When I in school in the middle of the 20th century, my Social Studies teacher brought to the class's attention a situation somewhere in the middle east, or Africa, that seemed to be threatening world peace at the time.   What did we think the solution was?

At fourteen I didn' t hesitate to offer an opinion on this complicated matter.  I began with "Declare war on -----.  After they are defeated, we can then go in and teach them demoncracy and our values, and ----"    The teacher cut me off about then, telling me how wrong I was, that peace was never achieved by warfare.   But I don't remember him offering an alternative solution.  

How nieve I was in my early teens!   Yet, it seems to me that I see our government, and that of the US and other countries, trying to achieve peace through violence.  Can it happen?  Doesn't violence escalate violence?  

Today, at a seminar I was reminded again of the "Roman peace".  Once upon a time I seem to remember being told that during the 100 years or so around the time of Christ the world was fortunate to experience the Roman peace.  The powerful Roman empire built roads, encouraged trade and commerce, built cities, flourished - at least in part because of the Roman army controlling uprising, attack, terrorism. 

Some of the books I read today paint a different picture of oppression, tyrants, bloodshed, trampling on human rights.  They picture the country Jesus lived in as poor, hungry to the point of starvation, suffering under taxation and debt.  Riches go to the upper classes - the occupying Romans and those they favour - collaborators including the leaders in the temple.  The poor, the widow or orphan, the blind or crippled or dispossessed, are forgotten.  They beg, starve, or turn against their oppressors as thieves or bandits - and are generally caught and executed without trial - often by crucifiction. 

"May peace prevail on Earth."

The quote found on peace poles.  They fascinate me - don't have one yet, but thinking about it.

I don't think we (humankind) will ever attain total peace in this world.  But I do think we can work at it.  And can do better in some instances than we are.  I think peace is attained one heart and one person at a time.

Peace through violence - is peace really attained?

Peace through justice - also - is peace really attained?

"Without sharing there can be no justice; without justice there can be no peace; without peace, there can be no future."
- Maitreya

Only when humanity as homo-sapience becomes somnolent ... and is completely unemotional about everything ... especially various ideal-isms that are un attainable ...

But would a character like as homosapien be cognizant at this point or have the mind of a clam ... totally closed out to all but what is circulating internally ... so they wouldn't be attempting to controll other Maas esse a sort of anti ego centricity?

Then psychology would be deferred for other intersts ... as denial of all thought! Thus IT thunk into subtle realms of crazyness. When in Rome do as the Romans do according to moral law .... never, never stick your neck out ... that would be ET'IHÇ ... a t'ontological etude ... like a holiday in fixations ...

And those with KISS Prin would certainly misunderstand Complex Issues ... so beit-ite! And the hook was hung as the Arabic Lam ... inverse to the reasonable Y's ...

And furthermore that was the basis of irrationale religion ... that Carrie ID through ... as presence insanity ...

In agoraphobia ... culture of the dirt is considered an isolatable consideration ... once known as the spirit of Skye ... or Zoar'n Zoro Astrian ism ... in the land of Zoe's from which anima was extracted ... opposing phytoplancton that could convert energy directly from "c" ... a metaphor that'll throw vegetable thinking off tilde ~~~ as a wave!

How about peace through love and mercy?

I am starting to think that this next quote is another one I should put on my blog for easy reference/linking given how often I trot it out. It is a non-Christian source but I know of no better writing on the subject than this one.

“If there is to be peace in the world,
There must be peace in the nations.

If there is to be peace in the nations,
There must be peace in the cities.

If there is to be peace in the cities,
There must be peace between neighbors.

If there is to be peace between neighbors,
There must be peace in the home.

If there is to be peace in the home,
There must be peace in the heart.”

- Lao Tzu

It carries the essential message that peace begins in our own hearts and if all could be at peace individually, that would propagate up the chain.

As for peace through justice, vs. peace through conflict, we must always aim for the former (in fact, it is one of our UU principles). Violence should be reserved for those times when defending those suffering under violent assault is the only option left to ensure that justice and the outcome must never be mistaken for "peace". Peace can only come when violent action is no longer required to defend others. Best example: can you call what we left in Afghanistan "peace"?

