From my point of view, it wasn’t. World War 2 was nothing but violence tumbleweeding into more and more. Who can say how many less lives would have been forced into losing if we would’ve been appealing to the people of Germany and the men that make up its army—that have been dooped by Hitlers propaganda for years regarding Jews. Nothing but incessant of the opposite of what the Nazi’s had to offer would have woken them up from all their “oath-taking” so to speak, to stop it from continuing as long as it did.
Congrats, you’ve justified a moral position that would have lead to nazis controlling the world, and exterminating countless more millions of people. What a great moral system you have.
The men that made up the Nazi regime were men, dooped into believing beyond any shadow of a doubt the Jews weren’t. No amount of equal parts hate and evil will ever truly eliminate it. Only our knowledge of love as a species has that ability—of virtue and selflessness. The knowledge of never taking tha oaths we take to ourselves and to other men that lead to any war at all in the first place needs to be gained. And you can’t wake up someone (especially a group of people) who’s been convinced beyond questioning that they need to eliminate you by trying to do the same back. Only the opposite truly has that ability, ultimately.
Check this out, Tolstoy’s Personal, Social, and Divine Conceptions to life: “The whole historic existence of mankind is nothing else than the gradual transition from the personal, animal conception of life (the savage recognizes life only in himself alone; the highest happiness for him is the fullest satisfaction of his desires), to the social conception of life (recognizing life not in himself alone, but in societies of men—in the tribe, the clan, the family, the kingdom, the government—and sacrifices his personal good for these societies), and from the social conception of life to the divine conception of life (recognizing life not in his own individuality, and not in societies of individualities, but in the eternal undying source of life—in God; and to fulfill the will of God he is ready to sacrifice his own individuality and family and social welfare).
The whole history of the ancient peoples, lasting through thousands of years and ending with the history of Rome, is the history of the transition from the animal, personal view of life to the social view of life. The whole history from the time of the Roman Empire and the appearance of Christianity is the history of the transition, through which we are still passing now, from the social view to life to the divine view of life.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is Within You
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherent the Earth.” - Jesus, Matt 5:5
Not the traditional Christianity; Revelation, Corinthians this or supernatural, spirtual that. One that consists of a more philosophical interpretation of The Gospels that’s hiding underneath all the dogma ever since Paul. One that emphasizes The Sermon On the Mount, debately, the most publicized point of his time spent suffering to teach the value of selflessness and virtue, thus, the most accurate in my opinion. Tolstoy learned ancient Greek and translated The Gospels himself as: The Gospel In Brief, if you’re interested. This translation I’ve found to be the best:
Resisting what an attacker expects back is far from doing nothing. The trickle of love or hate in the world begins and ends with the individual. I’m not saying stand by and watch as the world burns, I’m saying resist what would otherwise lead its inevitable destruction anyway, and what lead to it beginning to burn in the first place, in any circumstance, now and forever.
To hate back is to only fan this flame, and accelerate this process, and decelerate any potential for the opposite; of peace.
This is regarding a circumstance in the midst of your point view, of how we would typically respond to evil inherently—in the midst of battle, etc.
I’m referring to going about it in a more organized, collective manner; especially one that makes it very clear who the bad guys really are, and why were doing it especially. A way that quite frankly, I’m wildly ignorant to, because of not only how little this idea has been practiced throughout the centuries due to our inherency to the opposite—and I’ll admit it’s ability to hold up nowadays with nuclear bombs and still so much oath taking going on and how little the relevance of selflessness is from becoming common knowledge; it makes it all very doubtful. But honestly, I’d rather die giving up my life for a cause with the most amount of potential for peace behind it, opposed to the one thats lead the to the need for anyones life needing to be taken in the first place, that would otherwise lead God awful amounts of men to be forced into dying in my stead, or to be yet another amoungst the cattle bring butchered in war myself.
