Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Moved from 31.112 in response to 31.110 (Robin)
    
         <<< LGP30::DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 31.112                   Abortion Debate Note                    112 of 113
SALEM::MSMITH "Gimme some of that mystical moonshin" 15 lines  23-OCT-1990 16:43
                             -< No slams intended >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re: .110 (Robin)
    
    If you aren't willing to work for your vision of the world, how will it
    ever come about?  Who was it who said, "All evil needs to triumph, is
    for good people to do nothing" (or something like that)?   Besides,
    didn't Jesus say to "Render onto Caesar the things that are Caesar's,
    and to God the things that are God's."?  Even Jesus recognized by that
    statment, that civil governments have their proper place in this world,
    didn't he?  
    
    I'm not trying to say you are wrong here, Robin.  I'm just trying to
    understand where you are coming from.
    
    Peace
    Mike

    hello Richard, Mike, DR ..
    
Note 81.0 
>What are you doing to help bring about the Kingdom?
>Peace,
>Richard

Note 81.1/Note 31.112
>   If you aren't willing to work for your vision of the world, how will it
>   ever come about?  Who was it who said, "All evil needs to triumph, is
>   for good people to do nothing" (or something like that)?   Besides,
>   didn't Jesus say to "Render onto Caesar the things that are Caesar's,
>   and to God the things that are God's."?  Even Jesus recognized by that
>   statement, that civil governments have their proper place in this world,
>   didn't he?         
>   Peace
>   Mike

I hope to answer these two at once; since all deal with God's Kingdom and
the work required of us all. In note 31.110  I said my efforts are directed 
towards proclaiming a government (God's Government). That's my way of being
willing to work for God's promised vision of the world as stated in his word
the bible(and my vision too though looking around it's sometimes hard to 
picture). So yes I tend to do nothing in terms of trying to direct the workings
of the governments and politics in todays world but rather work hard at teaching
people about the promises of a new earth(new in that it won't be like the earth
we see today with all it's problems) and government. As for recognizing the
proper place of civil governments.. I recognize them and am in subjection to
their laws as long as they're not in conflict with God's laws. It was also 
asked; how will this vision ever come about? God has said it will and that's 
good enough for me. Isa 47:10,11 Isa 11
Note 31.111
> What about "Thy Kingdom Come on Earth as it is in Heaven"? DR
Ah yes, Matt 6:10 "Let you kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven,
also upon earth." Jesus said at Matt 6:33 to keep on, then, seeking first the
kingdom and his(god's) righteousness, and all these [other] things will be
added to you. Then at Matt 24 there was given a sign of Christ's presence
and of the last days. Read verses 1-13 and see if it doesn't describe familiar
happenings. Verse 14 says "And this good news of the kingdom will be preached
in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end 
will come." This describes the 'work'(very enjoyable work) I'm involved in; 
preaching the good news of the kingdom before the end. 

      Robin
     

    Robin,
    
    I may have missed it or don't remember, but this sounds like the
    posture that Jehovah's Witnesses take.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

     
    > I may have missed it or don't remember, but this sounds like the posture
    > that Jehovah's Witnesses take.
    
    Good listening skills Richard. I am one of Jehovah's witnesses so
    that's why the posture sounds the way it does.
                                                    Robin 

This following is paraphrased and condensed from an article in the 10/26
issue of the United Methodist Reporter.

Only the interviewee's statements are actual quotes.

==============================================================================
	"This really bothers me, because you see, I'm a patriot.  I'm a very
conservative man and I'm not ashamed to say that I love my country.  But,
this is not right!  It's not right under God's law and it's not the way a
great nation should act!

	"I'm not talking ideology here.  I'm not talking politics; I guess
I'm talking theology and right and wrong, though."

	These statements were made during a recent interview with Donald W.
Stewart, a United Methodist layperson from Anniston, AL, who just returned from
Panama.

	Of his Panama visit, Stewart said: "I found out something I was not
prepared to believe: we murdered innocent civilians, buried them in our body
bags in unmarked graves and tried to pretend we hadn't.  I spoke to eyewitness
after eyewitness and they all told me the same sorts of horrible stories."

	"Basically, the real fighting with the Panamanian military was over
in just a matter of hours, but our people kept killing innocent civilians,
noncombatants, for days for no earthly reason!"

	Stewart said 123 bodies were found in U.S. body bags in a mass
grave.  One of the reasons Stewart suspects the actual toll to be higher
than the official 250 that our government has given is that an area in
which about 20,000 poor people lived was leveled by American fire power.

	Stewart claimed, "Those who saw the atrocities had cameras and
they used they to record the events.  I've seen the photographs."

    Thanks for posting that, Richard.
    
    -- Mike

    By the way, since Bush wants to try Hussein for war crimes, it seems
    only fair that Bush himself should be tried for U.S. war crimes in
    Central America.  However, I'm sure that if he can prove in a court of
    law that it was none other than God who ordered the commission of those
    atrocities, then he could easily be acquited by a jury of born again
    Christians.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    re: .5/.7

    Ummm.  A bit off the topic, here.  But let us not forget that a large
    contingent of Noriega's supporters were armed civilians.  That is with
    whom much of the fighting took place. 

    There is a class of Christian these days, who like to espouse
    liberation theology.   It means that they are against the status quo in
    certain Latin American countries, among others, many of which are ruled
    by admittedly repressive regimes.  Unfortunately, this is a political
    stance that usually means they support Marxist type guerrilla
    revolutionaries, since they are the only ones who are committed to
    replace the existing regimes.  Since these people are typically
    anti-church, and are at least as blood thirsty as the regimes they seek
    to replace, the logic liberation theologists use to support them quite
    escapes me.  Unless, of course, the desired form of regime is a
    "socialist" one.  And we all know how successful they have been in
    bringing social justice, and relieving the grinding poverty of their
    citizenry, in the last 40 years, or so.

    RE: War Crimes

    I don't recall that Bush has ever used, or authorized for use, chemical
    weapons.  A pity the same cannot be said of Saddam Hussein.  

    Mike

    Actually, I particularly had in mind Bush's atrocities in Nicaragua and
    El Salvador.  In any case, I think that Liberation Theology deserves a
    topic of its own.
    
    -- Mike

    Re .8
    
    Uh, are you saying that what was reported in .5 is justifiable?

    re: .9 (Mike)
        
    I am unaware of any atrocities that George Bush committed in either 
    El Salvador or Nicaragua.  Nevertheless, at your suggestion, I have
    created a topic on Liberation Theology.  
    
    Let's discuss.
    
