Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Richard,
    
    The world blames CHRISTIANS for the major violence in the world, i.e.,
    wars and hate crimes.  And of course that God himself is violent and
    unjust God.
    
    It's refreshing to hear someone else state that the Bible speaks of
    Love not violence.  
    
    I can't speak for what CHRISTIANS are doing about violence.  I can tell
    you that being able to love an enemy takes more strength and courage
    then knocking his head off.  Ever try to swallow your pride and answer
    softly one who is screaming at you????? :-)
    
    While I don't negate the fact that violence is a problem in today's
    society and has nothing to do with Christianity, that is not exactly
    the world view.  
    
    Bigotry = hate crimes = Christian's against Homosexuality
    Racism = hate crimes = Christian's to blame for Slavery
    Wars = in the name of Religion my God is better then your God
    
    
    
    
    

Note 781.1

While I, too, found *most* of your entry refreshing, I feel impelled
to offer a bit more on the following:

>    Bigotry = hate crimes = Christian's against Homosexuality

Not all Christians are against all same-sexed relationships.  Even Will
Perkins, drafter of Colorado's Amendment 2, publicly acknowledges this.

>    Racism = hate crimes = Christian's to blame for Slavery

I've not heard this.  Slavery predates Christianity by quite a bit.  True,
the Bible doesn't speak very strongly against slavery, unless it
is the Israelites who are being enslaved.

>    Wars = in the name of Religion my God is better then your God
    
War desecrates life.  War is a mockery of the sacredness of life, which
leaves a trail of hunger, disease, pestilence and ruin in its path.  War
never determines who is right, only who is left.
    
Some of the early Christians were martyred because they refused to raise
a hand in violence against a neighbor.  In fact, not until the church
jumped into bed with the state during the reign of Constantine would
Christians take a significant part in waging war through military
participation.  'Know how many years after Christ this occurred?  Longer
than the United States has existed as an independent nation.

Shalom,
Richard

    .3
    
    
     While I realize that there are many Christians who are in agreement
    with homosexual relationships, that is not the norm, nor has it been
    since the beginning of Christianity.  Is Christ against homosexuals? 
    Absolutely not, Jesus came into the world to seek and to save those
    that are lost.  He didn't say only those who are heterosexual.
    
    However, the practice of homosexuali is very implicitly against God's
    design for humanity.
    
    Now about violence ...  I'm surprised you've not heard the slavery
    thing a frequent participant in here, Glen Silva says it very often.:-)
    
    Nancy

Note 781.3

>    However, the practice of homosexuali is very implicitly against God's
>    design for humanity.

You won't be surprised that I disagree with this and your preceding paragraph.
But this is not the appropriate string to pursue this topic, unless you want
to talk about the violence that has been stimulated by traditional Christian
disdain towards all gays.
    
>    Now about violence ...  I'm surprised you've not heard the slavery
>    thing a frequent participant in here, Glen Silva says it very often.:-)

Christians of another time in this country did use the Bible to support
the legitimacy of slavery (in much the same way as many Christians now use
the Bible to suppress gays).  But that's not quite the same as what you said.
You said Christians were blamed for slavery.

Many of those who worked the hardest to abolish slavery were Christians.
Many of those who now work the hardest to abolish the oppressive attitudes
currently held toward gays are Christians.  Here again, this should be
pursued in Topic 91.

I do agree that Christ came for all; gay, straight or otherwise.

Peace,
Richard

    Richard:
    
    1.  Most of the early Christians were martyred becaused they spoke of
    the one true God.  These teachings were hated by Nero and his ilk.  The
    preaching of Christ was hated by the Jews.  Pauls trials in fact came
    from his own kinsman.  This persecution had little or nothing to do
    with Christians turning the other cheek.  It was prophesied by Christ
    himself that they would suffer because of his name.
    
    2. You evidentally have never been to a NOW rally, Act up, or Queer
    Nation.  Proclaiming Christs teaching on Godly living is not violence.
    In fact, you just started a string on holiness.  This calls us to be
    set apart from the world.  Richard, condemnation of homosexual activity
    goes throughout the scriptures.  The crux is weather or not one chooses
    to accept it as Gods Word or not.
    
