Yeah you’re right!

😊

Arrogance is at the root of all the evil that’s ever been and ever will be here on Earth. I appreciate your opinion, but only as much as anyone else’s who haven’t truly considered non-violence and are speaking purely out of their countless assumptions and Everest sized self-assurances.

“Many pacifists, I felt, failed to see this. All too many had an unwarranted optimism concerning man and leaned unconsciously toward self-righteousness. After reading Niebuhr, I tried to arrive at a realistic pacifism. In other words, I came to see the pacifist position not as sinless but as the lesser evil in the circumstances. I do not claim to be free from the moral dilemmas that the Christian non-pacifist confronts, but I am convinced that the church cannot be silent while mankind faces the threat of nuclear annihilation.” - MLK, https://lemmy.world/post/44984978

the first is in failing to understand the class nature of the oppression, such that it is treated as “black people versus white people” when in reality it is “working class versus billionaire ruling class”

It’s white people versus black people in the context of the civil rights movement.

The second error is in thinking there even is a non violent path in the first place, as the root of the problem is Capitalism, it has no conscious or empathy, and will sooner kill us all then give up it’s power over us.

But most of the people that make up capitalism do. And nonviolent direct action isn’t dependent on its opponent having a conscience or capable of empathy. The fact that so much of today revolves around money and making the most of it is beneficial to the nonviolent path because that creates avenues to resist through where or how we spend our money, or flat out ceasing to participate in xyz market altogether. Like Gandhi did with salt or King did with the smaller businesses of the cities they would target. It’s far from perfect but far more effective than people (like you, your loved ones, or even your children or children’s children) dying in droves just to accomplish something that potentially could’ve been accomplished without the loss of a single soul. The more fortunate and therefore the blind don’t see this as a big deal because their lack of knowledge of the misfortune of losing someone close to them or of the experience of being in the thick of it themselves because of hate and violence, and the naive convincing their contemporaries that hate and violence is the only legitimate path.

Ultimately, regardless of what metaphysical beliefs one may have, nobodies “God” is going to come down and save us, we must save ourselves, and for that we must have solidarity, work together

King would completely agree with you; he rejected the bodily supernatural resurrection of Jesus, the supernatural and miracles within the Bible, and even the dogma of Pauline Christianity, though he still quotes and considers him plenty. King believed in God in the same way people like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Albert Einstein did. That it’s something completely beyond a humans comprehension and ability. Ironically, “scripture” and Jesus when he references this verse in Matt 5:33 when he warns of the woes of taking oaths, would also agree:

“Thus said Jehovah: The heavens [are] My throne, And the earth My footstool, Where [is] this — the house that ye build for Me? And where [is] this — the place — My rest?” - Isaiah 66:1

And I found out today that all the girls he did this with were 18 and over. So the label of pedophile doesn’t even make sense to begin with.

There’s zero evidence to support that claim and the girls themselves even said nothing happened. The value and potential of 2 + 2 remains the same no matter whose lips it came from; knowledge is just that: knowledge, no matter its source and no matter what we’ve rendered it ever since it’s been revealed and labeled. Besides, I agree with MLK:

“In the final analysis, God does not judge us by the separate incidents or the separate mistakes that we make, but by the total bent of our lives. In the final analysis, God knows that his children are weak and they are frail. In the final analysis, what God requires is that your heart is right.”

I’m not saying that’s the case to begin with. Tolstoy in particular has a lot of stigma surrounding him due to a lot of his philosophy consisting so much of Christianity.

Tolstoy is saying much more here than simply “Desire is the root of dissatisfaction.” And love, but defined more as our unique and profound capacity for selflessness, is the only desire incapable of dissatisfaction.

I quoted Jesus; arrogance is at the root of all the hate and evil in then world.

Wow thanks that’s very nice of you. What’s your group all about?

What’s said about knowing and not knowing is what I wish people would get. All these social ideological sects that are appearing in society is because people think THEY are the only correct ones. Political and theological groups can be some of the most egregious in this manner.

Omg I could not agree more! That’s what Socrates took his life trying to teach, and die a martyr to.

People talk more than think. And usually think what others have talked to them about.