    Mike

    re: .10 (J_Christie)
    
    No.  What I am saying is that I doubt the validity of at least some of
    the report.  That there were many non-combatant citizens killed is 
    regrettable.  Its just if one reads that report, however, one would
    easily get the idea that the US military just went around murdering
    unarmed citizens just for sport.  That just didn't happen.  
    
    I just wonder about the what motivates people who make inaccurate
    reports like that, hence my diatribe on liberation theology.  The USA
    is infested with people who make such reports who have some sort of
    political ax to grind, liberation theologists being one such group, in
    my opinion.   I just thought that maybe this person was one of them.
    
    Mike

	I must say that I find the report in .5 to be very hard to believe.
	There are so many press and political groups in the US who stand
	to gain making the people know about this, if true, that the fact
	that it has not been widely reported and discussed is very surprising.
	Unless it's not true.

			Alfred

    In the July/August 1990 issue of Creation magazine, Matthew Fox
    contributes an article "Empires and Atheism", which asks the question
    "Are all empires atheistic?"  For an answer, Fox contemplates U.S.
    involvement in Central America in terms of, among other things, the
    book of Revelation.  The following is a summary of Fox's comments.

    The article begins:

        At this time of the crumbling of the Soviet Union's empire and the
        complete befuddlement of the Bush-Quayle empire, it might be well
        to reflect on the theology of empires.  The Book of Revelation, so
        dear to the fundamentalists (the same folks taking CIA money in
        Central American and building churches with it in record time), is
        a book against the atheism of empire-building.  Its whole argument
        is that one can't worship the empire's gods and the Lord of the
        universe at the same time.

    Pointing out that Revelation was written at a time when Christian
    persecution was a source of entertainment to the citizens of the Roman
    empire, he suggests that the modern day U.S. empire also seems more
    concerned with entertainment than the substance of such issues as U.S.
    involvement in Central America.  Commenting on the fact that the early
    Christian church inherited the Roman empire, it was an unfortunate fact
    that it also inherited Roman imperial methods.  "This is so clear as
    evidenced by subsequent inquisitions, crusades, pogroms, heresy trials,
    witch burnings, and ecclesial structures borrowed often directly from
    imperial courts".  Fox argues that the early church thus was less
    inspired by Jesus than by Augustine, which corresponds to Fox's
    interpretation of the message of Revelation--that empires are
    "atheistic", idolizing imperial values over the divine.

    Fox cites a contemporary example:

        Today North Americans are involved in another imperial movement. 
        We dance in the street to see the Soviet empire dismantling itself
        but we also rejoice when ours invades little Panama, looking for an
        ex-employee of ours, a drug-runner named Noriega, and in the
        process kills hundreds of Panamanians and displaces thousands from
        their homes.  After financing a war against Nicaragua for 10 years
        we get that tiny and impoverished country--whose soil and spirit
        was raped by our corporations and our dictator-in-residence Somoza
        for 42 years--to cry "uncle" and elect a government we have chosen
        for them.

        And in El Salvador we have financed a war for nine years that has
        cost 75,000 lives and we still finance the country to the tune of
        $1.5 million a day when even our ex-ambassador says that we are
        paying for a "clique of assassins masquerading as an army."  This
        northern empire, which cannot house its own people or provide
        health care for 36 million of them, which has more poor persons (32
        million) than live in all of Central America, hardly seems
        anointed to lord over others and tell them how to run their
        countries.

    How does this relate to Revelation?  Says Fox:

        If no one is to lord over others--which is the obvious lesson of
        Scriptures such as The Book of Revelation--then the empire ought to
        retire itself, gracefully if possible.  Turning military money into
        support to the poor in these countries might be a beautiful way to
        turn things around, to express conversion.  If Scripture teaches
        anything about empires it is that they are intrinsically atheistic,
        they accrue to themselves what belongs only to the
        Creator--lordship. 

    The solution, then, Fox argues, is for the empire in question to
    "retire itself--gracefully if possible."  This also means turning over
    its resources away from the military spending that is used to bolster
    the empire, and instead toward helping its own poor.  The point of all
    of this is that empires are "atheistic", from Fox's point of view,
    whether or not they identify themselves as such:

        A question surely arises:  What is the difference between the
        American empire and the Soviet empire?  Response:  The Soviets
        turned Cardinal Jozsef Mindszenty in Hungary in the late 1940s, who
        did manage to live and eventually escaped to the Vatican.  And the
        Soviets did call themselves atheist after all.  In contrast, we
        North Americans not only stood by idly while Archbishop Romero was
        murdered while celebrating the sacred mysteries of the Mass, but
        then we managed to finance 75,000 more murders over the next 10
        years while absolutely no one was brought to justice for Romero's
        killing or that of so many others including labor and peasant
        leaders, churchwomen, clergy, etc.

        America, which invested so heavily into calling the Soviet empire
        "evil" and "atheistic", invests just as much jingoism into letting
        people know it is "godly" or "Christian" or at least "righteous." 
        Meanwhile, we continue to train assassins and torturers in Central
        America, finance churches that replace compassion with heaving
        breathing and rolling on the floor, and pay the Salvador clique
        masquerading as an army a daily support fee of $1.5 million.

    The question is then how to evolve beyond the empire mentality into a
    genuinely valid relation with the world?  Fox argues that the first
    step requires an appropriate cosmology.  While he does not elaborate on
    that point here, he does hint at the way out for us:

        When will Central America cease being a market place for the United
        States?  Perhaps when awe and the reverence that accompanies it
        replaces imperialism.
    
    -- Mike

    re: .14 (Mike)
    
    Do religion and politics mix?  Is this healthy?
    
    Mike
    
    

    
    Mike:
       
         I know I am not the Mike you were replying but I'll take a
     stab at it.
         Being something of a history buff I'd say politics and
     religion have been being mixed just about forever. Sometimes
     very successfully and sometimes with disastrous results.
    
                                                       Mike
    
    ( We really gotta find a way to sort out the
      "Mike" factor in this conference.)

    I make no clear distinction between my religious principles
    and my political involvement.  They are not segregated.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    "Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know
    what religion means."
    	- Mahatma Gandhi

    "A spirituality that preaches resignation under official brutalities,
    servile acquiescence in frustration and sterility, and total submission
    to organized injustice is one which has lost interest in holiness and
    remains concerned only with a spurious notion of 'order.'"
    	- Thomas Merton

    "Any religion which professes to be concerned about the souls of men
    and is not concerned about the social and economic conditions that can
    scar the soul, is a spiritually moribund religion only waiting for the
    day to be buried."
    	- Martin Luther King, Jr.