"Fighting for peace is like f***ing for virginity" remains a valid philosophy even if far too many of those who espoused in the 1960s are no longer following it.

Mendalla

Amen!

Yes, inner peace is the prerequisite for outer peace.

This reminds me of Micah's verse about doing justice, loving kindness, and walking humbly with God.  

Much of the Hebrew scriptures is concerned about justice - justice that requires debts to be forgiven and property returned to its rightful owner - justice that says widows and orphans be cared for - that the stranger be welcomed - that everyone is entitled to a piece of the pie.  Love and mercy are a part of this.  So is humility.   If we strive for a justice society, I think we are doing our best to bring about God's kingdom of peace on earth.

Seeler, Mendalla, some great reminders of basic principles of peace.

For me, it is listening to my own body and its reaction.  

I need to breathe.  

I need to be aware that I can only control my own reaction, not the other person's actions.

I need to understand that there are often more factors at work than is presented in a volley.

Warning:  work example  

I was reminded of that on Friday.  My business analyst received a nasty email from a user.   It said "worst service ever".  It was rude, it was ugly.

She was upset. Asked me what to do. 

That was the first thing that was done  right.  She asked for guidance and for counsel rather than just hitting the reply button out of hurt and anger.

The next thing was to focus on the issue, how do we get this person working.  He had not been responding to queries through channels such as chat, email, so...I recommended chasing him down by voice: desk phone and/or mobile.

The next thing was to set up a meeting to listen and clear the air.  

We booked a meeting to talk to him.  We addressed the issue.  We started actions tolook at root cause, ie, why did the ticket languish in the wrong team for 7 days without any work.

Now, that was expensive in terms of $$ spent and will be spent.

The person just could have followed normal channels.  He could have given the right information in his original ticket.  He could have followed normal channels. The person who got the ticket could have done their job. Instead, he started a battle by sending a very nasty email.  He was emotional and frustrated.  I get that. 

The choise was ours.  Continue the battle, respond in kind, or deal with the core issue.  We chose the latter.

That's not business as usual!

Typically ignore it as if it is not your fault and carry on ...

Nothing is ever authority's fault!

"If these wee factors would just stop thinking and such emotional aspects of intelligence wouldn't bother us!"

Delusion is best and then shove it onto the back shelf of a dimension (cloes-ET)that doesn't exist ... in people of colour that's soul mon! Some persona don't believe that black exists ... like kohl and cold it is just an abstract and insensible! Thus the classification of psyche as something that isn't ... but it appears to be something that can be cultivated even when given a swamp to work with or an arid stretch ... parables are far reaching in anon-space. Approaches internalized dimensions of quantum entanglement ... and yes many Nus and neurons ... holes, gaps and synaptics ... a gift often lying hidden as a talent ... subtle thinking? Spiritual connection at its best ... alas authorities don't like even the ghosts of thought---Caesar, or Ka-Sar ... spirit of the head gone awry. Why a vast old vocabulariy is Utilitarian almost Classic ... but moving!

Good god we couldn't do that could we? Does God have such a following? Most of modern god-followers are set on emotions alone ... no thinking allowed ... science as opposed is greatly overrun by logic without a hint of care. To all things there are exceptions of the laws ... as alien corruption of the perfect ... these are ethereal dimensions ... icons of things that are not physical projections ... for lack of words lets call them metaphysical ... parallel to the real, but surreal!

Those with a hard grip on one side or the other find the fabrication difficult to imagine ... living within ... unless ... very humble critters. Soul mon are Flatout ... giving veracity to the term Flatliners ... People of the Dead like Hebrew! Outlander populations? These are different than I'z rael characters a bit vaprous given all the water on the brain and the heat generated by emotions there. I did say the brain was 80% water and 20% extract of cholesterol a component of eprine as found in a pine tree. You know noreprinephrine (produced by medulla and stimulates bloody vessel construction)? What is me-dull-a (uninteresting beginning) something to sharpen up regarding dark particules that carry Eire to unenlightened places? The Shadow of the mined ... a place authority wishes only common criminals and minor populations to work in ... to emotional authority that could be everybody that's expendable! But it could cause internalized quests and questions like allegorical pilgrimages ... into the unknown and that famous dark lass about us as Gabriel sometime azure ... as the missing pieces are missed!

