mother, what i don't think that poster is understanding, and what I think the OP would agree with me on, is if you follow my self-responsibility principle there would be no attacker in the first place.
Instead of trying to imagine scenarios in which you could advocate violence and thus prove the OP wrong, how about some actual thought on the subject?
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by daskakik
It's not an idea, it is what reality is.
Choosing not to believe reality does not change what reality actually is.
Yes, if a person sees that an accident is about to cause harm to another, they are legitimately entitled to use force to prevent that accident from occurring if possible.
They are not entitled to initiate violence though for any reason.