From my point of view, it wasn’t. World War 2 was nothing but violence tumbleweeding into more and more. Who can say how many less lives would have been forced into losing if we would’ve been appealing to the people of Germany and the men that make up its army—that have been dooped by Hitlers propaganda for years regarding Jews. Nothing but incessant of the opposite of what the Nazi’s had to offer would have woken them up from all their “oath-taking” so to speak, to stop it from continuing as long as it did.
Congrats, you’ve justified a moral position that would have lead to nazis controlling the world, and exterminating countless more millions of people. What a great moral system you have.
The men that made up the Nazi regime were men, dooped into believing beyond any shadow of a doubt the Jews weren’t. No amount of equal parts hate and evil will ever truly eliminate it. Only our knowledge of love as a species has that ability—of virtue and selflessness. The knowledge of never taking tha oaths we take to ourselves and to other men that lead to any war at all in the first place needs to be gained. And you can’t wake up someone (especially a group of people) who’s been convinced beyond questioning that they need to eliminate you by trying to do the same back. Only the opposite truly has that ability, ultimately.
So it’s better to do nothing and let millions die, got it.
Check this out, Tolstoy’s Personal, Social, and Divine Conceptions to life: “The whole historic existence of mankind is nothing else than the gradual transition from the personal, animal conception of life (the savage recognizes life only in himself alone; the highest happiness for him is the fullest satisfaction of his desires), to the social conception of life (recognizing life not in himself alone, but in societies of men—in the tribe, the clan, the family, the kingdom, the government—and sacrifices his personal good for these societies), and from the social conception of life to the divine conception of life (recognizing life not in his own individuality, and not in societies of individualities, but in the eternal undying source of life—in God; and to fulfill the will of God he is ready to sacrifice his own individuality and family and social welfare). The whole history of the ancient peoples, lasting through thousands of years and ending with the history of Rome, is the history of the transition from the animal, personal view of life to the social view of life. The whole history from the time of the Roman Empire and the appearance of Christianity is the history of the transition, through which we are still passing now, from the social view to life to the divine view of life.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is Within You
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherent the Earth.” - Jesus, Matt 5:5
Not the traditional Christianity; Revelation, Corinthians this or supernatural, spirtual that. One that consists of a more philosophical interpretation of The Gospels that’s hiding underneath all the dogma ever since Paul. One that emphasizes The Sermon On the Mount, debately, the most publicized point of his time spent suffering to teach the value of selflessness and virtue, thus, the most accurate in my opinion. Tolstoy learned ancient Greek and translated The Gospels himself as: The Gospel In Brief, if you’re interested. This translation I’ve found to be the best:
https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Brief-Harper-Perennial-Thought/dp/006199345X
Resisting what an attacker expects back is far from doing nothing. The trickle of love or hate in the world begins and ends with the individual. I’m not saying stand by and watch as the world burns, I’m saying resist what would otherwise lead its inevitable destruction anyway, and what lead to it beginning to burn in the first place, in any circumstance, now and forever.
To hate back is to only fan this flame, and accelerate this process, and decelerate any potential for the opposite; of peace.
Intentionally failing to kill a nazi in WW2 when given the chance while they attack your neighbors is doing nothing.
This is regarding a circumstance in the midst of your point view, of how we would typically respond to evil inherently—in the midst of battle, etc.
I’m referring to going about it in a more organized, collective manner; especially one that makes it very clear who the bad guys really are, and why were doing it especially. A way that quite frankly, I’m wildly ignorant to, because of not only how little this idea has been practiced throughout the centuries due to our inherency to the opposite—and I’ll admit it’s ability to hold up nowadays with nuclear bombs and still so much oath taking going on and how little the relevance of selflessness is from becoming common knowledge; it makes it all very doubtful. But honestly, I’d rather die giving up my life for a cause with the most amount of potential for peace behind it, opposed to the one thats lead the to the need for anyones life needing to be taken in the first place, that would otherwise lead God awful amounts of men to be forced into dying in my stead, or to be yet another amoungst the cattle bring butchered in war myself.