    -Jack

    Jack .5,
    
    	1. I know the traditional explanation as to why most early Christians
    were martyred.  Thank you and God bless you for preventing me from
    wavering too much from the classicist paradigm.
    
    	2. The handful of Scriptures which address homosexuality are
    grossly misunderstood by most professed Christians.  Yes, I have been
    to rallys sponsored by NOW and gay-rights advocacy groups.  Have you?
    
    	3. This topic is for the discussion of Christianity and violence.
    The Bible, in case you weren't aware of it, speaks far more often
    against violence than same-sex relations.  Topic 91 is where you may
    express your views about homosexuality as it relates to the Bible.
    I don't appreciate you and others derailing a vital and relevant topic.
    
    Richard
    

    Well as the other attached on your .6, it was discussion that spurred a
    comment from you which spurred a response to your comment.
    
    Your the mod here, move the notes where appropriate.
    
    Nancy

    .7  That's an evasion of responsibility.
    
    Richard
    

    .8
    
    In your opinion.  I didn't realize until you said so that this was a
    problem...therefore, as a moderator redirect the discussion and move to
    an appropriate note.  
    
    I have no problem with that and as well the discussion about the
    discussion can be deleted as you see fit.. again no problem with me.
    
    Nancy

    Richard:
    
    You never cease to amaze me.  I have corresponded with you on and off
    for a year now and my impression is that you promote a humanistic kind
    of doctrine, in a Christian Perspective conference no doubt.  Then you
    have the gumption to tell me how offensive I am in that I am derailing 
    the conversation.  For what its worth, I have broken bread with some of
    the participants here who are gay.  Seems I have more tolerance for 
    gays than you have for fundementalists!!!
    
    -Jack

Folks, 

Many of these replies strike violence against my ears.

Peace,

Jim

    
    		Without any doubt history show a measure of Christian 
    violence.  We can even see it today with the bombing of abortion
    clinics and the killing of the Doctors involved.  However, I strongly
    believe that most of these incidents were done by a "fringe" element
    within Christianity.  Even looking at history we can see fringe
    elements who happen to be in power at the time starting these issues
    without a general consenses from the majority of Christians.  It is
    interesting to just look at the diversity of opinions here and the
    forcefulness used to express those opinions.
    
    
    Dave

    Violence has nothing to do with Christianity per se.  Explain to me why
    husbands beat their wives.  Parents beat their children.  Bar fights
    are common.  Teenagers are killing teenagers and innocent bypassers.
    
    

    .11  Thanks for pointing that out, Jim.  I realize that I own a
    part of that, too.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

The following information was in yesterday's newspaper.
==============================================================================

Declassified documents released Tuesday reveal that:

o  The U.S. has conducted 1,051 nuclear tests worldwide, not the 847
   officially reported.  20% of tests at the Nevada Test Site were not
   reported until now.

o  Since 1945, the U.S. produced 89 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium
   and another 13 tons of reactor-grade plutonium.  About 1/3 of that
   remains at Energy Department facilities in Washington, Idaho, California,
   New Mexico, South Carolina, Texas and Colorado, including 12.9 metric
   tons at Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant near Denver.

o  About 24,000,000 pounds of mercury is believed to have been used at
   the Y-12 weapons plant at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, but "incomplete records
   prevent a fully accurate accounting of the quantities received, used,
   and lost to the environment."  The department previously had estimated
   that 750,000 pounds of mercury had been released into the environment
   at the Oak Ridge plant.

===============================================================================
I find this very disturbing.  Not only are there hazards associated with
these materials that we now must deal with, but it's clear that we've lied
to by the government that we're supposed to respect and support.

I'm sorry, but I lose respect very quickly for anyone or anything I cannot
trust, for anyone or anything placing self-interest above the truth.

People are worried about the moral fiber of this great nation.  I am, too.

Richard

    RE: .15
    
    I have lost faith in the government quite awhile ago. For me, it
    started during my protest days during the vietnam war......today,
    it continues with the persecution of gun owners and others.
    
    Now, who finds the above statement contradition of idea's?
    
    Marc H.

    .16  Indeed, it's an interesting combination.  I have faith that you
    have somehow reconciled what might seem contradictory at first glance.
    
