Idealism

[Lunitik]

I am confused why so many strive for an ideal that is biased...

Many on this site are theist, yet they clearly do not believe God to be infallible because they are always trying to correct his work. Obviously, it is not possible that God is omnipotent because he needs us to work for him. He is not omniscient because he has missed something, cannot be omnipresent because he did not notice.

For me, this is the greatest ego trip of all, to look at reality and decide it needs improving. It is quite ironic that every improvement simply worsens the situation overall - every fight we engage in strengthens the opposition. In defending a given position, even if you are lukewarm going in, you are bound to feel strongly by the end. The very defense has caused an identification, instead of merely voicing an opinion you are now part of the opposition.

It puzzles me a great deal how complicated people insist on making their lives, they cannot settle for simply enjoying what has been given to them. What are your thoughts on this? Why is it so difficult for people to simply be?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Lunitik, please, if you are confused by people and by what they do, ask questions instead of stating your opinion of what they do. We both know you don't have a perfect understanding of every human mind. Sometimes you just don't understand, and it's ok!

For example, I don't think the people you are talking about have the same idea about their purpose as you have. Some consider this a playground, like you, but they are here to act. Not because the great powers that be made a mistake, but because it is their (our) purpose.

Every view that differs from yours are not flawed, it is simply different.

 

[radarmark]

Read Rb Hershel's "God on Search of Man", Rosenzweig's "Star of Redomption", or Katzanzakis' "Saviors of God". There is a long, long hisory of redemption being a two-way street. The Lord made us to return to Him. To so so is to pay attention to His Voice Within and to act to implement that voice.

Infallibility is a human construct, it does not mean that we do not have free will, the freedom to return to the fold. The Great Mother set us in motion to return Divine Goodness with good and Divine Loving wiht love. If one believes we are created as little machines to do what we were programmed to do then one cannot comprehend the beauty of redemption.

Omniscience and omnipotence are also human constriucts. I tend to beleive that no positive theology is possible (well, it is possible, let us say that I do not beleive the human mind can comprehend the Divine, but merely can experience it and point to it--like finger pointing at the moon).

I think G!d wants use to "laugh when we see the color purple", to reach out to those in need (be they birds, lilies of the field, the less forunate, or victims of a human or natural catastrophy). That is what it means to experience our humanity.

Why settle for the Shoah? Or ceaseless warfare? Or racial hatred?

Pax et amore vincunt omnia. Radarmark

 

[Lunitik]

Lunitik, please, if you are confused by people and by what they do, ask questions instead of stating your opinion of what they do. We both know you don't have a perfect understanding of every human mind. Sometimes you just don't understand, and it's ok!

For example, I don't think the people you are talking about have the same idea about their purpose as you have. Some consider this a playground, like you, but they are here to act. Not because the great powers that be made a mistake, but because it is their (our) purpose.

Every view that differs from yours are not flawed, it is simply different.

I have elaborated for the purposes of directing conversation, sorry you were offended. Obviously if I am raising the discussion, I am expecting a dialog to help understand why.

I simply feel that the actions improve nothing in many cases. I think that furthering pursuits such as technology is admirable, but we should be concentrating more on alternative energy technology since computers are basically uninteresting now - just changing forms and increasing cores. Actions towards almost any societal cause, however, generally only creates enmity, and this is what I wish to comprehend - do people not see the ramifications? Do Christians not see that they are antagonizing Muslims in Europe right now, for instance? It puzzles me a great deal...

 

[Lunitik]

The Great Mother set us in motion to return Divine Goodness with good and Divine Loving wiht love.

Do you not believe it possible that this too is a human construct?

I tend to beleive that no positive theology is possible (well, it is possible, let us say that I do not beleive the human mind can comprehend the Divine, but merely can experience it and point to it--like finger pointing at the moon).

I agree.