    "Any religion that does not influence ones political activity
    is not seriously held."

    		Alfred Thompson

    As a sometime political candidate (won 2 elections lost 2 :-)) I
    have always believed that there is a fine mix of representing ones
    self and the people who elected you. Ideally one does both. When I
    vote to cut spending in my public school budget meetings I represent
    the voters who elected me to do that. I also represent myself. But
    that's easy. For me as long as there is no moral problem I can also
    vote what the electorate wants even if I disagree. And I have done
    so on an occasion or two (approved teacher raises I felt were too 
    high but that the electorate supported). But in the case of a
    moral difference I will vote my faith. The voters have the option
    of determining if I've gone too far and I'll accept that if it
    happens. But I have major doubts of the sincerity of a person
    who can vote against their religious beliefs.

    		Alfred

    I would like to complement the marjority of the comments entered in
    this note that affirm the actual role that religion plays in politics.
    
    If we define "religion" as being that which defines the core values of
    an individual, then we would expect those core values to be reflected
    in a person's politics.
    
    If "religion" refers to meaningless rituals which people execute out of
    ignorance and fear.... then we should attempt to remove religion from
    politics as far as possible.
    
    I believe that the latter definition of religion shows a disregard for
    people, a lack of "valuing differences".  The first definition
    recognizes the important role a person's core values play in
    determining their behavior.
    
    I believe that all people bring their "religion" into their politics,
    whether that involves "no god", "who knows god", "many gods", or "the
    god".  The first amendment did not say that religion cannot partisipate
    in politics, it only states that Congress shall make no laws
    establishing or restricting a particular religion.
    
    Because fundamentalist Christians are very open about the basis of
    their beliefs (i.e. the Bible), they are often the target of complaints
    that they are trying to "mix church and state".  The core values of
    fundamentalist Christians (or Moslems, Mainstream Protestants,
    Buddists, Catholics, New Agers, Atheists, Agnostics, etc.)
    have as much a right to compete in the marketplace of ideas and
    politics as any other value system. 
    
    We all mix religion and politics.
    
    regards and GOOD REASONING TO US ALL,
    
    David Reeves

    Good discussion.  Just what I was hoping for.
    
    Mike

    re .20
    
    I agree with most of what you are saying.  There is one point that I
    have a problem with, though.  It seems to me, that what you are saying
    is that conservative Christians take flack only because they are more
    vocal about their beliefs than any other group.  In my experience, the
    problem that I, personally have with that particular vocal group is
    that I perceive that they are seeking to legislate not only their
    morals but mine as well.  This is what tends to create a feeling of
    animosity in me.  My reaction is normal in that when I feel I am being
    backed up against a corner I tend to overreact in order to make a break
    for my personal freedom.  :-)
    
    Nanci (who tends to get a little bullheaded in these cases)  :-)

    re .20
    
    	Dave Reeves, some people feel that THEIR religion is their core
    values while YOUR religion is a bunch of meaningless gestures and
    posturing. They think it's imperative that their values rule and that
    yours be over-ruled. Some other people don't believe they HAVE a
    religion and some of them object when others with strong and blatantly
    religious beliefs apply them to politics. This is indeed a case where
    "valueing differences" would help, but it goes deeper than that.
    	My personal view is that everyone ought to apply their "core
    values" to their political actions. I am, however, offended when told
    that I must vote some way because "God(or the Bible, or...) says thus
    and so.". A simple statement of "because it's the RIGHT THING TO DO."
    should more than suffice. If you have a core value then you ought to be
    able to be able to express that value with OR WITHOUT Biblical support.
    I prefer the latter.
    
    	Dave Meyer

>    that I perceive that they are seeking to legislate not only their
>    morals but mine as well. 

    Do you know anyone who *doesn't* do this? I mean beside yourself.
    I know you'd never, well I don't know, you'd never outlaw slavery
    would you? Heaven forbid you should legislate your idea of morality
    on someone else right? :-)

    Seriously though everyone approves of legislating their idea of
    what is moral or not. People just don't approve of someone else
    deciding what is moral in law. That is why slavery, discrimination,
    drug use, practicing medicine without a license, wife beating,
    child abuse, and on and on are illegal. It's someones idea of
    what is and is not moral. It's great when everyone agrees but rather
    tough when a large minority doesn't.
    
    			Alfred

    Alfred - 
    
    There's a difference between a law that prevents someone from doing
    physical harm to me and one that prevents me the freedom to speak from
    my beliefs or live my life according to my personal ethics and morals. 
    I acknowledge that there may be a pretty fine line here because what
    you see as something that may do harm to another (abortion for example)
    I may see as doing no harm.  You also may think that I could possibly harm 
    someone else by speaking to them about my spiritual beliefs which
    differ from yours.  Should they, then be legislated too?
    
    Nanci  

Nanci

	Perhaps I wasn't clear as you haven't addressed my point at all.
	My point is primarily that one should not say "Thou shalt not write
	thy morality into law." Also that many people who demand that I
	abide by that "law" do not themselves abide by that law. I was
	not trying to debate the correctness of any particular law or
	class of law. One has to look at such laws ("don't write morality
	into law") as either enforced on all, enforced on no one, or 
	enforced selectively. I believe that the first is impractical as
	almost no laws would get passed, the last as unfair as it discriminates
	and the middle one as democratic. Unfortunately I believe that
	people tend to want the last option. (No one can write their
	morality into law but people I agree with.) Which option do you
	think best?

> You also may think that I could possibly harm 
>    someone else by speaking to them about my spiritual beliefs which
>    differ from yours.  Should they, then be legislated too?

	Interestingly enough such laws DO exist in countries other then
	the US. I'm not too happy about them but they are the law of the
	land. I'll not say in this forum how I conduct myself in those
	countries. BTW, many people who say that Christians should not
	try to write their morality into law also want to place restrictions
	on the practice of Christianity and place limits of Christians
	rights of speech. (No witnessing, no use of school buildings for
	Bible study, no clergy in politics, etc.) I see this attitude as
	inherently contradictory.

	In a democracy everyone should have the right to try and pass
	laws. Most laws, almost by definition, try and enforce some part
	of someones idea of morality on people who do not share that same
	morality. (If everyone shared the morality would you need a law?)
	So for me, saying that Pat Robertson (who I'd never vote for BTW)
	should not run for President as he'd try and legislate his morality
	(as many people claimed) is inherently anti democratic.