Causes adolescent sorts lots of distress in hormonal disruptions ... a kind of sole ful storm causing Wahls/waels in the night!

I don't think peace is ever achieved through violence, seems to be an oxymoron. As for justice, I suppose that's one way, but who decides what is just? And is peace only the absence of war? 

Imagine we were being tyranized and physically fighting back wasn't an option. We would protest, we would expose the injustices of the system, be willing to die in our protest to expose unjust laws, be willing to suffer rather than retaliate. Passivity isn't a formula for change as much as war isn't. Non violent actions may not change the oppressor right away but it does give back self respect for the oppressed, and that is what is needed to keep up the good fight.

If peace hasn't been acheived globally, we probably aren't active enough towards acheiving it. Our silence and passivity contribute to it. How else did Rwanda ever happen? Did the world offer asylum to the millions and shame the offenders?

And then there was Jesus and his disciples. No violence except towards a table, but the point was made and He became a force to reckon with.

Peace Peace and there shall be no peace untill the King of Peace returnes 

I have a few questions for those who consider themselves evangelical ' born again' Christians rather than liberal/progressive Christians.

1. Do you believe you are in Christ?

2. Do you believe Christ is in you?

3. If yes to questions 1 and 2, what exactly needs to take place for Christ to return and bring peace? Wouldn't questions one and two imply that bringing peace that's everlasting depends on how we live our lives as part of Christ rather than an external event waiting to happen? Couldn't Christ be here now, in us, insofar as we aknowledge it and live it?

From a non-literal point of view- judgment day is happening now and always has everytime we look inward and assess our intentions and motivations and actions. In Judaism, once a year they have Rosh Hashanah. Which means day of judgment. A time for reflection about ones transgressions, and repentance. That's where the term judgment day comes from. The 'world' becomes new if we strive to make it so, as followers of Christ. It's a constant cycle rather than a chronological timeline. We can look at chronological changes and figures in history but there will always be pockets of places changing, and resisting change in their efforts at real peace and freedom. The peace spreads depending on people spreading it. Now is then and then is now, always, in terms of human patterns. That's how I see it. And 'Christ' does not necessarily belong to institutions and labels even if we like to think so because it's more comfortable. Drop the labels, and what you have are people struggling, wanting peace and freedom up against different degrees and types of power and corruption. Look at those in Rwanda- the article qwerty posted in his thread. Not necessarily Christian- look at their efforts towards peace and reconcilliation in the aftermath of horrible violence. I would like to believe that is a place where God is working, Christian label or not.

Peace cannot be achieved by violence, nor can justice, because 'two wrongs don't make a right'. It's difficult for human beings to forgive, but it's the only way.

Peace is much more than simply the absence of war.  Peace involves fullness of life.  And in my opinion peace can only be achieved through justice - justice that provides everybody with enough; enough food, water, space, freedom, opportunity.   Let justice flow down like a river; righteousness like an ever moving stream.  

Justice doesn't mean judgment.  It is more closely related to righteousness

Justice doesn't mean passivity, nor acceptance of the 'way things are' - especially when we believe them to be wrong.   If a people are being tyranized, that is not justice.  And it is important to expose the injustice, to protest it, to be willing to take risk and even to die.

Jesus protested the injustices of the society in which he lived.  He fed the hungry and associated with the outcast.  He pointed out the poor widow who gave all she had, while the rich made a show of their giving - but gave only a fraction of their wealth.  Jesus was willing to protest the system - and it got him killed.   We claim to follow Jesus.

Hi Kimmio,

Well yes, actually it can.  The Pax Romana was arguably a time of progress and relative security for the Roman Empire.  The flaw in such a path to peace is that it relies upon strength of arms and when you train soldiers to fight and refuse to put them to that kind of work well, they make their own work.