I think G!d wants use to "laugh when we see the color purple", to reach out to those in need (be they birds, lilies of the field, the less forunate, or victims of a human or natural catastrophy). That is what it means to experience our humanity.

For me, meaning is not necessary, it is a gift and a gift we should utilize to its fullest potential. Certainly, out of compassion, we should help those in need. For me, they do not even need to be obviously in need, though. It should become a natural state to be looking for outlets for your compassion, to attempt to improve the condition of all those you encounter in some way - not necessarily obviously though, maybe just comments that make them think as conversation permits.

Why settle for the Shoah? Or ceaseless warfare? Or racial hatred?

Most scriptures of the world, though, state that to combat hate, you must love more strongly. Everyone seems to ignore this, but it is quite potent. You cannot defeat a group by attacking them, you only create a new generation with deeper hatred towards you. Do not waver in your own truth, and if warfare is necessary it must be engaged. Racism is just another fear, another defense mechanism though that love can overcome - maybe not in this generation, perhaps the pain is too deep now, but in the next.

Instead, there is a situation where many of the worlds Protestants are creating militant bases all around the world, we see the Muslims doing the same. Always, more and more hatred on each side is fueled, it is really a bad state of affairs! How to stop it? Well, interfaith dialogues are a good start, but the issues are deeper. Group-mind ensures right now that there is no end in sight that will be amicable, so something has to change. Perhaps the Baha'i Faith can create a place for compromises to be made for peace, perhaps some other synchronicity will be more appreciated. First, they must come together on the grounds they are against each other due to though, then maybe something deeper can grow. It must be out of love though, out of a connection with the whole of existence, not a separation where each is utterly committed to their side and only talks to look like they are trying.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I have elaborated for the purposes of directing conversation, sorry you were offended. Obviously if I am raising the discussion, I am expecting a dialog to help understand why.

I'm not offended my friend, I don't even believe in a creator so it's not personal. But you know I want to assist in your communication with other so that you and others might learn from each other. Even if you do not agree with me, can you understand why how you said what you said could have offended someone, when the actual question is an interesting discussion.

 

[Gatekeeper]

I am confused why so many strive for an ideal that is biased...

Many on this site are theist, yet they clearly do not believe God to be infallible because they are always trying to correct his work. Obviously, it is not possible that God is omnipotent because he needs us to work for him. He is not omniscient because he has missed something, cannot be omnipresent because he did not notice.

For me, this is the greatest ego trip of all, to look at reality and decide it needs improving. It is quite ironic that every improvement simply worsens the situation overall - every fight we engage in strengthens the opposition. In defending a given position, even if you are lukewarm going in, you are bound to feel strongly by the end. The very defense has caused an identification, instead of merely voicing an opinion you are now part of the opposition.

It puzzles me a great deal how complicated people insist on making their lives, they cannot settle for simply enjoying what has been given to them. What are your thoughts on this? Why is it so difficult for people to simply be?

Some believe that we are Gods vessels; God being the potter and we the clay. Everything in life develops us, changing our attitudes, actions, and understanding of the way life works. To me God is life and everything in life has the potential to change us for the better.


It is an ego trip to attempt to better our world? To desire something better for our children, for our grandchildren, and for the human race is an ego trip? I'm not in agreement at all. I'm one who believes it is our responsibility to do all we can to make life better for future generations. If God is life, then surely it is life itself that sparks the desire to be the change we want to see in the world. It certainly isn't an ego trip to live in a manner beneficial to our fellow man. It's called compassion, love, and responsibility.


I agree that we should appreciate our blessings no matter how small they may seem, but I also believe that sharing our blessings, helping those in need, living our lives in service to others and living through love can lead us towards a better world.


The suffering in life can motivate a desire to change our selfish and self serving ways, just as it can motivate a desire to help those who need it most. I think the problem is that too many want to sit comfy in their recliner, and leave the work of change up to others.