			Alfred

    Alfred - 
    
    In some ways I think we're in violent agreement.  :-)  I can't think of
    any way that one could keep one's personal morality completely OUT of
    the law, however, what I have a problem with are those who never even
    consider that there may be a point of view other than their own and who
    feel that because they believe such-and-such is the Truth for them  then it
    MUST also be the Truth for everyone else.  Although I have a very
    clearly defined concept of my own morality and ethics and I strive to
    live my life in integrity with that, I also try to keep in mind that
    that system may not work for someone else and they have just as much
    right to live by their system as I have to live by mine.
    
    It's hard to find the balance point sometimes.  Sigh!
    
    Nanci 
    
    

    re .26
    
    Alfred,
    	in a democracy, which is theoretically what the USofA is, we all
    get some input into what is or is not law. Most of us do base our
    judgements on our own morality. Not all actions are governed by laws,
    though, and those which are are, in theory, judged by the morality of
    the majority. The current trend in the making of laws is away from
    penalizing "victimless crime", violations of morals. Let's use
    prostitution as an example. Let's assume that a group of people feel
    that prostitution is wrong and ought to be banned and the practitioners
    penalized. What if most people see only a simple business transaction
    between willing partners and refuse to support a law which would
    penalize prostitutes? One group would like to legislate their morality,
    the other would rather they didn't and one side wins. Or perhaps, one
    side would like to limit an unwelcomed activity and the other would
    rather their (im-)(a-)morality not be legislated against.
    	About (no witnessing, no use of school buildings for Bible study,
    no clergy in politics, etc.): it varies. I don't enjoy being the victim
    of "witnessing", it assumes that I am evil and/or ignorant, but I have
    not heard that it has been legislated against. The Bible study thing is
    a question of seperation of Church and State, not Morality and
    Politics, Church and State. The Law does not ban Bible study or even
    religious studies in schools, only the teaching of religious topics in
    PUBLIC schools. No clergy in politics ?  No law against that. If they
    want to step into the cesspool of politics, it's their choice. ;-)

      The US law says, freedom of Religion, there shall be no law
    establising or prohebiting the free exucise there of.  
    
    Note it does not say freedom FROM religion.  Note it not only
    states that the government cannot establish a religion it also
    says that it cannot PROHIBIT it also.  That is why the courts 
    said that bible study can be done on public school grounds before
    or after school each day.  
    
    Now please do not get me wrong.  I am not for teacher lead prayer in
    public schools.  I do not want humanist, Budest, New Agers, Catholics,
    and others that do not hold to what I believe leading prayer for my
    children.   
    
    
                                  Marshall

    re:.29
    
    Marshall,
    	SOME courts have OK'ed the use of public school grounds for
    off-hours religious uses, OTHER courts have prohibited the same.
    Depends on the court, the case, the advocates and the current social
    climate. The current social climate in most areas seems opposed to any
    use of any public property for obviously religious activities. Many
    manger scenes have been removed from Town Hall lawns in the recent
    past. They were removed because they suggested advocacy of a religion.
    	If you go back to the Constitution you will see that it is a
    suprisingly liberal document. It says, in essence, that anything which
    is not specifically disallowed is, by default, allowed. The Bill of
    Rights is a set of specifics which delimits the government's ability to
    disallow activities in certain areas - like religion. Freedom OF
    Religion may not SAY Freedom FROM Religion, but it must include it. If
    a person is offended by someone else's religion then the "state" may in
    no way force that person to accept or subsidize that other's religion.
    Tolerate, perhaps, but no more. Thus a Jew or Pagan (Wiccan or Druid)
    should not be forced to pay taxes that would support a Christian creche
    scene in front of the court house as that would equal government
    establishment of a religion. The mayor may have as ostentatious a
    display as possible at home, on the lawn, but not on public lands or at
    public expense.
    	Remember also, if a town allows Bible classes to meet in empty
    classrooms, even if they pay 'rent' to do so, then they must allow any
    other religious organization similar accomodations. ANY other,
    regardless of public opinion.

The following letter, which I am enclosing with my income tax return, will
also be mailed to my congressional representatives, the White House, and the
local newpaper's editorial department:
============================================================================
	Internal Revenue Service			  April 15, 1991


	Dear Taxpaying Friend,

		I have no objection to paying taxes.  At the same time, I
	object most vehemently to the way a substantial portion of my federal
	tax contributions are spent.

		The present administration lured votes with the vision
	of a kinder, gentler nation.  Yet, for the past two years, during
	the time of year Christians traditionally celebrate the birth of the
	Prince of Peace, the United States has poised troops and military
	hardware upon foreign soil to inflict pain and punishing destruction
	through the utilization of overwhelming force.

		I resent my taxes enabling the United States to maintain its
	addiction to militarism.

	Respectfully,

	Richard Jones-Christie

re Note 81.31 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> 		I resent my taxes enabling the United States to maintain its
> 	addiction to militarism.

        You do realize that our "addiction to militarism" is what
        props up all the other material advantages we Americans have. 
        If we didn't present a credible force, and use that force
        from time to time, there would be no way that our 6% of the
        world's population could consume a substantially higher
        percentage of nearly all of the world's goods and resources.

        There are a lot of pragmatic arguments for militarism.  The
        Persian Gulf war shows that war works for the strong.

        Bob

    re: .31
    
    Richard,
    
    Thank you for that witness!  It is not something I am able to do, but
    I *deeply appreciate* the courageous witness of those who do this!
    
    Nancy

    Bob,
    	our power as a nation, our ability to acquire, for our personal
    use, a disproportionate amount of the world's resources, is not ONLY
    dependent on our military strength. Our economic strength, no longer
    the greatest in the world - at least in part because of our wasteful
    military establishment - is sufficient to provide much of that edge.
    The richness of the lands we live upon is sufficient for much of that
    abundance. We could dramatically reduce our "addiction to militarism"
    without having to fear assault from another nation. Such a reduction
    would bring with it a stronger economy free of the drain of
    unproductive military preparedness. Such a reduction would give pause
    to adventurous presidents seeking to win a popular war in order to
    assure re-election. Such a reduction would require, of course, that our
    diplomatic corps be elevated well above the likes of April Gillespee.

    Re: .32
    
    Bob,
    
    	Why do I get the feeling you're playing devil's advocate? ;-}
    
    	I will take the opportunity to elaborate later though.  You've
    raised an important question.
    
    Richard

	There exists a type of cell which grows at the expense of other
cells.  This cell is oblivious to the damage that it inflicts on its
host.  This disharmonious cell growth is known as cancer.