Beautifully said! I think people like Jesus would’ve agreed, considering the extent he would call out the dogma of his day; promising to believe something as unquestionably true would be an example of an oath: “Do not take an oath at all.” - Matt 5:34

Any knowing is a knowledge. Our knowledge of time for example or even of the experience.

Just because blind men have attached their words and beliefs unto Jesus’ via the New Testament ever since, distorting the crap out of it 45 thousand different ways, that doesn’t make it what Jesus was really trying to say. “Do not take an oath at all.” - Matt 5:34; of course making the promise to believe things as unquestionably true cna be catorgorized as an oath.

I could not agree more. Have you considered his teaching in its purest form via the precepts of the Sermon On the Mount - Matt 5-7, but interpreted more objectively? Including and especially the one about oaths (promising to believe things as unquestionably true would be an example of taking an oath in my opinion); “do not take an oath at all.” - Matt 5:34.

I also noticed that what he meant by we humans being the salt of the earth and light of the world (Matt 5:13), he was pointing towards our unique and profound abilities for selflessness and knowledge in contrast to nature. Selflessness is the salt: Without humans on an earth (a conscious capable being on a planet), there’s nothing to be as selfless as we’re capable of being; the extent we can push past our instincts in favor of where knowledge takes us. And knowledge is the light: Without humans, there wouldn’t be anything to give life to any knowledge (including of a God) to the degrees we can in contrast to nature, and be able to retain and transfer it (keep it living so to speak; “the living God” - Matt 16:16 ); not to mention anything with the ability to measure morality the same way we do our knowledge of time, and to act upon it and apply that knowing to our environment.

Have you considered Tolstoy’s perspective on religion? That knowledge is knowledge no matter its source, no matter what we’ve rendered it ever since its been revealed and labeled. Tolstoy felt as though Jesus (who I equate as a moral philosopher/activist) was simply teaching a teaching that gives meaning to the life of a conscious capable being, and not what we now call “religjon.” All the blind men ever since that have applied their blindness to his teaching shouldn’t lead one to think that that’s what Jesus was ultimately really trying to say.

I agree. However, ignorance (lack of knowledge) is an inevitability, this would of course include the woes of taking oaths (promising to believe things as unquestionably true); “Do not take an oath at all.” - Matt 5:34.

Have you considered Tolstoy’s perspective on religion? That knowledge is knowledge no matter its source, no matter what we’ve rendered it ever since its been revealed and labeled. Tolstoy felt as though Jesus (who I equate as a moral philosopher/activist) was simply teaching a teaching that gives meaning to the life of a conscious capable being, and not what we now call “religion.” All the blind men ever since that have applied their blindness to his teaching shouldn’t lead one to think that that’s what Jesus was ultimately really trying to say.

The intent isn’t to impress, to meet anyone’s standards or for any amount of vanity for the sake of myself, but purely to teach. Just as long as the knowledge is being diffused to whatever degree; I’m honored to be a part in its diffusing.

I appreciate your consideration.

Wow thank you, it’s my genuine pleasure my friend!

I did say I didn’t agree with it at one point i remember, at that point in the war of course I agree with our response, I was disagreeing more with responding to Hitler and his regime with the opposite that he was advocating from the start, collectively.

That’s obviously not what I’m saying exactly. If you’re interested check out Leo Tolstoy’s non-fiction: Confession, What I Believe, The Gospel In Brief, and The Kingdom of God Is Within You

I’m not arguing who’s the better man, I’m arguing who’s the better groups of people when both are championing iniquity despite their justifications for it. In my opinion neither, considering iniquity to any degree to be nothing but that. I do agree of course it’s necessary in plenty of situations, especially considering how barbaric and individualized we still are as a species, but never something to be praised, encouraged or championed to this degree. It wasn’t necessary to assassinate yet another CEO in contrast to these more necessary extremes like Hitler for example; he was the farthest thing from a Hitler, thus of course not entitled to the same response. Luigi only put additional influence of violence and hate in the world, handing it over to those that loved the man he murdered, and the wake of their hate influencing others. Like all those that praise this man for stooping down to their level to eliminate the problem.

Healthcare is just doing what any other industry is meant to do: profit. As long as this is the emphasis the problem will continue to persist. So it’s not a matter of how many individuals we eliminate it’s more a matter of how many minds we change. Minds aren’t changed when they’re being threatened, insulted or screamed at; only the opposite has that ability.