You are, of course, entitled to your views, but I think you have missed the mark by about a mile with this one. It has nothing to do with ego trips, but rather it has to do with our responsibilities, and love, and compassion for others.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Do you not believe it possible that this too is a human construct?



I agree.



For me, meaning is not necessary, it is a gift and a gift we should utilize to its fullest potential. Certainly, out of compassion, we should help those in need. For me, they do not even need to be obviously in need, though. It should become a natural state to be looking for outlets for your compassion, to attempt to improve the condition of all those you encounter in some way - not necessarily obviously though, maybe just comments that make them think as conversation permits.



Most scriptures of the world, though, state that to combat hate, you must love more strongly. Everyone seems to ignore this, but it is quite potent. You cannot defeat a group by attacking them, you only create a new generation with deeper hatred towards you. Do not waver in your own truth, and if warfare is necessary it must be engaged. Racism is just another fear, another defense mechanism though that love can overcome - maybe not in this generation, perhaps the pain is too deep now, but in the next.

Instead, there is a situation where many of the worlds Protestants are creating militant bases all around the world, we see the Muslims doing the same. Always, more and more hatred on each side is fueled, it is really a bad state of affairs! How to stop it? Well, interfaith dialogues are a good start, but the issues are deeper. Group-mind ensures right now that there is no end in sight that will be amicable, so something has to change. Perhaps the Baha'i Faith can create a place for compromises to be made for peace, perhaps some other synchronicity will be more appreciated. First, they must come together on the grounds they are against each other due to though, then maybe something deeper can grow. It must be out of love though, out of a connection with the whole of existence, not a separation where each is utterly committed to their side and only talks to look like they are trying.

Good post!

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

I am confused why so many strive for an ideal that is biased...

Many on this site are theist, yet they clearly do not believe God to be infallible because they are always trying to correct his work. Obviously, it is not possible that God is omnipotent because he needs us to work for him. He is not omniscient because he has missed something, cannot be omnipresent because he did not notice.

maybe God wants to include us in his plans, why I dont know but its pretty cool that he does.

he tells us what to pray, we pray it and it comes into being, Jesus only did what he saw his father do in heaven.

For me, this is the greatest ego trip of all, to look at reality and decide it needs improving.

who can look at reality its not possible for anyone to do this

It is quite ironic that every improvement simply worsens the situation overall - every fight we engage in strengthens the opposition. In defending a given position, even if you are lukewarm going in, you are bound to feel strongly by the end. The very defense has caused an identification, instead of merely voicing an opinion you are now part of the opposition.

not true, medicine and technology have improved the lives of many people, even war is sometimes a good thing, the Nazi were defeated in Europe that was good.

It puzzles me a great deal how complicated people insist on making their lives, they cannot settle for simply enjoying what has been given to them. What are your thoughts on this? Why is it so difficult for people to simply be?

it is part of our nature to want to acquire to achieve, thats why we are here simply being gets nothing done.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

Do Christians not see that they are antagonizing Muslims in Europe right now, for instance? It puzzles me a great deal...

what Christians ? and where and what are they doing ?

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

Instead, there is a situation where many of the worlds Protestants are creating militant bases all around the world

ok so where are all these protestant military bases ?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Lunitik —

I am confused why so many strive for an ideal that is biased ...

I'm not sure that just because people do not have your bias, then bias is a negative attribute?

But I think you may have answered your own question:

... it is a gift and a gift we should utilize to its fullest potential ...

That's why I am drawn to Catholicism, it is the most optimistic outlook, and offers man an unsurpassed possibility, there's nothing quite like it.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Lunitik]

Some believe that we are Gods vessels; God being the potter and we the clay. Everything in life develops us, changing our attitudes, actions, and understanding of the way life works. To me God is life and everything in life has the potential to change us for the better.

I would say this is slightly flawed... we are God, we just don't know it - we have forgotten. All subject/object relationships are erroneous, any expression of other is merely a wrong perception. For me, the process of life is to allow us to recognize it again.