	In some ways, the disproportionate level of consumption to which
the U.S. has become accustomed is like a cancer to its neighbors (other
nations) and to its host (the planet).  The U.S., for example, is the
world's number one consumer of non-renewable, pollution causing, oil
products.  The U.S. consumes 6 times more fossil fuel than the world's
number two oil consuming nation, the Soviet Union.

	I have been repeatedly advised that the Persian Gulf War was
not over oil.  Yet I have great difficulty believing that the U.S. would
be so concerned over "liberating" Kuwait if Kuwait's primary export was
broccoli rather than crude oil.

	Now I have great hope for the United States.  I believe the U.S.
is on the verge of "discovering" on a large scale how shallow and meaningless
its excesses and indulgences have been.  I pray the U.S. will cease its
paternalistic, worldwide manipulation and wielding of power, and instead
become a beacon to the world; a nation which is spiritually, rather than
materially, centered.

	I believe, as the slogan says, that we must live more simply, so
that others might simply live.  I believe we, as Christian spiritual beings,
must become less selfish and more integrated with all our cohabitants and
all of God's creation.

Peace,
Richard

The following letter was sent to me by U.S. Senator Tim Wirth, (D)
Colorado, in response to my letter posted here as Note 81.31.
====================================================================
						May 17, 1991

Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts about a peace tax
fund.  I appreciate hear from you.

Many Americans find themselves caught between their deep religious or
moral beliefs and current Federal tax law which requires them to pay
Federal taxes, a portion of which supports our nation's defense.
Historically in our country, legitimate conscientious objectors have
not been forced to serve an active combat role, yet they are still
compelled by law to provide tax dollars which support the military.
It is estimated that approximately 10,000 people each year face the
dilemma of following their beliefs by not paying a portion of their
taxes, thereby violating the law, or being forced to violate their
moral concerns and pay the taxes to support the military.

To help remedy this situation, legislation (S. 784) has been proposed
which would amend the Internal Revenue Service code to allow citizens
who meet the strict qualifications of a conscientious objector to
apply the portion of their taxes that would go to the Defense
Department to a U.S. Peace Tax Fund.  The Fund would be used for a
variey of purposes, among which are:  (1) to re-train workers
displaced from defense industires when production in those industries
is reduced;  (2) to pay for research on alternative and non-violent
solutions to international conflicts;  and (3) to support special
projects of the U.S. Institute of Peace.

S. 784 was referred to the Senate Finance Committee, where it awaits
further action.  Although I am not a member of the Senate Finance
Committee, please be assured that I will keep your views in mind
should similar legislation be considered by the full Congress.

Sincerely yours,
Tim Wirth

All politicians want peace.

They're always thinking up ways to fight each
other...

For peace.

Politicians love peace.

And that's why we elect them!

Some like "Peace and Security" and some "General
Peace".

Some are ready for a "Peace Process" because it's
more...

Than a "Forced Peace" and less than a "Stable
Peace"...

Which brings about a "Permanent Peace."

Some are not for "Peace Under Pressure".

Because a Lax Peace is a "Cold Peace"

Which is the "Desired Peace,"

For "Real Peace", they're willing to go to war,

Because only in war do they get a "Feeling of
Peace"...

Among themselves.



Composed by Shoal Knaz, who lives in Kibbutz, Gan Schmuel which was founded
in the early 1930's by European Jewish activists.  (Used with permission)

Peace,
Richard

	"In 1954 my government overthrew Guatemala's legally elected
government - a government that dared to institute land reform.  The
military has been firmly in power ever since 1954, escalating its
violence against anyone who dared to whisper 'land reform,' 'higher
wages,' 'organize.'

	The U.S. strategy in developing countries is called 'low
intensity conflict.'  The people who are brutalized call is murder
nonetheless.  U.S. Special Forces and the CIA train the Guatemalan
military in effective counter-insurgency techniques: psychological
warfare, methods of torture, misinformation, scorched-earth, relocation
and re-education of villagers.

	U.S. leaders keep saying, 'Challenge to our interests.'  This
means that land reform and requests for more humane living conditions
constitute a threat to our interests - namely our profits.  The bottom
line is profits - not justice for all."

			- Kelli Scarborough (Used with permission)

Richard

497.59

>    It is clear
>    from endless documentation that our form of government is based upon
>    nothing else but the Bible - God's Word.

I guess I've been lied to then, because I was taught that most it was borrowed
from those pagans - the ancient Romans.

Peace,
Richard

    Under Roman law, the state was supreme and unlimited.  Under the
    republic, it was the counsels and the senate.  Under the empire, it was
    the emperor.
    
    Under American law, the state is not supreme and it is limited.
    The basis for this limitation depends on your worldview.
    
    A Christian believes that God has granted rights to people whom he
    created equal.  The state does not assume the role of God.  The people
    give their consent to be governed.
    
    A Secularist believes that rights are inherent to people and that
    there's a give and take over time between the rights of the people and
    the rights of the government.
    
    We're in the middle of a sweeping revision of history that denies the
    role of Christian values in the formation of the government of United
    States.  It's one thing to say that people are free to accept or reject
    God, it's quite another to say that the founding fathers didn't look to
    God but to each other as the source of their moral authority to declare
    independence and form a government.
                                 

    .41 Thank you for the supplemental material and statement of
    understanding, Brother Sweeney.
    
    Pax Christi,
    Richard
    

Re:  91.1538
    
  >Are there any statements from Jesus that could be construed as meaning
  >"Go and make laws that prevent people from sinning."? To me the "cast
  >the first stone" quote seems to suggest that Christians may point out
  >sin, but are obligated not to punish those who have committed one nor
  >to restrain them from committing another. Indeed, it suggests to me
  >that Christians are obligated to interfere if someone else tries to
  >punish them.

I'll not limit myself to the portions of the Bible attributed just
to Jesus speaking.  Instead, I'll take the broad view that Jesus
was responsible for the whole Bible

  "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for
  there is no authority except that which God has established.  The
  authorities that exist have been established by God.  Consequently,
  he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God
  has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on
  themselves...  But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not
  bear the sword for nothing.  He is God's servant, an agent of wrath 
  to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.  Therefore, it is necessary
  to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment
  but also because of conscience.  [extracted from Romans 13:1-5]

Of course, God gave laws to the nation of Israel and gave the nation
the power to judge.

The church, also, has the power to judge as indicated by Jesus' words
in Matthew 18:15-17.

(In addition, parents have such power when raising their children.)

You are quite right about individuals not to be judges over others
(representing themselves).  As individuals, we are to love our enemies
and forgive seventy times seven times.