It depends on how we are defining justice.  If we think of it only as revenge then I would agree with you.  Revenge isn't the only card up justice's sleeve.  Rehabilitation, Reformation and Restitution all have a part to play in the concept of justice and none need take a back seat to retribution.  Though it can't be denied that as a society we often ask them to sit at the back of the justice buss so revenge and retribution can be first off when the bus stops.

Peace can come through forgiveness.  It isn't automatic.  Forgiveness offered to those who show no remorse is rarely seen as strength.  More often than not it is interpreted as weakenss and a violent offender may not become less violent as their victim becomes weaker.

Forgiveness can bring an end to retribution, revenge and retaliation.  It does not automatically lead to restoration, reformation or reconciliation.

The only way for somethings certainly.  It is not the only way for all things.  If I forgive the drunk who kills my family with his car will that heal the drunk?  At the moment of my forgiveness do they suddenly become sober and will they never drink let alone climb behind the wheel while drunk again?

My forgiveness of the drunk means that I'm not living with hauling my anger around.  How does it make the drunk less of a drunk?  Does my forgiveness of the drunk protect you and your loved ones?

Grace and peace to you.

John

I do not believe that real and lasting peace can be achieved by violence. At some point something's got to give, to end the retributive cycle, even if believing in peace through non-violent resistance carries risks. I believe that if we spent as much time investing in peace, in achieving justice by ending inequality- rather than enforcing peace militarily, we could have lasting peace. If only the amount of money that's spent on the MIC was invested in building bridges what a different world it would be. I don't know if I will see that happen in my lifetime, but I live in the hope that it's a better way even if it's not realized. Heaven is a parallel world, in my imaginings, somewhere in the space time continuum where people figured out that we'd be better off not to use our God given brains to wage wars.

Sometimes the initiative for reconcilliation has to come from the wronged party. Forgiveness of the drunk could mean helping the drunk to get and stay sober and start a meaningful life. As painful as it would be to lose your family to a drunk driver, wanting the drunk to pay dearly for it (I can imagine even most drunks would feel remorse and drinking would be a false sense of escape from that remorse, and the addiction a prison unto itself, and overcoming it, a punishment of its own). Add: I was going to say that wanting the drunk driver to pay dearly for it is not going to bring your family back, but forgiving and helping the drunk driver may give life back to a person whose life has been crippled by their mistake and/ or their alcohol abuse. A risk that is potentially more rewarding for everyone than both parties being seperated by shame and anger.

Hi Kimmio,

That is a qualification that was not present initially.  It is also a qualification that I agreed with in my response.  The fact remains that violence can open a door for peace in the midst of conflict.  It cannot be the only thing supporting any peace initiative or that peace will be fleeting.

Doesn't matter who initiates if it isn't reciprocated.

How do you plan on enforcing that?  What mechanism are you going to put into place to ensure all victims of any crime take responsibility for reconciling with their perpetrator?

As the adult child of an alcoholic parent I wouldn't bet on any drunk feeling genuine remorse.  At minimum I would want them sober for 60 days straight before I could be persuaded it was anything more than booze talking.

And talking to the many folk from the local AA chapter at the Church most are of the opinion that there are only Alcoholics and recovering alcoholics.  None appear willing to entertain the concept of an ex-alcoholic.

I can't imagine that any alcoholic is pleased with the way their life has turned out.  Most appear to be alcoholics because they aren't pleased with the way their life had turned out.

Which points to a problem.  Even if I am to initiate reconciliation, even if I was determined to be gracious.  The alcoholic won't change until they are ready to change and that will have nothing to do with what they might do to me or my family.  It will only be when drinking is too painful for them to continue.

Most alcoholics will press on where a sober-minded person would have begged for mercy months and months ago.

Grace and peace to you.