It is an ego trip to attempt to better our world? To desire something better for our children, for our grandchildren, and for the human race is an ego trip? I'm not in agreement at all. I'm one who believes it is our responsibility to do all we can to make life better for future generations. If God is life, then surely it is life itself that sparks the desire to be the change we want to see in the world. It certainly isn't an ego trip to live in a manner beneficial to our fellow man. It's called compassion, love, and responsibility.

It is certainly an ego trip to believe we can control such things, yes. As I stated, for me, every step we take to improve the world around us is actually doing some damage - it cannot be otherwise either since we are effecting the natural balance. If we really wish to make the world better, we must let go of many of our ideals. It seems counter-intuitive, but actually less good would equate to less bad. If you bring one extreme closer to the center, its opposite would become less exaggerated as well. Every step we take to make it better however will simply exaggerate the opposite more, there will be a natural counter-balance.

I agree that we should appreciate our blessings no matter how small they may seem, but I also believe that sharing our blessings, helping those in need, living our lives in service to others and living through love can lead us towards a better world.

I utterly agree, and in fact I don't think it is possible to not share at a certain point. You become so overflowing with love that you simply must share with all - a strange thing happens though, the more you share the more overflowing you become. It is quite beautiful, but what I am saying is that combating that which we see as evil cannot improve anything. Creating an abundance of love is the only way to make the world a better place, not fighting the bad.

 

[donnann]

Dont you mean human beings will be LIKE GOD?
Who is like GOD?

 

[Lunitik]

Dont you mean human beings will be LIKE GOD?
Who is like GOD?

No, existence is merely the gross manifestation of God. Nothing that exists is separate from that, we merely have forgotten. The many mystic schools attempt to reintroduce us to our true reality, but the organizations are more interested in creating slaves and earning money for themselves - few actually understand what they are saying in my experience.

Many stumble across this truth in other paths, but it is purely by accident usually and thus they are not aware of what to do about it. It is depressing to me that this is even surprising to some, though. I believe it is the Bible which says God is closer than your life vain? Always, God is taught as something other, though, and this is fundamentally erroneous to the reality we live in. We are as a cell of God, only we have the ability to be conscious of this fact. In Catholicism, this is known as theosis, but of course every tradition teaches this in some way. If you are not Christian - this is an assumption on my part - then I can discuss it in terms of another tradition. If you are, though, I would recommend looking into Meister Eckhart - the Catholic mystic - as no other Christian has expressed it so beautifully in the history of the faith. I include Jesus himself in this statement, because not even he has talked so plainly of it.

For me, this is the fundamental foundation that interfaith dialog should be built on - the conclusions of the mystics. The details of a particular enlightened ones life are not at all important, leave it to the history books to record the past. Instead, though, we cling to the organizations that have attached themselves to particular enlightened ones and dispute which is most correct. In truth, they are all correct, they all are saying the same thing in fact. We do not realize it, though, because we insist on looking only at the surface. We see the words are different, the promises and practices are different, so we say they are utterly unrelated and worse even opposed to each other. We cling to the utterly irrelevant and so we fight among ourselves.

There is a great significance to Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge and this being called the first fall. We have created a scholarly exercise out of something experiential, we have worshiped something because we have failed to understand. It is easier to say they are a God than engage in experiencing the same, then we build rules based on another persons experience because we say it is the word of God. It is just unnecessary, if we teach people how to experience the same then these scriptures can be utterly ignored. The laws merely reflect the ramifications of all being part of a single whole, if we can experience that we are part of the whole, know it intrinsically, then we will not require laws anymore at all.

 

[Gatekeeper]

I would say this is slightly flawed... we are God, we just don't know it - we have forgotten. All subject/object relationships are erroneous, any expression of other is merely a wrong perception. For me, the process of life is to allow us to recognize it again.

