Connection ErrorBad RequestSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
I don't condone revenge, but I don't see selfishness in the desire to get even. A man's mother was killed, and he knows exactly who did it. The man loved his mother more than anyone, and besides, this woman was a doctor, not just any doctor – a surgeon, and every day she saved people's lives. The man is consumed by rage, hatred for the killer, who not only deprived him of his mother but also many other people who needed the help of a wonderful doctor. After such a vile act, this killer has no right to exist; he MUST die! He must die for the deaths that are happening in hospitals because of him! After all, in the whole city, only his mother was capable of performing heart surgeries! Why did he do it? WHY!? Killer!!! I hate him!!! I will find him!!! I will make him pay tenfold for my mother's blood!!!
That's how a vengeful person is born. If we talk in general...
Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. The man is dead. You can't change anything now. If you kill, you will commit a grave sin, even if you think you killed "justly." And if you have already killed, the friends/relatives of the deceased will want to kill you. There will be no end to this.
:D
Воин Вереска
Auto-translated
an endless cycle of death, to put it simply. I agree with the above.
Silvanis
Auto-translated
In general, you guys are more like avengers, watch fewer Hollywood movies! :) Only there do they seek revenge for the death of loved ones, taking revenge for a long time and cruelly, planning their revenge for years, etc. In the real world, this does not exist and cannot exist – and the exceptions in the form of paranoid maniacs with a fixed idea of revenge only confirm the rule.
In reality, everything is much smaller and simpler – let's say you're playing online :) (after all, the forum is dedicated to computer games). The situation is this: there's you and, for example, three other players, each playing for themselves. Red periodically comes and captures your mines while you're leveling up your hero; finally, your main hero returns, gathers an army, and goes... where? There are two paths: you can attack Red, or you can attack Green, who hasn't shown any activity yet; the road to both is the same length, you don't know anything about the size of their armies, and they have the same race. So, who will you attack?
Revenge is something like the opposite of gratitude. In principle, it's a bad feeling; I think it's better to try to overcome it.
And finally: the judicial function of the state, in fact, consists precisely in taking revenge on criminals...
С Пути сбивают мелкие достижения, а изощрённые суждения скрывают смысл слов. И вот уже возникают "правильное" и "неправильное"... - Чжуан-цзы Сильванис
Воин Вереска
Auto-translated
well, you're wrong to say that this doesn't happen in real life... I've met people like that... and I wouldn't say they're all mentally ill or maniacs.
Are you referring to Jesus as a biblical figure? As the son of God and one of his hypostases? God is a Trinity, and Jesus is part of this Trinity. He is not just a biblical "character," but a historical figure and the Son of God – how can he not be considered as such? Just don't impose your own meaning on the Bible if you haven't even studied it properly.
Again, who told you that? The Scripture? Well, you can write anything you want. I don't deny that Jesus was a historical figure. But we don't know, and will never know, who he really was. And the idea of the "Son of God" is not new; it was simply localized, stating that there is only ONE Son of God, and all the others are slaves. They simply took a pagan idea and adapted it to their own needs. Frankly, I don't want to get into a debate about this, as it would take up too much space. We have been deliberately cut off from the original source, and they present their own interpretation, which is essentially paganism, because almost everything, except for the story of the creation of the world, is taken from paganism (worship, attributes, priesthood, holidays, etc.), only instead of gods, there are prophets, saints, the Virgin Mary, the Son of God, etc. All of this exists and has existed in paganism for centuries, only it is called differently, or even the same (Virgin Mary). The Jewish leaders, starting with Moses, decided to oppose paganism with their own religion, which they created, but which has not reached us, as it was lost during the Babylonian captivity. Therefore, the creator of the surviving version, and even that is doubtful, is Ezra, not even Moses. And even then, the Jews themselves kept the Talmud (a refined version of the Old Testament), while the current Bible is already a "refined" book by Christian ideologists, which constantly mentions the Messiah, who must save mankind, and that he is the Son of God, and even God himself. By the way, there is not a word about the Trinity in the Bible in a dogmatic sense. This was invented no earlier than the fourth century by the Church Fathers, followers of Plato. You won't even find a mention of the Trinity in the New Testament, let alone the Virgin Mary and saints in their current understanding. All these teachings are the result of philosophical speculation, which essentially has no confirmation even in the Scripture that you like to refer to.
I apologize for the off-topic.
