in response to jennifer
i watched this movie the other day about two families who were fighting over this piece of land. a person from the opposing family would be killed and the killer would be allowed a certain amount of time for immunity. then once the shirt of the dead man (with the blood) turned yellow, they would avenge their dead. it was an endless cycle of blood shed with every generation getting killed. even though it was set in the 1920s, it doesn't seem like much has really changed. the whole eye for an eye principle is firmly planted within society. i guess the real question is whether or not that principle is bad or evil. does the fact that it seems to be human nature to want to avenge being wronged a sin? it seems as though in the ideal moral values that we hold ourselves up to it is a sin. but these are the same moral values about world peace, a complete democracy, end of blood shed, etc. we hold ourselves up to a standard that is unattainable, but that again is human nature to set a goal for oneself that is ultimately unachievable; but the real intent of it is to come as close to that ideal/perfection as possible.
i guess i was hoping that if society still kept its modern advancements but only reverted in the art of war, that the "diplomatic" agreements would stay in place. meaning that there would probably be a constant "threat" of war, but none would actually take place. i realize that the chance of that happenning is about as great as me winning the lotto. that is another thing, the optimism that people approach with.
i guess i was hoping that if society still kept its modern advancements but only reverted in the art of war, that the "diplomatic" agreements would stay in place. meaning that there would probably be a constant "threat" of war, but none would actually take place. i realize that the chance of that happenning is about as great as me winning the lotto. that is another thing, the optimism that people approach with.