We may very well be "gods", but we are not God. We may very well be a part of God, but being a part of God doesn't make us God anymore than looking like, sounding like, and acting like Elvis makes us Elvis. To me God is life in its entirety; we certainly cannot claim to be existence itself, no?

It is certainly an ego trip to believe we can control such things, yes. As I stated, for me, every step we take to improve the world around us is actually doing some damage - it cannot be otherwise either since we are effecting the natural balance. If we really wish to make the world better, we must let go of many of our ideals. It seems counter-intuitive, but actually less good would equate to less bad. If you bring one extreme closer to the center, its opposite would become less exaggerated as well. Every step we take to make it better however will simply exaggerate the opposite more, there will be a natural counter-balance.

Again, I disagree as we can and do control such things. We are the reason for much of the suffering on earth, just as we can eliminate much of the suffering on earth. It is our reasonable duty as the dominant species to take on this responsibility and do our best to make the world a better place. We can't force our idealism on others, but as individuals we can adopt this moral code, one in which we live to serve others in love. Our law enforcement officers and military personnel should never attempt to force these ideals on others, but they can live to defend and protect these ideals from self-serving and foreign aggressors.


"All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing"

I utterly agree, and in fact I don't think it is possible to not share at a certain point. You become so overflowing with love that you simply must share with all - a strange thing happens though, the more you share the more overflowing you become. It is quite beautiful, but what I am saying is that combating that which we see as evil cannot improve anything. Creating an abundance of love is the only way to make the world a better place, not fighting the bad.

For someone who claims balance, you seem to be one sided on this issue. There exist two contrasting types of people in our world; those who are passive and those who are aggressive. There is a necessity for both the aggressive peace keeper and the passive peace maker in today's world. .


I think each type serve a purpose in our societies. The passive are the peace makers, while the aggressive are those whom are willing to fight for a cause. The passive types appeal to world peace, unity, and compassion, while the aggressive appeal to the necessity of survival.


I am grateful for those who have chosen to serve and defend our country aggressively, yet who still remain non abusive, just as I am grateful for those who encourage compassion, unity, and peace. Surely there is a necessity for both the aggressive peace keeper and the passive peace maker in our societies.


Both of whom fight the good fight. The only difference is in how they have chosen to fight it. Ideally, we would have no need for the peace keeper, but this is simply not our reality. Our military and law enforcement serve to secure and protect our best interests. There is no doubt that they are needed in today’s world. Without them who would protect those who are most vulnerable or would leave the vulnerable to fend for themselves?

 

[Lunitik]

We may very well be "gods", but we are not God. We may very well be a part of God, but being a part of God doesn't make us God anymore than looking like, sounding like, and acting like Elvis makes us Elvis. To me God is life in its entirety; we certainly cannot claim to be existence itself, no?

My fundamental understanding and experience is that of non-dualism, thus for me it is not possible to say we are other than that. In part, you are correct though, the foot is not the head. Even when experiencing the whole, it is from the perspective of your body - you remain non-omnipresent. You experience everything around you as if it is happening to you, but the perspective is still relative. For me, however, God is not separate or distinct at all... it is only human imagination that personifies that.

Are you not alive? Have you ever investigated that which gives you life? Do you not exist? Can you be distinct from existence? Do you think God is distinct from existence? If you are saying yes, you are saying God doesn't exist...

I am saying gross manifestation is the lower aspect of God, that separation is the ultimate maya - illusion. To function within the created there must be a certain relativity, upon physical death, this is no longer the case. Higher mystics state that their experience is even less relative, this is the nature of the psychic abilities and miracles many proclaim - the former being a level of omnipresence, the latter being a participation in creation itself.

"All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing"

I am not saying do nothing, I am simply suggesting that the current situation is that in the name of good we are fighting evil with evil. The aspect of good is purely perceptual, the conflict is utterly free of any remnant of good, yet both sides justify by saying they are doing good.