Настоящие герои - не те, пред кем мы преклоняемся, а те, кого мы оплевываем...[/COLOR] ----------------------------- "So much has gone and little is new"
Hmm... you're talking about good and evil? Well, I'll say that what is good for one person may be evil for another. Observing people, one can confidently conclude that they are selfish and try to get everything for themselves. :) So, my lyrical digression is an axiom from which I start in my judgments. Good. A person strives for self-realization, achieves certain heights, and, as we would say, helps people who are lower in rank than him. But! Who are these people, in your opinion? Maybe there are those who are even lower than them? Who needs help more than those we provide it to? Well... I probably confused you, but let's draw a conclusion: for a person, good is what he considers good, his action, which, in his opinion, is assessed as good. But not always what it seems. Evil... a small word, with many meanings, again, depending on the person. You do something good, and someone from the outside says that with this action you "caused trouble." So, answering the previously asked question: the feeling of good and evil for a person is the state of his soul, his conscience. As I always say: "There are two truths, one for each side." Understanding a person depends on his moral structure. And the best thing is to think carefully before doing something, and if you have already done it, look at it from the outside and give a sober assessment of your actions. ;)
Again, who told you that? Scripture? Well, you can write anything you want. I don't deny that Jesus was a historical figure. But who he really was, we don't know and will never know. And the idea of a "son of God" is not new; it was simply defined "locally," meaning that there is only ONE son of God, and all the others are slaves. They simply took a pagan idea and reworked it in their own way. Frankly, I don't want to get into a debate about this; it would take up too much space. We were simply "cut off" from the original source on purpose, and they present their own interpretation, which is essentially paganism, because almost everything, except for the story of the creation of the world, is taken from paganism (worship, attributes, priesthood, holidays, etc.), only instead of gods, there are prophets, saints, the Virgin Mary, the son of God, etc. All of this exists and has existed in paganism for centuries, only it is called something else, or even the same thing (the Virgin Mary). That's all. Jewish leaders, starting with Moses, decided to oppose paganism with their own religion, which they created, but which has not survived to this day, as it was lost during the Babylonian captivity. Therefore, the creator of the surviving version, and even that is doubtful, is Ezra, not even Moses. And even then, the Jews themselves kept the Talmud (a refined version of the Old Testament), while the current Bible is already a "refined" book by Christian ideologists, which constantly mentions the Messiah, who must save people, and that he is the son of God, and even God himself. By the way, there is not a word about the Trinity in the dogmatic sense in the Bible. This was invented no earlier than the fourth century by the Church Fathers, followers of Plato. Even in the New Testament, you will not find any mention of the Trinity, let alone the Virgin Mary and saints in their current understanding. All these teachings are the result of philosophical speculation, which essentially has no confirmation even in the scripture that you like to refer to.
I apologize for the off-topic.
Doesn't it occur to you that the basis of any paganism is the belief in God? A single God? Think about it: there are THOUSANDS of pagan religions, and they are all similar, if not identical, but God is one.:p
Warrior and Sylv: I'm not saying that I approve of this. Quite the opposite. I simply quoted in general terms what a vengeful person feels. He is not selfish, but he doesn't understand what you are saying, and he doesn't need to. His mother was killed, so this person is a murderer, therefore he will kill again, therefore he is not worthy of life, and since the court acquitted him, I will have to finish what he started.
If all people understood that revenge breeds even worse revenge, there would be no avengers as such. I think we wouldn't even know the word, but that's how it has historically turned out. That's how evil is committed, which a person may consider good.
Бог есть любовь
Берсерк
Auto-translated
And still, Lelya, you haven't read the entire thread. People come in, see a lot of text, and respond based on the thread title and a couple of posts they happened to catch. This is not good. It is hard to write the same evidence twice. The theory that a person determines for themselves what is Good and what is Evil is ruinous by its very nature. For me, Good could be insulting you. For me, own goodness could be doing whatever I want and only what I want. Do you get it? I consider this assertion to be the most repulsive and dangerous of all. In fact, it's this: "I am God. I determine what is Good and Evil. I can do whatever I want (based on that definition)." Even a family, a city, a state, or organizations could not exist if such a principle existed in the world. Nothing! I understand the desire to socialize, but one must analyze the situation. And here is my theorem: "The fact that Evil is called Good, White is called Black, or Black is called White will not change things. Evil will remain Evil. Good will remain Good. White will remain White." theor 1 by Berserker
His mother was killed, which means this person is a murderer, therefore, he will kill again, therefore he is not worthy of life, and since the court acquitted him, I will have to finish what was started.
If all people understood that revenge breeds even worse revenge, then there would be no avengers as such. I think we wouldn't even know such a word, but that's how it historically happened. This is how evil is committed, which a person may consider good.
Nowizard, aren't you ashamed to read minds? Here's an example for my sayings... what is good for one is evil for another.