Now, the law does *not* prevent people from sinning.  Indeed, in Romans
Paul tells us that the Law brings death, not life and its purpose is
to point out our sin to ourselves that will lead to repentance and
submission to God.

Collis

David 91.2329,

	Perhaps I've become numb to the criticisms of government.

	I believe our form of government is the worst in the world, except
for every other form of government.  (I got that from somewhere, but can't
recall who it was who said it.)

	In a sociology course I took a few semesters back, it was stated that
well over 50% of all the people who are on welfare are on welfare for only a
brief duration (6 months or less, as I recall).  Some are on welfare longer,
of course.  But only a small percentage are permanently on welfare.

	I was on welfare for a time myself when I was in my 20's.

	Welfare has its imperfections, to be sure.  But I wouldn't call it
a failure.

	I think workfare has its application, too.

Peace,
Richard

I suppose it would do well for me to enter a note like this...

As most of you can probably tell from the last two weeks, the
issue of religion and government is a pretty large one for
me and my perspective (and as a body, the congregation said,
"no DUH!").  For some time now, I have oftened said that
there may be nothing more fundamentally dangerous to liberty
than using God's reasons as the state's reasons for taking
a particular position.

In the past, this has earned me the label "anti-religious."
I don't believe so.  In fact, humanity's on-going attempt
to try to fathom out an understanding of something greater
than the sum of our corporeal existence has been a subject
of fascination and even wonder for me.  That need to seek
it out may be one of the things that is most fundamentally
human about us, and I have great respect for the process
of that search...maybe even moreso because my own personal
sense of spirituality is rather, well, underdeveloped.

That passion and desire has produced works of sublime
beauty and people of courage and love.  The Christian
tradition alone has produced the Sistine Chapel (and
other architectural wonders), Handel's Messiah, Mother
Teresa, and on and on and on.  Certainly, there is
something afoot in anything that can inspire such beauty.

Unfortunately, the passion that flares the creative
and charitable sensibilities to such heights has also
resulted in what I consider horrible tragedies: the Crusades
resulting in the destruction of the Moslem enlightenment,
the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, etc....so it
is plain to me that the fervor that inspires beauty and love
can equally inspire destruction and misery.

That's why, in my opinion, it is of the utmost importance
to be certain that when the state decides upon something
that it ought to have its reasoning as to why society,
ALL of society, benefits independent from God.  

Yes, the Bible says "You will not kill," and our society
forbids murder.  However, "You will not covet" is also
one of the Big Ten in the Bible, yet there is no law
forbidding greed.  That's because murder is against
the law for more reasons than it being forbidden by
God's law.

So I suppose my question after all of this is: how far is
a Christian obligated to use legislation through the State
to codify a Christian moral perspective?  Is the Christian
obligated to do this at all?  I read many people over the
months say they'd support Colorado's Amendment 2 because
their religion dictates against homosexuality, and that
they felt obligated as Christians to support that legislative
effort.

I am aware that Christians are obligated to "spread the good news"
and to seek converts.  But does this really consist of using
the government to that end?  Certainly, one can proselytize,
talk to one's neighbors, write letters to the editors, advocate,
and even convert -- all without using the instruments of a
secular legislative body to *compel* that moral vision.

regards,

Daniel

    Jack 831.139,
    
    	Danny Quayle tried to fit himself into the JFK mold during the
    debates.  It didn't work.
    
    Clinton said meeting JFK was a pivotal point in his life.
    
    Richard

re Note 831.139 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     I don't praise liberals in much of anything.  

        I'm not surprised -- you're not a politician trying to appeal
        to mainstream voters.  As you imply, when conservatives
        praise liberals of the past, their intended audience is not
        those who already strongly support conservatism,  such as
        yourself.

        Of course, from my perspective :-), one of the reasons that
        conservative politicians praise "dead liberals"  (and the
        past -- but heavens NEVER the present -- of social movements
        such as feminism) is that most people would regard a purely
        conservative society -- one in which problems are never
        addressed or even acknowledged, one in which wrongs are never
        righted even if recognized, one in which "magic forces" are
        relied upon for all social improvement -- as an unmitigated
        hell.  Thus politicians who argue for the status quo today
        (or a return to the status quo of recent past) must
        nevertheless endorse progressive movements and reformers of
        the past.

        Almost always, America's heroes over the long run have been
        the people who changed things.

        Bob

As I remember the women's issues of the sixties, the
conservatives of the time (and my mother, for example, was
a *real* conservative) supported the feminists on some issues
(such as equal pay for equal work) while totally rejecting
a large number of other issues.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that those issues they
were supported for in the 60s are still considered good in
the 90s.  What has changed is that there is no longer any
hot debate and the conservatives can clearly admit what they
found good about the liberals.  

Of course, the liberals of today do the same thing.  Pres.
Clinton is a number of years ahead of his time; in December,
he said that former Vice-President Quayle had it right when
he talked about single women intentionally getting pregnant.

   >Almost always, America's heroes over the long run have been
   >the people who changed things.

A lot of truth in that.  Then again, you rarely identify a
single person or even a small group of people with "keeping
the status quo" which can (and often is) just as important
as some of the change that is needed.

Collis


  

    "Society is not sacred; I am.  My first responsibility is not to preserve
the state -- that is Hilterism and Stalinism -- but to preserve my soul.
If you tell me that there is no other way to preserve the state than
by the implicit totalitarianism of Rousseau's 'general will,' I will reply
that that is the state's misfortune and men must not accept it.  I have
surrendered my sovereignty to another Master than the general will --
I do not mean to be sanctimonious here -- and if the general will does not
serve Him it does not serve me or any other man."

					- Milton Mayer
					  from his essay "The Tribute Money"
					  1953

Was Milton Mayer trying to argue that he shouldn't have to pay his taxes,
or what?

				-- Bob

    .50 Milton Mayer resisted paying a percentage of his federal taxes,
    the percentage he figured was used for military purposes.
    
    Richard
    

>    .50 Milton Mayer resisted paying a percentage of his federal taxes,
>    the percentage he figured was used for military purposes.
    
Was he prosecuted for tax evasion?

				-- Bob
    

    .53  No, the government has more effective ways of dealing with the
    matter.  The money can be sucked directly from your bank account(s).
    They can seize your property.
    
    Mayer never evaded paying taxes.  He paid the non-military portion.
    He openly resisted the rest.
    
    Mayer was audited in 1948 and 1949, which is harrassment (imo).  He may
    have been audited more times.  The book I have didn't say.
    