For someone who claims balance, you seem to be one sided on this issue. There exist two contrasting types of people in our world; those who are passive and those who are aggressive. There is a necessity for both the aggressive peace keeper and the passive peace maker in today's world. .

This is your perception, and perhaps my inability to communicate effectively. There is a third, however, which you have missed - the middle ground between the two extremes of passive and aggressive. There is the one which responds as the situation arises, not in aggression but with love. This is the whole problem, though, we accept duality as the way things are and thus all too often we choose between a given extreme. Buddha has discussed the Middle Way at length, it is his most valuable contribution. Whenever you envision such a choice, attempt to see what is the middle grounds - it is usually the best choice available.

I am grateful for those who have chosen to serve and defend our country aggressively, yet who still remain non abusive, just as I am grateful for those who encourage compassion, unity, and peace. Surely there is a necessity for both the aggressive peace keeper and the passive peace maker in our societies.

Both have chosen an extreme, and I assure you that those who fight in the wars do not remain even vaguely human in many cases - they begin to crave violence even when they return home. I also do not support the passive person, passive simply means you do nothing, you avoid. This is equally poisonous, for the reasons you suggest. We can kill in love, we can respect those we are fighting against and see they are merely fighting for what they believe in as we do. We should experience compassion even in this situation, this is the greatest lesson of Krishna. We can face life head on, be complete without choosing merely to ensure our prolonged freedom - or at least ensure it is not lessened.

Both of whom fight the good fight. The only difference is in how they have chosen to fight it. Ideally, we would have no need for the peace keeper, but this is simply not our reality. Our military and law enforcement serve to secure and protect our best interests. There is no doubt that they are needed in today’s world. Without them who would protect those who are most vulnerable or would leave the vulnerable to fend for themselves?

The whole reason for war is a sense of segregation and pride in that which we cling to, identify with. Each side thinks they are doing what is right, both are fighting the good fight, they just disagree on the definition of good. There is also the underlying truth of power between the leaders of each side, it is the leaders which have created the difference between the individuals on the field. Without those identifications, do you think they would fight over such causes? Without the perceived differences and barriers in language and culture, they would likely find they have much in common and be perfectly capable of loving each other.

 

[Gatekeeper]

I am not saying do nothing, I am simply suggesting that the current situation is that in the name of good we are fighting evil with evil. The aspect of good is purely perceptual, the conflict is utterly free of any remnant of good, yet both sides justify by saying they are doing good.

Defending ideals is a far cry from fighting and killing others to establish them.

This is your perception, and perhaps my inability to communicate effectively. There is a third, however, which you have missed - the middle ground between the two extremes of passive and aggressive. There is the one which responds as the situation arises, not in aggression but with love. This is the whole problem, though, we accept duality as the way things are and thus all too often we choose between a given extreme. Buddha has discussed the Middle Way at length, it is his most valuable contribution. Whenever you envision such a choice, attempt to see what is the middle grounds - it is usually the best choice available.

Not missed, I simply didn't include those who can access both extremes. I chose to focus on those who at the opposite ends of the pole to demonstrate that a balance needs to be achieved. You for instance are at the passive end of the pole. At least this is what a largely get from your posts, or maybe you are willing to fight for a cause. You seem to be against any type movement to change the world for the better, however.

Both have chosen an extreme, and I assure you that those who fight in the wars do not remain even vaguely human in many cases - they begin to crave violence even when they return home. I also do not support the passive person, passive simply means you do nothing, you avoid. This is equally poisonous, for the reasons you suggest. We can kill in love, we can respect those we are fighting against and see they are merely fighting for what they believe in as we do. We should experience compassion even in this situation, this is the greatest lesson of Krishna. We can face life head on, be complete without choosing.

In the broader sense of the term passive means inaction, but I was speaking about those who have adopted the ideal that we should not fight or defend one another's best interests aggressively in contrast to those who live to fight for one another's best interests aggressively. There are two extremes and many fall on the extreme side of the pole which actually creates a balance. Then there are those who can be both, which furthers that balance.