Берсерк
Auto-translated
Conclusion? You can’t see beyond your own nose! You spew words and thoughts without even realizing what you’re talking about. Wasn’t your mother going to abandon you in an orphanage? Too bad… For someone, that would have been a good thing, maybe for many, maybe the world would be better off without you. And you shouldn’t accuse me of using your own ideas. What is evil for you is good for me. And there wouldn’t be a need to duplicate messages on the forum… (dreamy smiley)
And yet, Lelya, you haven't read the entire thread. People come in, see a lot of text, and respond based on the topic title and a couple of posts they skimmed. That's not good. It's hard to repeat the same arguments twice. The idea that a person defines what is Good and what is Evil is inherently destructive. For me, Good is insulting you. For me, Good is doing what I want and only what I want. Do you understand? I consider this statement to be the most repulsive and dangerous of all. Here it is, essentially: "I am God. I define what is Good and Evil. I can do whatever I want (based on that definition)." Even a family, a city, a state, or organizations couldn't exist if that principle were applied in the world. Nothing! I understand the desire to communicate, but you need to analyze the situation. And here is my theorem: "The fact that Evil is called Good, White is called Black, or Black is called White doesn't change things. Evil remains Evil. Good remains Good. White remains White." theory 1 by Berserker
Allow me, I answered for the first time in this specific topic, and I didn't quote your statements or anyone else's. I answered the question that was asked; it's my opinion, and I want my opinion to be respected, not criticized, and not reduced to "correct" or "incorrect." I want to say, based on your words, that then the topic and the question asked are incorrect. I meant a person, not God, not an animal, not a bird, not a fish. Please keep this in mind in the future. I'll add: everyone is an individual, and everyone has their own way of thinking.
Берсерк
Auto-translated
Dear Lelya. My indignation is not meant to offend you, but rather to remind you of the rules of any forum. Perhaps you simply didn't know them, but before responding to any topic, you should first read it; otherwise, it will simply be CHAOS, where everyone throws in posts without any connection to each other. This is a collection of ideas, not a topic. It would be very difficult for an intelligent person to read this. I understood your thought and expressed my opinion. But, I'm sorry, I don't see the point in unproductive topics.
Dear Lelya. My indignation is not meant to offend you, but only to remind you of the rules of any forum. Perhaps you simply didn't know them, but before responding to any topic, you should first read it; otherwise, it will simply be CHAOS, where everyone throws in a post without any connection to the others. This is a collection of ideas, not a topic. It would be very difficult for an intelligent person to read. I understood your thought and expressed my opinion. But, I'm sorry, I don't see the point in unproductive topics. For example, the topic "About Browsers" should still tell users about the advantages and disadvantages of browsers and provide information about the best ones. In our case, your post is somehow... You can't respond to it (because that opinion has already been expressed), and if you ignore it, the reason for its creation is unclear. Forgive me, that's just how I am :(
Added after 58 seconds And also, Lelya. Your opinion is respected, which is why it is being criticized. If there were no interest, it would be ignored.
No, no, what are you talking about. Discussions are not created to offend and be offended, but to discuss and come to some conclusion(s). You just didn't need to react so sharply to my message.;) Now you have explained to me what exactly you don't like. I understand that you don't like "duplicate posts," but, I'm sorry, if I didn't read the previous posts. Unintentionally, you yourself are repeating yourself. And simply writing that I blindly agree with someone, let's face it, is a bit "generic." I wanted to express my point of view and justify it. As for the topic about browsers, I can only say that you are right, but philosophical disputes are not a lesson for users.;)
Doesn't it occur to you that the foundation of any paganism is the belief in God? In one God? Think about it: there are THOUSANDS of pagan religions, and they are all similar, if not identical, but God is one. :p
.
In essence, yes, of course. The foundation of paganism is the belief in God. And without any "scriptures." At best, there are traditions, which are modified from generation to generation. And then - paganism is naturally organic for a person. Many, and very many, "Christians" do not understand the essence of Christian dogmas at all and are, in essence, pagans, coming to church to "appease their souls" or "ask God," i.e., almost always it is one of the "gods" that is closer to their perception (or the Virgin Mary). Few people turn to the One God directly to solve their problems. Everyone in Christianity has their own "god" (some saint, a righteous person, or the Virgin Mary). So the pagan essence "works" in Christianity too, because humanity has not come up with anything better than this essence.
Настоящие герои - не те, пред кем мы преклоняемся, а те, кого мы оплевываем...[/COLOR] ----------------------------- "So much has gone and little is new"
David Bowie
Silvanis
Auto-translated
The foundation of paganism lies in the desire to control phenomena that are beyond human control. Everyone knows that athletes, whose success depends on a multitude of factors that are essentially random, have many superstitions, right? Paganism developed according to the same principle, at least up to a certain point.
С Пути сбивают мелкие достижения, а изощрённые суждения скрывают смысл слов. И вот уже возникают "правильное" и "неправильное"... - Чжуан-цзы Сильванис
