Happy new year.
I wonder if the combination of how different and how same the humans are, makes it impossible to have a lasting peace on the planet. It feels like there are two major groups of people, no matter what country they are in. The first is the aggressive one, the one that wants to dominate the others. The other is the more passive one, the one that wants to work things out and avoid violence.
Neither can give up, neither can surrender. Perhaps for peace to rule over all, total war must take place. One side must prevail through fighting. One side must obliterate the other, make it nother but a memory.
Of course that would mean that for the more pacifist side (or better, passive) to change strategy and fight like the other. It doesn't matter if it is the one that wins or not. One side will prevail, peace will be here.
The cost, huge. Is it going to be more than not having one side prevail for the rest of the human future? Would it be better to save say 2 billion people now, and let many more die over the centuries? Is one way more humane than the other? Logical? Ethical?
1 comments:
Hey, happy new year, kinda late though.
The reason that the world is always at war is because of sin. It's that simple: Adam and Eve sinned, and through that sin entered the world; now, the world is always at war, and will be until Jesus comes again.
Post a Comment