The whole reason for war is a sense of segregation and pride in that which we cling to, identify with. Each side thinks they are doing what is right, both are fighting the good fight, they just disagree on the definition of good. There is also the underlying truth of power between the leaders of each side, it is the leaders which have created the difference between the individuals on the field. Without those identifications, do you think they would fight over such causes? Without the perceived differences and barriers in language and culture, they would likely find they have much in common and be perfectly capable of loving each other.

With all due respect, I never suggested that we force these ideals on others, but rather that we defend them against self-serving and foreign aggressors. Love is the answer, but sometimes love involves fighting for others, and sometimes even for ourselves.

 

[Lunitik]

Defending ideals is a far cry from fighting and killing others to establish them.

Defensive and offensive fighting are still both a form of fighting. If the opposition is unwilling to waiver, is willing to kill you if you refuse to settle, you won't kill? Ideals always require bloodshed, every religious founder has embodied this truth. Every nation has had to shed blood for its ideals, it is simply not possible to avoid. You are infringing on another ideal whenever you engage in creating the circumstance of your own.

Not missed, I simply didn't include those who can access both extremes. I chose to focus on those who at the opposite ends of the pole to demonstrate that a balance needs to be achieved. You for instance are at the passive end of the pole, content to live and sit back in your recliner whilst others do the work. At least this is what a largely get from your posts.

This is the problem, you see opposites as necessary, and you group me into one of them for ease of your own expression. I am as against passivity as I am aggression, both are poisonous. I just think that fighting for the power of something artificial - like a country or religious organization - is stupid.

In the broader sense of the term passive means inaction, but I was speaking about those who have adopted the ideal that we should not fight or defend one another's best interests aggressively in contrast to those who live to fight for one another's best interests aggressively. There are two extremes and many fall on the extreme side of the pole which actually creates a balance. Then there are those who can be both, which furthers that balance.

I am saying that the extremes should be removed, that we are fighting to push out ideals while killing someone that believes in another ideal. If all are given individual empowerment and freedom rather than choosing a particular group, there needn't be war at all - without large groups, war is simply impossible.

With all due respect, I never suggested that we force these ideals on others, but rather that we defend them against self-serving and foreign aggressors. Love is the answer, but sometimes love involves fighting for others, and sometimes even ourselves.

You call it defending, but those foreign aggressors are defending their ideals as well. They usually fight because there are individuals in that country which are part of their community. Take 9/11 for instance, there are Muslims in America that are seeing things which are against Islam. Their freedom is to work in America, but the Muslim ideal means that they should not be witness to such things. Now, to defend democracies, Americans have gone to Muslim countries to enforce this in another country. It is all a matter of perspective, always our side is the correct side and there is no compassion for the other. You show this by acknowledging others as foreigners, this is a propaganda of your own government, and that government is doing the same in the opposite direction. Both sides want their ideal to spread the world over, they cannot just keep their ideal individually so there are wars.

 

[Lunitik]

Ultimately, it is all about ego...

We desire so strongly to stand for something long lasting, to feel we made a difference. We think our way of living is best, so we kill others who don't want to live that way. With greater numbers, our causes are more likely to come to fruition, but we create an opposition group to compete with our own because we are too powerful to compete with individually. The situation that is created is utterly devoid of freedom, all are influenced by peer pressure and robbed of their individuality. We see this all the time, if you go against what is expected, all around you will attack you for it. They identify with a certain ideal, so they refuse you your own ideal.

It is a sickening situation from my perspective, and while some may agree with my sentiment, most will feel a great defensiveness because they themselves identify with a certain ideal which they feel should be spread. Ideas are like a virus, the ideals spread are the whole reason for what is perceived as evil - evil is really anything that doesn't agree with our ideal, which we see as the good.

Without this identification, ego isn't even possible.