John

John, I've just finished reading "Zealot" by Reza Aslan.  In it he talks about conditions in the Roman Empire, particularly in Palestine, from the time leading up to the birth of Jesus to 100 years or so thereafter.  It is full of blood shed - time after time the people rose up in protest against the injustices of the Roman Empire (heavy taxation, debt, losing their lands, starvation).  They were executed, beheaded, crucified.  Entire villages were trampled and burned - men, women and children.   This was not new to me - I've read the same in books by Crossan and others.  I see it in the Bible.  People were hungry.  Debt, taxes, dispossession, were big problems.  People dying of malnutrition (starvation), begging, and turning violent.  The hills were full of thieves and bandits.  Do you call this peace?   The Pax Romana?  

One has to ask the question  "A time of progress and relative security for whom?"   

Kimmio, it is totally unfair to ask the victim to take in the responsibility of fixing the perpetrator. To ask a family reeling from the loss of a family member to heal the drunk is cruel and unreasonable.

It takes specific skills and sets them up for failure

Kimmio, it is totally unfair to ask the victim to take in the responsibility of fixing the perpetrator. To ask a family reeling from the loss of a family member to heal the drunk is cruel and unreasonable.

It takes specific skills and sets them up for failure

I believe it is possible for anyone to take control of the dynamics of power and effect change.

Hi Seeler,

The Pax Romana is generally thought of as lasting from 30BC to 180AD and it is thought of as the whole of the empire not just the backwater parts of it.

Palestine under Roman rule rarely amounted to anything more than a backwater.

Well, since it is the Peace of Rome it isn't at all surprising that most of the progress and relative security was in Rome right?  And yet, roads were paved all over the empire and aquaducts brought flows of freshwater to towns and villages.

A ready military presence kept most merchants on the road safer than if there had been none.

If you want to measure by modern standards of course it is going to be more than lacking.  By the standards of the day?  It was a big improvement on lawlessness or tribal laws which fluctuated from region to region.

It brought an end to the civil wars which plagued the Roman Empire and believe it or not ushered in ways of thinking that were radical for their time and became foundational for ours.

Pax Americana (American Peace) has the same idea.  It stretches from the end of the American Civil War to the beggining of the Great Wars in Europe.  North America during that time still had its ugliness.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I'm not asking them to and it can't be enforced. It has to come from within on both sides.

I am reminded of a story I read yesterday. It's not about peace, but it's about revival- so that's why I'm going to use it as a metaphor.

A young woman was snowshoeing in Squamish, near Whistler recently. She stayed in a hikers cabin with a group, got up in the night to pee, and she fell down a snowy embankment in the dark and was trapped for 7 hours by the time her group realized she was missing. They saw the top of her head poking out from the snow and dug her out. There was an RCMP officer and retired paramedic in the group. Everyone worked tirelessly to revive her even though she showed no vital signs. She was literally frozen, and had no pulse. Rescue crews finally showed up, hours had already passed, and helped- and part of the team spent I think it was two more hours packing down loose snow in an area large and secure for an air ambulance to land. She was airlifted to hospital, survived, and is recovering well except for some numbness in her fingers and toes. The point is, she was technically dead. It was not a two way street. They didn't give up after the first hour, second hour, fifth hour. The whole ordeal from her accident to her airlift to hospital was 12 hours! If we showed that kind of courage and perseverance in rehabilitating and peace making, the world would be better off.

Waterfall, i would concur. There is a big difference between that and healing a drunk. One can control what power they hold over you and your family.

You cannot control the rich and powerful ... they are authority and believe in Taurus and toras a conservative go round achieving nothing (observe functions in bored rhumes) they don't have to think any different. One has to have hope there is another side to this existence ... in a sense of fairness it appears mythical in an sense of excellence of awareness ... it just isn't here folks! If psyche is imaginary and an outlander ... I'll take the Lilliputan Route ... just wander ... an Eire Pilgrimage? Some call it thought and many authorities hate thinkers ...

Consider Rome had two negative ideals:

1. Common folk (pagan) shouldn't know anything; intellectis evil!
2. Common love (calm passion) should be substituted with hate and taking what you want (opposing a'Donis; that's a given)!

Would combining these two negative rules violently wake the somnolent mind and lead one to differing conclusions? The teleological process is endless ... ie the search for means  to ends. The solution is here in a thing called man (bit of an ass, a'sexual critter). Souls are placed in them as metaphysical critters to experience life as god didn't mean it when using both the integral sides; black and white in subtle form? Some skill in the literary de vising may be needed to ease the squeeze ... you have to ask about the purpose of the Shadow Buddha?

