The Gods--All of them! (Religion)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, December 06, 2010, 04:28 (5099 days ago) @ dhw

The direct question which I asked you was whether you consider Hitler ... a "strong leader" who shared many of Alexander's attributes ... to have been a great and noble hero, and if not, why not?
> -A loaded question. This depends. Had I been born a German in 1920, I most certainly would answer "affirmative." However you ask someone whose culture's dominance is predicated on the destruction of the man called Hitler. In the life I live right now, no; Hitler was not a hero. But comparing Hitler to Alexander is an exercise in calling Apples oranges! The only similarity between them is subjugation. Alexander certainly didn't engage on a death mill to the extent of Hitler; he limited himself to the carnage permissible in his day. -> MATT: War. My great break with Buddha. War, if engaged when you feel you are about to be attacked, is mandatory. End of story. Each nation is entitled to its defense.
> 
> This was your response to my statements: "I think war should be restricted to self-defence, and is not justified by personal or national ambition." And: "I think confrontation should be avoided except as a last resort (e.g. self-defence)." My statements and your own provide no justification for wars of aggression (viz. Alexander and Hitler).-> 
> MATT (in response): You seem to equate lust with rape. Why?
> Perhaps you are under pressure and are only able to skim these admittedly rather lengthy posts, as I can't believe you're unable to connect my statements, but I must obviously spell the meaning out to you:
> 
> If your neighbour steals your most prized possessions (greed), burns down your beautiful house (envy) and rapes your wife (lust), will you defend him by saying that greed, envy and lust are "part of the human character and psyche" and his actions are therefore great and noble?-If I am unable to defend my possessions, my wife, and my house; do I deserve them? I am certainly not entitled to those things that I cannot defend. You ask the question, really, if I think it would be fair to have those things taken from me. My answer is that if I am incapable of maintaining those things--I never had the right to them to begin with, however "bad" this might make me feel. I wouldn't feel it is fair, but if I don't have the power to change things? The human condition to me, must entertain some level of fatalism to endure. -However far we wish to will ourselves--we are still subject to nature and its inevitable lust to power. I'm certainly not capable of conquest, yet if my city were invaded and I couldn't defend what was mine, I recognize that my lack of strength is my fault.-In American society, there is some debate over "preemptive war." I personally, fully adhere to the doctrine. If you think you are going to be attacked, you should respond. No debate. Kill before you are killed yourself. No man of any language can claim ignorance to this basic law of nature.-[EDIT]-One more thing to add: Wars for conquest are of no issue to me, if one can reasonably believe that the opponent intends harm to you in a similar fashion.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"