    I think I'll introduce a new topic based on an organization called
    the Seamless Garment Network.  Member organizations subscribe to
    a statement which makes a connection between the violence perpetuated
    by war, abortion, poverty, capital punishment and euthanasia.
    
    The Seamless Garment Network is bringing people of the right and left
    together.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    Is it un-Christian to defend yourself or your family?  It seems to me
    that Christ denounced all violence... even to the point of reprimanding
    Peter for coming wielding a sword to defend him against the roman guards.


    Is it a sin to physically defend you family... your self... your home
    from criminal assault?


    Eric

    
>    Is it un-Christian to defend yourself or your family?  It seems to me
>    that Christ denounced all violence... even to the point of reprimanding
>    Peter for coming wielding a sword to defend him against the roman guards.
    
    No not all violence. Jesus did use it himself and did suggest the
    buying of swords by His followers. Jesus did not want to stop the Roman
    guards because it was all part of His plan. Not because He believed
    violence is always wrong.
    
    I believe there are times when it may serve God's purpose to refrain
    from defending ones self. At other times I truely believe that *not*
    defending ones self is a sin. The latter being the more usual case.
    
    		Alfred

    The "violence" Jesus used at the Temple was *not* to bring about
    death or physical harm to any human present at the Temple.
    
    Pacifists use the same kind of "violence" as Jesus at the Temple.
    The Plowshares 7 entered a weapons production plant at King of
    Prussia, Pennsylvania, and began destroying the sinful fruits of
    a society obsessed with violence.  Note, here again, none of the
    pacifists would raise a hand against anyone present who was a
    part of the systemic infection.
    
    Richard
    
    PS  Christian Pacifists call what Jesus did at the Temple, perhaps
    euphemistically, "direct action" rather than "violence."

    Richard:
    
    What about Jericho?  Although Christianity is years away, the Hebrews
    still dealt with the holy attributes of God.  
    
    -Jack

    Jack .21,
    
    What about Jericho?  The walls did not crumble through violence,
    as is pretty standard procedure in warfare.
    
    Yeah, there are a lot of bloody, sadistic, and downright sickeningly
    violent passages recorded in the Bible.  I'll grant you that.  It's
    one of the reasons why many Christians since early on have had difficulty
    reconciling the bloodthirsty God of the Old Testament with Jesus,
    the Christ.
    
    Do you, as a Christian, yearn for the days of Jericho?  Of the days
    of taking of land that is not yours through force?
    
    No wonder the notion of Manifest Destiny caught on in this country,
    which was thought of as the New Jerusalem.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Richard:
    
    This is a clear example of your lack of understanding of the nature of
    God.  You identify as a Christian to this very same God, the God of
    Moses, right?  
    
    I certainly do not advocate this kind of violence in our world today
    because we have the written Word.  We don't need to verbally speak to
    God as he has made himself known through the prophets.  
    
    If you had been in the shoes of Joshua, would you have reacted
    differently?  We know as the Israelites continue through Judges that
    they disobeyed God in taking the land.  Because of this, they fell out
    of favor with God and were killed by plagues and violence of other
    nations.  
    
    -Jack

Note 781.23:
    
>    This is a clear example of your lack of understanding of the nature of
>    God.

It's either my lack of understanding or yours.  You claim it is mine.  I
claim it is not.

>    You identify as a Christian to this very same God, the God of
>    Moses, right?

I identify myself as a Christian of the God of Jesus Christ.

As for Joshua, I can't say what I'd do living in his time and wearing his
"shoes".  I have a hard enough time knowing what I'd do all the time even
in my own shoes.

Shalom,
Richard

    I only brought this up because you seem to be very hard on Joshua and
    what the Israelites did to the nations that possessed the promised
    land.  I openly admit that the actions seem awfully harsh, by my
    standards.  I do think however, we need to differentiate our standards
    from those of Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
    
    A better way to ask you, Is the God of Richard Christie Jones the same
    God that told Joshua to go and possess the land, killing all men,
    women, and children, the animals, etc?
    
    -Jack

Your question, Jack, seems to hold up a hoop for me to jump through, a sport
of which, I must admit, I'm not very fond.