Consider; do politicians, CEOs, and other stoic authority caught with their pan's down see they performed an error ... in plane Eire? Confidence in self is their belief! This is the reason for the dark mire of Shadow ... just step a bit beyond and look critically at yourself ... somehow or other the dark abstract of psyche is eliminated in a religion of free wiles ... the life with confidence men ... generally dressed in Black Suits ... as they don't know what's going on either ... intelligence is abolished under the rule of emotions alone ... they minght lead to the next step in gamma ... I don't know ... agin the law of pious crow dis ... a dispicable population with exceptions of thin Eyres thinkers ... living on the edge like that child in Australia standing up against the Taurus and all the following steerage ...

He was directed by concern of King GEORGE ... pain in the ass aboriginal shadow Icon ... to the mortal authority that was a pathological lyre ... tis common when people are without truthful contemplation ... is that like a fey thought? Virtually (near) out of 'ere ... like the Elycian Heretics ... close to Lucy with a bust out syndrome ... St Eve-in went that way ... subtly!

Hi Kimmio,

So in this instance we are waiting for a drunk to eventually show remorse and the victims to eventually offer forgiveness.

In the meantime what happens?

If only every problem was somebody buried in snow.

Grace and peace to you.

John

You're right. But they're buried in something, something psychological and spiritual and our society doesn't seem to value their 'revival' enough. Jesus said something about visiting the prisoners, too. And there are different types of prisons. Some people are in them long before they break the law, too.

I'm saying every person is a human being, and the drunk driver who gave his own wife and kids a hug hours before he hit the pub after work and decided erroneously to get into his car and drive, is still a human being the next day. The same person who took their first hit of drugs under peer pressure and learned as a teen they could self medicate with it- somewhere in there they are the same person with a spark of life within them that can be revived.

Hi Kimmio,

Hypothetically speaking if 3 people are killed in a car accident and I give up on the drunk driver that is still three dead people.

Unless by giving up on the drunk driver you mean refusing them aid at the scene of the accident.

If the drunk driver is not critically injured then there are only three dead people.

Right because again, hypothetically speaking, if I never forgive the drunk driver it means I will blame everyone else for what he has done.  Hypothetically I cannot be angry with one person and keep that anger relegated to that relationship.

And hypothetically speaking that means I am as good as dead.

Respectfully I think you are over-reaching.

Individuals can come to grips with the death of loved ones without needing to be reconciled with the indiviudal who is responsible for their deaths.

After a limited fashion.  It may make life easier for me to forgive the drunk driver.

There is no guarantee that the drunk driver will never drive drunk again and no matter how much forgiveness I offer and how much remorse they show those three dead remain dead.

Who carries the burden of that loss?

The family members who bury bodies or the drunk who feels guilt but will likely never remember the actual incident?

Who will remember their birthdays?  The family members or the drunk driver?

Who picks up the pieces of those shattered lives?  The family members of the drunk driver?

Can the drunk driver ever make things better?  Can the drunk driver ever make things like they were before he killed those three?

And sure, I get that the drunk driver cannot ever see an innocent victim when they look in the mirror again.  Should they be able to?

Grace and peace to you.

John

I'm in the uncomfortable position of believing that, yes, the drunk driver is also a victim of a long string of circumstances. In the big picture, eryone on earth is both victim and perpetrator of wrongdoing. It's also possible for someone to cause an accident while fiddling with the radio dial. Cars are 2000 lb death machines as much as they are to get us from A to B. not to mention fossil fuels, the wars fought over them, and the pollution they cause. Whose fault is it if a kid in China dies of an asthma attack from smog? The innocent people who die in Middle East wars in oil rich regions? It's everyone's. It's the unfortunate part of being human. I believe justice comes through forgiveness and rehabilitation.

Hi Kimmio,

Society only has so much power.  Sooner or later those "buried" have to stop burying themselves and allow society a chance to reach them or, they need to take responsibility for their own predicament.

