Military Might Makes Right?
War has broken out in Gaza, in Syria, in Iraq, and in the Ukraine.
IMHO as of now
The outbreak of war is rooted in a 'might makes right' attitude, a mentality that believes that in armed conflict between groups, the 'superior' side always defeats the 'inferior' side.
This theory that the 'superior' side always wins in armed conflict, is contradicted by the deaths of holy martyrs such as Christ and his apostles.
Regarding the 'Beast' of the book of Revelation, the scripture says:
"And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations". This is another example of the 'inferior' defeating the 'superior'.
It was 'given unto' the Beast to defeat the saints. But simultaneously with this power being 'given unto' the Beast, the saints in their sane saintliness still fought against the 'Beast'. Apparently, though military power had been given the Beast, the 'Saints' still fought the beast, because of the long term good this would do their cause despite their defeat, and/or because despite power having been given to the beast the issue was still in doubt.
Therefore, we conclude that resistance to war-mongering forces can correspond with saintliness.
It is easy to conceive of the triumph of inferiors by way of force, over persons superior to them.
Example:
100 survivors of a shipwreck find themselves on an uninhabited island. 66.67 of the survivors are ugly, wicked, stupid, and insane. The remainder of the survivors are beautiful, saintly, intelligent, and sane. The saintly ones do the saintly thing and resist the murdering lyintg thieving raping onslaught of the 66.67 inferior persons. Yet because the saints were a little bit too defective in their characters, and because there were not quite enough of them, and because they were a little short in terms of the amount of outside help they got, the saints lost. Which is not to say that they were unreasonable to fight.
1. Inferior groups can defeat superior groups in war.
2. War does not always result in an improvement of the human species.
3. It is not always foolish to resist forces that encourage war.
'National Darwinism' is a 'might makes right' type of erroneous attitude. Though the forces that have historically made survival and reproduction difficult for species have changed those species, this does not mean those forces have improved the species they have effected; the changes brought about by environmental pressures do not prove that humans helping other humans to survive and flourish, has damaged the quality of the human species.
And then you what humans are feeling inside in the hear and now, a consideration above and beyond theorizing regarding what will make the next generation 'better'. Which is a theorizing that assumes that there will be a future, which is not guaranteed.
IMHO as of now
The outbreak of war is rooted in a 'might makes right' attitude, a mentality that believes that in armed conflict between groups, the 'superior' side always defeats the 'inferior' side.
This theory that the 'superior' side always wins in armed conflict, is contradicted by the deaths of holy martyrs such as Christ and his apostles.
Regarding the 'Beast' of the book of Revelation, the scripture says:
"And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations". This is another example of the 'inferior' defeating the 'superior'.
It was 'given unto' the Beast to defeat the saints. But simultaneously with this power being 'given unto' the Beast, the saints in their sane saintliness still fought against the 'Beast'. Apparently, though military power had been given the Beast, the 'Saints' still fought the beast, because of the long term good this would do their cause despite their defeat, and/or because despite power having been given to the beast the issue was still in doubt.
Therefore, we conclude that resistance to war-mongering forces can correspond with saintliness.
It is easy to conceive of the triumph of inferiors by way of force, over persons superior to them.
Example:
100 survivors of a shipwreck find themselves on an uninhabited island. 66.67 of the survivors are ugly, wicked, stupid, and insane. The remainder of the survivors are beautiful, saintly, intelligent, and sane. The saintly ones do the saintly thing and resist the murdering lyintg thieving raping onslaught of the 66.67 inferior persons. Yet because the saints were a little bit too defective in their characters, and because there were not quite enough of them, and because they were a little short in terms of the amount of outside help they got, the saints lost. Which is not to say that they were unreasonable to fight.
1. Inferior groups can defeat superior groups in war.
2. War does not always result in an improvement of the human species.
3. It is not always foolish to resist forces that encourage war.
'National Darwinism' is a 'might makes right' type of erroneous attitude. Though the forces that have historically made survival and reproduction difficult for species have changed those species, this does not mean those forces have improved the species they have effected; the changes brought about by environmental pressures do not prove that humans helping other humans to survive and flourish, has damaged the quality of the human species.
And then you what humans are feeling inside in the hear and now, a consideration above and beyond theorizing regarding what will make the next generation 'better'. Which is a theorizing that assumes that there will be a future, which is not guaranteed.
posted by David Virgil at 3:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home