What do you think about peace and pacifism?

One more time:

Was that priest more Christian (Catholic) or more Buddhistic?

Allen Watts and Thomas Merton were not Catholics.

:open_mouth: Thomas Merton was certainly Catholic.

Thomas Merton (1915-1968) was baptized Protestant. As adult he began (in the 1930’s) to be interested in Catholicism.

He converted to Catholicism in 1938 and became a Trappist Monk. How much more Catholic could a person be??

Pope. :sunglasses:


Type “again” as many times as you want. It don’t change a thing.

I do not want you to change your interpretation. But interpreatations are no facts. And it is a fact that Thomas Merton (1915-1968) was baptized Protestant and that he began (in the 1930’s) to be interested in Catholicism as an adult. Why should I not tell the facts or at least the facts at first? My Interpretation may follow, for example after Jerkey’s response.


What is that? A pictorial self-description?

Doing that ‘pretending not to know what perfectly ordinary sentences mean’ thing again, Arminius?

Doing that „pretending to know that Arminius is pretending not to know what perfectly ordinary sentences mean“ thing again, Uccisore?


And I was joking a bit. Excuse me. But there is also a serious part of it:

The English word „marry“ can be translated with many German words and in three different grammatical forms (non-reflexive/active, reflexive/passive, reflexive/active forms). The following table shows the different active forms:

When you say that a priest married your wife and you, then “marry” means in German “trauen”, also “vermählen”, “ehelichen”, “verehelichen”, “verheiraten” - but never"heiraten"; when you say that a priest married your wife (**), then “marry” means in German “heiraten”, also “vermählen”, “ehelichen”, “verehelichen”, “verheiraten” - but never “trauen”. So there is a difference between the active act of a priest or/and a registrar on the one hand (“trauen” etc. but not “heiraten”) and the act of the two who became a couple on the other hand (“heiraten” etc. but not “trauen”).

This was what I thought when I read your sentence: “The priest who married my wife and I told us that he founded an interfaith group in Tokyo, merging Catholicism and Buddhism.”

And after it I was joking a bit. So please excuse me a bit.


Peace is the result of intelligent thinking, war is not ~ at root.

As ever with causality, it requires something from outside the current trends. Eventually every part of our planet will be mapped, and ai based craft will not be affected by g-forces anything like as much as humans. no one with an inferior AI will attack those with superior. Eventually you arrive at ultra-high velocity weapons which are computer controlled [not commanded] and capable of shooting anything out of any part of the sky. This will be purely defensive, because any attack with any craft will be easily defeated for little loss.

No possible attack = peace. …?

Both war and peace are the result of thinking.

I find this to be a matter of taste/preference. And it’s not really as simple as war for peace, but more about harmony vs. disharmony, or vastness vs restriction. It’s a higher quality experience to feel oneself as one with all things then separate from everything. It’s a higher quality experience to engage in a wonderful duel (basketball, sword fighting, what have you) with an equal friend who, in the course of that battle, takes on the role of foe, then it is to sit around angrily mumbling to oneself about peace. I’d rather tackle someone in a football game or get tackled then stand around during an anti-war really acting miserably, angry, and violent.

Anti-war/pro-piece movement are often a sham, something produced by angry people who need to go to war with war. I’d rather be in a foxhole with my blood brother knowing that certain death is coming than “peacefully” go to a 9-5 job living a meaningless life, then spend my time off work going to anti-war rally’s because inside I feel like an empty, useless, 21st century tool.

Violence against another without good cause is terrible. A someone mentioned earlier in this thread, it’s better to go to a picnic and eat than be bombed at the picnic.

Peace is preferable (for me) to needless struggle and violence. But if two people both love violence and are dueling it out, and having a blast, who the hell am I to judge? Again, when one is violated against ones will with violence, then that is an issue. When peace is needlessly disturbed, then that is an issue. But if two savage type personalities both want to rip each others heads out, who the hell am I to tell them that it would be better for them to sit under a tree and meditate? For them, it might be more peaceful to fight.

So again, this is a matter of preference. But once again, the problem is that some people who love to fight seem to think others also love to fight, or they are not concerned with the welfare of those who don’t want to partake in struggle/fighting. Ideally, those who want peace imo should stay the hell away from subjects about war and just focus on their own peace, and those who want war should stay the hell out of the lives of those who want peace and focus on other who want war. That to me is harmony, balance, fairness, justice, and true compassion and open mindedness for all parties involved.

I like peace and pacifism. And yes, i think peace should be imposed. But not universally. For not everyone will accept it. Such people are not to be sent to jail. They have their nature, which must be allowed to thrive.

I think that Bringers of death should do it only to their own likes – if they insist. Those inclined to fight must refrain from thoughts of random murder and torture of women and children; as the Romans may have said of the colosseums – humanity’s champions will fight each other in areas demarcated to find out the true braves of mankind, for who else will defend mankind against any hostile aliens that may at any time arrive?
Of course a few such games may be fake and harmless, but not all may be happy with the mere virtual. All war-mongering militarists, gun runners, and tough soldier types, who select “violent enjoyment”, may take to the field, buy guns and equipment, prove their manhood by increasing in rank, buying command of tanks and armies, and play war (that will have, of course, decisive outcomes, as in all competitive games)*.

So you see, a peaceful world is possible even if limited zones are permitted for war, under the ministry of peace (as Orwell said… and to say that it’d be such a clever and neat policy… haha!). I’ll still call that a mostly peaceful or pacifist world.

One must avoid absolute stagnate peace. And one must avoid absolute unlimited war.
Momentous harmony is the only continuous life, neither still nor conflicting.