    Richard
    

Well, from the government's point of view Mayer wrote them a letter
telling them that he had broken the law.  It's to be expected that they'd
do have to do *something* in response.  Otherwise what's to stop people
from refusing to pay part of their taxes because they don't support
welfare, or they don't support public education, or they don't support
tobacco subsidies?

I think it's a case of Mayer having to follow his conscience and the
government having to enforce the law.  Both Mayer and the government were
true to their beliefs.

Ideally I think the government should have just taken the money from
Mayer's bank account, plus a penalty large enough to cover the
government's increased costs, with no further harrassment.  That way the
government would have its money and Mayer would have a clear conscience,
since he didn't voluntarily pay taxes to support the military.

				-- Bob

    .54  Bob,
    
    	Mayer was true to his beliefs and the government was true
    to its interests.
    
    	Doubtlessly, there were late fees and penalties which accompanied
    the collection of the balance.  I know because I've witnessed against
    war taxes in a way similar to Mayer's in the past myself.
    
    	The issue of war tax resistance has been the subject of several
    books.  I couldn't possibly cover all the details of war tax resistance
    here.
    
    	The work that I quoted Mayer on is from a book entitled, "Civil
    Disobediance Theory and Practice."
    
    Richard

    Of course evading taxes is not something that Jesus taught. I seem
    to remember the converse being true.

    			Alfred

    .56

    Exactly what doesn't belong to God?

    Why do you suppose Jesus asked whose image was on the coin in the first
    place?  What was a coin with the image of another "god" doing on the
    person of a supposedly devout Jew?
    
    Is "I was just doing my duty" a strong moral excuse among Christians
    these days?

    Please, Alfred, don't misconstrue what I've been saying.  I've *never*
    advocated tax evasion.

    Richard
    

    
    >                   -< Exactly what doesn't belong to God?? >-

    The question here is what belongs to government.

>        Is "I was just doing my duty" a strong moral excuse among Christians
>    these days?

    It's what I use to justify my contributing to this conference. :-)

>    Please, Alfred, don't misconstrue what I've been saying.  I've *never*
>    advocated tax evasion.

    Then I did misconstrue. It did appear that you were saying that not
    paying parts of ones taxes was a good and moral thing.

    			Alfred

Note 81.58

>    The question here is what belongs to government.

Alfred,

	Well, the beginning of what we now call the U.S. belonged at one
time to the King of England, it was claimed.  Seems the Yanks made a bit of
a fuss about a tax then, too.  Of course, that resulted in the Declaration
of Independence, which in itself is a testimony to the notion that it is the
obligation of citizens to stand against oppressive rule.  And of course, then
there was the Revolutionary War.  And I believe that the loss and destruction
of human life through war is sinful.  Perhaps these folks weren't Christians.

	The "render unto Caesar" quote would have stung sharply the Jews who
were trying to trap Jesus.  Jesus knew that Caesar's image on the coin smacked
of idolatry.  It certainly meant the one bearing it had already compromised
with the oppressor.  Such money was not allowed in the Temple.  That need was
exploited by the moneychangers, who made a hefty profit from it.  Jesus had
a bit of an altercation with these guys, too, you'll recall.

	Numerous times, Jesus was asked difficult questions.  And numerous
times, Jesus' response was to give back their own question and make them look
inside themselves for an answer.  Jesus didn't tell them what was Caesar's.
Jesus didn't tell them what was God's.  Jesus left it up to them to decide.

>    Then I did misconstrue. It did appear that you were saying that not
>    paying parts of ones taxes was a good and moral thing.

War tax resistance is different than tax evasion.  I'm actually proud and
pleased to pay taxes.  I have resisted in the past paying the portion of
federal tax spent on war and military activity, which I do not support with
my heart, mind or soul, but am forced to support financially.  When I've
resisted, I never kept the war tax portion for myself, but instead gave it
to a relief and hunger organization.

Richard

    
>time to the King of England, it was claimed.  Seems the Yanks made a bit of
>a fuss about a tax then, too.  Of course, that resulted in the Declaration

    The tax was a symptom. Not the real issue but that's a whole different
    discussion. :-)

    >War tax resistance is different than tax evasion.

    Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck. :-) You'll
    have to explain how it's different because it seems too subtle for me.

    			Alfred

Okay, Alfred, I'll try.  I guess it's mostly philosophical.  And if
I'm a duck, let me be one of those with the iridescent colors.

Tax evaders don't want to contribute to the government.  They want the
money for themselves, and don't believe they should be required to share
the load for anyone else's sake.  Some people have found legal ways
(loopholes, shelters, etc.) to avoid paying any federal income tax.  Only
death is certain in life.  Taxes can be gotten around.

I do not wish to avoid paying taxes to keep the money for myself.  I
do not seek to lower the amount of my tax obligation.  I happily contribute
to the administration of public health, education and welfare, and other
such programs.

Another distinguishing characteristic is that tax evaders do not write
the press, congressional representatives and the White House and tell
them that they are evading payment of their taxes and why.

Richard

    OK, you're an iridescent duck. :-) I see a difference in motivation
    but not in action. 
    
    		Alfred

Well, Alfred (.62), I'll settle for being a duck, I guess.

I would also point out that a driver may decide to risk running a red light
for a life-saving reason or for a butt-saving reason.  To a casual observer,
it would probably appear much the same.

I thank you though, Alfred.  You've given me the opportunity to think through
these matters again.

Shalom,
Richard

Richard, I hope this will be the right place to respond to Jill's note.

re 945.46
;Government will always fail us...

Jill, I agree with your note that man made governments will always fail us.
As Jeremiah put it "I know, O LORD, that the way of man is not in himself,
that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23 RSV
Even governments who have their subjects interests in mind, fail to solve 
all the problems that their subjects face. However, you are correct in 
saying that, the answer to mankinds problems lies with God.

Another perspective regarding governments....

God's Word tells that he intends to introduce a goverment that will rid
righteous mankind of the problems we see today. For example, Isaiah 
65:21,22  RSV shows that this  government will tackle the issues of 
housing and poverty  for it reads "They shall build houses and inhabit 
them; they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They shall not 
build and another inhabit; they shall not plant another eat; for like the 
days of a tree shall the days of my people be, and my chosen shall long 
enjoy the work of their hands." Today we often see people in so called 
Third World lands that go hungry, for the food their producing goes to 
pay off national debt, not so under God's rule. Who will be appointed as 
head of this government?, Isaiah 9:6,7 RSV shows that it will be the 
"Anointed One" or Messiah "and the government will be upon his shoulder,"
..."Of the increase of his government and of peace their will be no end,". 
This government will not be voted in by the persons of the earth, but will 
be brought in by force,for "it shall break in pieces all these kingdoms 
and bring them to an end, and it shall stand for ever;" Daniel 2:44 RSV. 
Psalms 2, shows why force will be needeed for the governments and peoples
will oppose God's Messiah but this opposition will be in vain, for Jehovah's
Anointed One will "break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces 
like a potter's vessel." Psalm 2:9 RSV.