Agreed.  Though I don't remember him directing the victims of violence to visit the perpetrators of violence while in prison.

Nobody has claimed that they aren't.  

Folk are wondering just how much responsibility they have to take for making things better when these human beings have hurt them?  A drunk driver wipes out my family and now I'm responsible for straightening them out?  I might have thought I was doing well enough not to go and wipe out the drunks family or not even asking to be locked into a room with the drunk for an hour or two.  I might not wish for any harm to come to the drunk but that wouldn't be enough.  Somehow the drunk is now my responsibility to fix.

Well why not, without a family I suddenly have a tremendous amount of free time on my hands I might as well dedicate it to making their killer feel better about his life.

Doesn't sound like a recipe to peace for me but what do I know?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Are some Christians drunk on life and can't deal with the wisdom of the dead ... a Hebrew contemplation as a dark race that counters European fantasy?

Only with a mind like Mark Twain could you pair up the east and west to generate some working grey manna ... archetypical thinking? Romans took this to be inde Grey ill thinking as  many shades of 'elle ... what they believed of psyche functions ... mental activities .. inna's much as many only do the emotional thing as freedom of wiles ...

No creative imagination ... life filters out that part in the San (a'Taurus) and uses the leftover bunch for redemption and recycle ... causes daja vue in some as there was a spark left over ... when the Prodigal was questionned o' Nite ...

If a God of mercy and Grace can do that, is it so awful if we could muster up that kind of grace? It's not your responsibility to fix it alone. I believe this: It's our collective responsibility. We are interconnected, one human family breathing the same air, a collective soul, and all have a responsibility to all the collective screw ups we cause as well as the solutions. We're dying right now and if we don't help the people we don't feel comfortable helping, it's our own demise, I believe.

Jesus said love your enemies, too.

Hi Kimmio,

God is not a God of mercy and grace alone.  Justice is as much a part of God as mercy is.

God has the freedom to choose between grace and justice.  Do I get that choice or can I not be trusted with it?  And if I am not to be trusted with such a choice am I capable of offering either justice of mercy?

As the victime of anything why is it my responsibility to "fix" it at all?  What does "fixing" the death of three by a drunk driver look like?

What responsibility are you taking for these three dead folk then?

And hypothetically speaking what is my responsibility in the death of these three at the hands of a drunk driver?

So it is only a matter of personal comfort.  Only an inconvenience.  Nothing more than that?  Suck it up and focus on what is really important right?  Like how I created the drunk driver who wiped out my family.  About time I take responsibility for that eh?

Too right if I had only stopped him from getting into the car drunk.  Clearly I only got what I deserved.

