When is the proper time for a Violent Revolution?

[Tom O'Neil]

First I must start off with two quotes from Jesus.

 

 

 

21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22%3A20-22&version=KJV

 

 

 

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

http://biblehub.com/kjv/matthew/10-34.htm

 

Heaven had problems in its hierarchy and so does earth. Now at the present moment in America there are issues from which some radicals would say America needs a violent revolution so that itself does not implode from the ignorance of its leaders. Although Jesus's Triumph on the Cross sent Satan into exile from Heaven into our world he agrees that human's should be passive in dealing with the government as stated in the quote regarding Caesar. Then he incites revolution within the world in the 2nd quote, because of his standards and a sword is necessary.

 

In my opinion The King of Kings has this right, because he went passively to death for his beliefs so now he is in charge of his believers! Yet with Atheists, Agnostic's and believers how does one not become a doormat to the governments of the world that do not follow what is beneficial for the majority? There is much controversy regarding all of our relationships, because of the fact that every individual has unique perceptions and environmental aspects which have defined us in the moment. Even Jesus had a temper as demonstrated to the money changers in the Temple.

 

War is a gruesome site to behold or take part in, but it is in all parts of nature yet should man take part in war?

 

The dilemma is can war be justified when a government supports a tiny class of people at the peril of the majority?

 

My belief is that when I see Jesus that only he can answer this question!

 

What are your answers to these questions?

 

[zapatos]

 

War is a gruesome site to behold or take part in, but it is in all parts of nature yet should man take part in war?

 

The dilemma is can war be justified when a government supports a tiny class of people at the peril of the majority?

 

What are your answers to these questions?

 

 

1. Man should take part in war under certain circumstances, such as preserving basic human rights.

 

2. Depends on what you mean by "peril", whether or not the government is ruling by law, and what steps the majority have taken prior to considering war.

[Tom O'Neil]

1. Man should take part in war under certain circumstances, such as preserving basic human rights.

 

2. Depends on what you mean by "peril", whether or not the government is ruling by law, and what steps the majority have taken prior to considering war.

Who decides these basic rights and are you implying that some in society have greater rights than others? Are you under the hypnosis that our government in the United States is following its stated agenda for basic rights?

 

 

noun

1.

exposure to injury, loss, or destruction; grave risk; jeopardy; danger:

They faced the peril of falling rocks.

2.

something that causes or may cause injury, loss, or destruction.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/peril?s=t

[iNow]

Well, that escalated quickly

[zapatos]

Who decides these basic rights...

We decide what those basic rights are. In the United States they are outlined in the Constitution.

 

...and are you implying that some in society have greater rights than others?

No. What exactly did I say that led you to believe I was suggesting some in society have greater rights than others?

 

Are you under the hypnosis that our government in the United States is following its stated agenda for basic rights?

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/peril?s=t

I have never been hypnotized. Which basic rights in the US do you believe are being suppressed?