God's government will soon begin ruling over the earth, in the meantime
Jesus is looking for prospective subjects of this kingdom. Subjects that 
show that they are willing to live peaceably among themselves now and into 
the future (John 13:34,35). Subjects that will be obedient (John 14:21) 
rather than law defying as we see often today with the increase in crime 
(Matt 24:12). Subjects that want to see a Theocracy and are willing to live 
in harmony with it.

Many can't understand why Jehovah's Witnesses do not vote, one reason is 
that they recognise God's government and endeavour to subject themselves 
to it now and their full support is to God's kingdom. Even so, they respect 
the authorities or governments of the world but they only recognise God's 
kingdom as the one that will solve all of mankinds problems. Jehovah's 
Witnesses stay neutral when it comes to worldly politics. I guess that if 
they did vote, then their vote would be for God's government, however as 
I said earlier God's kingdom will not be voted in.

Would others in this conference like to see a government with Jesus as head
of that government?. Just think of the blessings that adminstration would
bring, for through the miracles that he performed while he was on earth he 
has given us a forgleam of what it would bring on a grandscale.

Phil.

    
    RE:  .64
    
    Thanks for the posting Phil.  Indeed Christ will one day rule on high.
    I respect your decision out of conviction not to vote.  I don't feel
    that conviction myself.  Just a Paul used his rights as a Roman
    citizen, I use my rights as an American citizen with full knowledge
    that my true citizenship and allegiance is with my Lord.
    
    Jill

    Romans 13 is a great chapter for civil obedience.

    .66  And Paul spent a lot of time in jail and, according to tradition,
    was beheaded by the authority of the existing government.
    

    Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things
    that are God's.  Looks like Paul chose a higher authority when push
    came to shove.

    Everything belongs to God.  "God and Caesar" is among the most
    frequently misunderstood, and consequently misapplied, quotes of
    Jesus found in the Gospels.
    
    When push comes to shove I, too, choose the Highest and Holiest.
    
    Have I ever advocated disregarding any law as long as justice
    (righteousness) is served by it?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    then why the crack about Paul?

    1.  It wasn't a "crack."
    
    2.  I was remarking on Paul's advice to the church at Rome on
    what you termed civil obediance.
    
    Richard
    

    Any there's nothing in that chapter that Paul didn't "follow his own
    advice" on.

    Oh, yeah.  Then, as now, the government routinely jails and executes its
    model citizens.
    

        In Romans 13, 1-5, Paul writes:

        "Let everyone obey the authorities that are over him, for
        there is no authority except from God, and all authority that
        exists is established by God.  As a consequence, the man who
        opposes authority rebels against the ordinance of God;  those
        who resist thus shall draw condemnation down upon themselves. 
        Rulers cause no fear when a man does what is right but only
        when his conduct is evil.  Do you wish to be free from the
        fear of authority?  Do what is right and you will gain its
        approval, for the ruler is God's servant to work for your
        good.  Only if you do wrong ought you to be afraid.  It is
        not without purpose that the ruler carries the sword;  he is
        God's servant, to inflict his avenging wrath upon the
        wrongdoer.  You must obey, then, not only to escape
        punishment but also for conscience' sake."

    Look, I don't care.  It's not that big a deal to me.  Love the
    chapter all you like.
    
    Richard
    

    my, my, no need to be so testy.  ;-)

Does the passage mean to follow the mandates of the government always, or when
they don't conflict with God's law, or what? To me it says that leaders are the
servants of God, but I can think of one or two examples where this may not be
the case :^)

Steve

    The passage clearly states that all authority is acting on behalf of
    God and that persons should not resist authority.
    
    If one is intellectually honest about dating the various books in the
    new testament and identifies what each book and passage says about the
    relationship between Christians and authority and compares the
    passages, dates, and political history of Rome, one sees that the
    attitude of these early Christian authors about authority changes as
    the political attitude of the Roman authorities toward the Christians
    change.  There are times when it is expedient for the Christian church
    to make an effort to get along with the Roman authorities and thus
    avoid hostilities and there are times of persecution when that is not
    important.
    
    

    I agree with .79.
    
    I also suspect Paul may have been trying to prevent some sort of
    potential uprising.  Paul favors a sense of orderliness in all things,
    which is evident in other letters (I Corinthians, for example).
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Each of the letters are specific to a particular circumstance.  1
    Corinthians is in response to internal problems with the Corinthian
    community and yes Paul does want an orderly rational kind of workship
    and community.  Paul also wants to continue to emphasize his own
    authority as the founder of this community against those who feel that
    if they are all in Christ, they can be individually moved by the Christ
    within them and not look to Paul as the absolute authority.
    
    I do believe that Paul's major opponents in Corinth are women, favoring
    a more passionate, emotional style of worship that includes speaking in
    tongues, frenzy, and emotional attachment to the Spirit.  The
    influences in Corith were numerous including early developments of
    Gnosticism, The Inana cult, and other mystery religions.  The Christian
    Women were influenced by the role that women played in these other
    religions and were pushing for leadership in their Christian Community.
    
    Paul's attack in 1 Corinthians sounds to modern readers like an attack
    on woman in General but in reality was an attack on woman who were
    moving the Corinthian Church in a direction contrary to Paul's drive
    for rational controlled leadership.  That is why Paul is able to say in
    1 Corinthians that women should be silient in church while elsewhere
    honor and rever women such as Phoebe who were apostles and Deacons
    along side Paul in the Christian movement.
    
    

968.1 (on sinful anger)

>  ANGER...Its purpose
>  and desire is to eliminate any obstacle to our self-seeking, to retaliate
>  against any threat to our security, to avenge any insult or injury to
>  our person.

>  ...Retaliation.  Vengeance for wrongs real or imagined, or the plotting
>  thereof.
>  ...Unwillingness to love, to do good to, or to pray for enemies.  Boycotting
>  or ostracizing another for selfish reasons.  Spoiling others' pleasure
>  by uncooperativeness or disdain, because we have not got our way, or
>  because we feel out of sorts or superior.

Dear God!  Are we ever in trouble as a nation!