That's right.  Jesus did say that.  Did Jesus rule out justice?  Did Jesus limit love only to mercy.  The same guy who braided that whip and applied it to the money changers in the temple court yard.  That's the same Jesus we are talking about right?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Then God created sibling rivalry ... just for the fun of it, or to see how these damn humans worked it out ... they didn't ... thus in time they die off senseless lye or thoughtless as according to Genesis 2 ... as it was best they didn't know God's mistake that the lower powers were trying humbly to repair with thought (ada myst thing) I do believe they're loosing to the emotions so those of us with thought ... will soon achieve escape ... you can almost smell ID coming.

~~~~~~~~~~~Cest Ca, Ste Fini!

Sort of a teleological thingy about ends and assists ... grey ghosts, or just goose? Could be a Black Swan like a purple bolt through the night ... one-I'D people eight'r? You feel that gnawing?

Forget the false Gods there's only one true and humble devil and hie sharp, well whetted ...

Justice is about restoring fairness. Suppose the intoxicated driver was a person who grew up in an abusive home, intergenerational poverty, who learned bad habits from his parents, and they learned from their parents before them, all the way back to the colonials who introduced them to alcohol and abuse, who fell into peer pressure and developed an addiction. Is that your fault or mine? Directly, no. But indirectly, due to apathy, I'd say, yes it is. suppose the drunk driver was an intern with a big corporation whose parents wanted her to get a well paying job and keep up with the Jones' like they did, and so in order to fit in with the crowd and secure a future with the company she goes out for a few drinks with the 'team' and gets into her car. Is that your fault or mine? Directly, no. But through apathy, yes it is. We have to look at ourselves in the mirror, too.

And what will it profit you or I if either of these folks suffers in prison. How will it help their loved ones? And ultimately, how will it help you or I? It won't bring the dead family back. Forgiveness might help to see the person as a flawed human being just like you and I, living in a flawed system of human making, just like you and I.

beltbelt's quote    Peace Peace and there shall be no peace untill the King of Peace returnes 

I totally agree ---God's plan will play out before worldly Peace will happen ----

Apathetic monster or just pathelogical Luce ND that's  scattered by emotions without Q'Lues ...

Careful now clues need cared for too, creating a two way street for monotheists of either pure swazion (multi-theists, or Pan & Theists that Flatout goes on and on) yet the ptolemies won't accept it ... that's polity at it's richest Eire'r! Outlanders learn as Obtuse ... perhaps OB-I'z ... a bit of myth for those that can't go there ... not enough of the Levite to make em into monstrous thinkers ... Leviathan? Is that a light fey word or what ... just fey-th'? In another tradition this was fey-Tä ... the Greeks turned eM into fates ... dahe'ND as tack-ij!

In the world of polity where do the eliminated go? Inner space as convoluted medium! With the Roman attitude to intellect is this a mire medium or a dirty thought in the middle earth? Wicca'd to plough thro' ... as one Pile a myths to put together to make anything of IT ...

Back to the Roman peace as defended by John.  

I'm wondering if it comes down to the values esposed by the Prince of Peace and those of Empire.    Is progress always good?   Should trade and commerce come ahead of looking after the 'least of these, my brothern'?   Do you value freedom and self-determination over progress? 

Hi Kimmio,

That is a narrow definition of justice certainly.  Let's run with that.

Working with this as a presupposition how do we arrive at fairness being my family paying the price for his driving drunk?  

Then whose fault is it?  Where are they involved in establishing fairness?

Apathy.

Are we defining apathy as me not knowing who in my community lives in a home that has been dysfunctional since the European immigration?  I live in a community of 96, 000 people.  I confess I don't know all of them by name never really thought of that as defining apathy.

And where are those who provide this influence in the establishment of fairness?

As if the above redefinition of apathy meaning I don't know who lives where or underwhat circumstances was not enough I am now apathetic because I am unaware of the pressures other people might have put on the drunk driver.

Good thing we are.  Nobody else appears to be up to the task.

I thought we were talking about fairness rather than profit?

Is a prison term "fair" in the circumstances of vehicular manslaughter?

From the perspective of the three dead what is their death atoning for that makes a prison sentence unfair?

The loved ones I let raise them so poorly or some other loved ones that I have also undoubtedly failed through my apathy?  Again I thought that the discussion was about fairness.  If I am responsible for not preventing the accident which kills three of my family members and in light of the historic injustices you have outlined perhaps fairness means a few more of my family need to die.  I mean three dead compared to the historic suffering of the family of the drunk driver seems like my family has gotten off lucky don't you think?

Well since we have already established that I am, by virtue of my apathy responsible for somebody else driving drunk and killing my family it is clear that I need to be punished more so than the drunk driver.  That would be fair right?

Yeah well, above we already establish that three dead is a very light price to pay for my apathy.  Since this is all about fairness just tell me how many more of my family need to be killed so we are all square.

I'm reasonably certain that I saw the drunk driver as a flawed human being just like myself before I even entertained the notion of thinking they should go to prison.

In fact, I think that being responsible for the death of three individuals no matter how unwittingly requires human beings to take some kind of responsibility.  If I was the driver who drove drunk I certainly would expect time behind bars no matter how much remorse I felt.

I never thought of blaming the victims, or perhaps more accurately, their grieving families for my driving drunk.

Certainly nothing at all flawed in this system but hey fairness would mean that if one gets to blame others for their faults then all get to blame others for their faults right?

That's justice.

Grace and peace to you.

John

that would be your beliefe Neo, not mine