anyone else agree?
2007-01-16 08:25:44 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
for myself.. I choose to walk away and give peace. The only time I give conflict back is when I or my children are threatened. I then do what I need to do and then I walk away (and if necessary, out of that person's life). My life is peaceful because I don't 'do' conflict, I 'do' peace.
It is amusing though that people here are using name calling like 'naivee' and such to be right. Don't they realize that by name calling, they could be starting a conflict. In answering this question about peace, so many people are not creating peace, by starting off name calling...
2007-01-16 08:43:56 · update #1
i am not talking about being a victim and let others walk all over you. You can stand up for yourself and walk away uncrushed and continue spreading peace
2007-01-16 08:45:09 · update #2
Walk softly and carry a big stick..
2007-01-16 08:32:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
That is the most intelligent statement I've seen here. This world needs a way to firmly neutralize aggressors without killing. If world governments spent more time with researching how to do this rather than researching to create the most powerful and destructive weapons we'd all be going in a peaceful direction. But there are too many power hungry and money hungry people that are in no way concerned with the masses but concerned with their own wants.
Saying that war is necessary for peace is an ignorant way of thinking. Long lasting peace with war? Since when has that happened? Look back in history and see that peace aquired in that manner is ONLY temporary. Eventually, the masses will revolt or someone else who craves that power will find the means to revolt and start another war to have that control for themselves.
2007-01-16 09:20:51 · answer #2 · answered by Maureen B 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I feel that it is naive to believe like that. History has shown that peace is found and maintained by power. By the strongest kid on the block keeping the other kids in life by fear of repercussion. It would be great if all men loved each other and just gave flowers. But this is a tough world and people want to kill you. There are people who would celebrate to see you, or I dead. These people must be kept from that goal, power is the way to do that.
B
2007-01-16 08:30:09 · answer #3 · answered by Bacchus 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You couldn't be more true. Fighting is only necessary in extreme circumstances. Giving peace coincides w/ the golden rule to treat others the way we want to be treated ourselves. Jesus command to us was what?....To LOVE one another. If we could all get on the same page, one by one, we would make a difference. Good Q!
Be blessed.
2007-01-16 08:34:14 · answer #4 · answered by motherbear 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Keep in mind that is a statement of perfection and in reality will not always occur. Humbling ourselves takes on many forms when we are going thru trials ...to a certain extent we have peace in knowing we can pray and God is by our side. To say if we would give peace it would happen - no, I don't agree that is realistic because there are many who don't wish peace to occur. Just because something is modeled(I think that is what you are referring to) everyone has free will and will do as they want.
2007-01-16 08:40:32 · answer #5 · answered by GoodQuestion 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If everyone thought this way we would have no need to fight. Unfortunately too many ignorant people threaten those who are peace loving. Fighting is the only way to remain free and peaceful when others try to take away our freedom and peace.
2007-01-16 08:29:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
yes, but giving it is a one-sided act.
if the other side has no interest in peace and is dedicated to your destruction, such an act is not noble....
but suicidal!!
only a fool, or one of today's liberal polititians,
would take such a self -destructive step
(better known as the "Chamberlain Syndrome";
Chamberlain was British prime minister between 1937 and 1940, and is closely associated with the policy of appeasement towards Nazi Germany.)
In the face of an enemy bent on your destruction, the only sane course of action is offensive.
2007-01-16 08:34:45 · answer #7 · answered by Chef Bob 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The desire for peace and tolerance of others are virtues, however, these virtues are ineffective if others do not reciprocate. There is a point where forbearance is no longer acceptable. Unfortunately, this ‘tipping point’ can not be certain until after the fact.
2007-01-16 08:33:57 · answer #8 · answered by Bayou Brigadier 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I do not agree. There are those who will kill you for their peace, and therefore you must fight for your peace because, for the most part, your peace and their peace are conflicting ideas. You can give it, but they will not want it. They can give it, but you will not want it. Because everyone is different and each individual group wants different things from life, we will always have to FIGHT for peace. Sad, but true....and you can take that to the bank!
2007-01-16 08:29:56 · answer #9 · answered by Presagio 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I agree to a certain extent. But there is a point where people take advantage of that and people have to fight or be used! But peace has to start somewhere, doesn't it?
2007-01-16 08:30:20 · answer #10 · answered by churnin 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This all sounds nice. So we just UPS our love to Al-Qaida?
Invite the Taliban back to Afghanistan for milk and cookies?
Simplistic and idealistic thinking is just as dangerous as the extremists that exist in this world. Working for peace is one thing, surrendering is another completely.
2007-01-16 08:31:27 · answer #11 · answered by great gig in the sky 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