I believe I worship the same God who led the Isrealites out slavery in Egypt.
I also believe in the teachings of Christ Jesus, whom I consider the Source
and the Sovereign.

Do I believe that Jesus would command Joshua to take possession of a piece
of real estate through the utter annihilation of its owners?

Now there's a question!

:-)

Peace,
Richard

    .26
    
    And that's an answer if I ever heard one. :-) :-) :-)

    Well, I'm certainly not trying to make you jump through hoops.  What I
    am attempting to do is drive you a point where you have to make a
    decision about the nature of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
    As I have claimed in this conference a number of times, it is
    imperative that we accept God as He is and not make Him in our image.
    
    I believe he led the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt.  I also
    believe he used Israel to judge the nations of Canaan and Edom.  I
    believe 100's of years later our God lead Israel into exile through His
    sovereignty and judgement.  
    
    Are you ready for the tribulation period?!
    
    -Jack

    I don't have an OT handy but at least one group (the Ammorites)
    were given 400 years to turn their behavior around before God
    brought judgement on them through the Israelites.
    
    I suppose if one has the view that we all deserve death anyway
    (which seems to be what Romans 9 implies as well as a good part
    of the NT), then it is in God's hands to bring the judgement
    about whenever he chooses.  He used the nations around Israel
    to bring judgement on Israel as well.
    
    It seems to me that if you emphasize God's love at the
    cost of his holiness, you've got a very incomplete picture
    of God, as well as having to throw out large chunks of the
    Bible because they don't fit with the God that you've crafted.
    I don't have too much trouble reconciling God's actions in the
    OT with God's actions in the NT with God's actions today.
    
    We were created for the praise of His glory, not the other
    way around. We're the clay, He's the potter. He's the
    creator, we're the created. 
    
    Paul
    

Sorry, you've not linked up to a biblioloter or one who frequently provides
unqualified answers, if that's what you were hoping.

I believe in the uncomfortable teachings and example of Jesus Christ.  Part
of that means that I believe Christians are called to refrain from violating
any and all neighbors born on this planet.  In fact, Jesus calls us to love
our neighbor, no exceptions.  This understanding of God's nature as expressed
through Christ -- who is supposed to be the closest resemblance of God the world
has ever known, who is supposed to be "God-with-us" -- goes very much against
my own reason and basic sensibilities at times, especially in such cases
as Ted Bundy, Geoffrey Dahmer and Adolph Hitler.

It would be very wrong to accuse me of saying that God's thoughts are
indentical to my own thoughts, if that's your underlying question - which
you've just about said it is.

I can understand why you might think I don't take the God of the OT seriously,
but I doubt that you would understand why I might think you don't take *Jesus*
seriously.

Peace,
Richard

    PS  My life is filled with tribulation.  Jesus affirmed that his
    disciples would not be exempt from trouble.
    
    Richard
    

    Richard:
    
    I was actually referring to the tribulation period.  Known as Jacobs
    trouble in Jeramiah and referred to by Jesus in Matt 25 I believe.
    This is the time when Jesus is going to pour his wrath on the nations
    and come again.  Insurmountable compared to the judgements of Jehovah
    in the Old Testament!!!!!
    
    By the way, I'm not trying to accuse you of having the same exact
    thoughts as God.  It's just you refuse to answer my question as to
    whether or not you believe that the God of Joshua is the one true God,
    The Holy Father who poured His wrath on the nations surrounding the
    Israelites.  One can only make assumptions in order to establish
    coherent dialogue!!
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    	Frankly, eschatological discussions bore me more than watching
    mollusks mate.
    
    	Doubtlessly, such things are very important to you.  If so, that's
    fine by me.  Just don't try to get me hooked into it.
    
    	What's important to me are matters such as addressing violence,
    which, btw, is what this string was *supposed* to be about.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Richard:
    
    Yes, the tribulation is extremely important to me.  I believe violence
    is a social ill we are facing but it is to me a sign of the times. 
    Remember Jesus said not to be concerned about dates, but seek the signs
    of the times.  I see our society as the beginnings of prophetic
    fulfillment.  I certianly could be wrong, I don't doubt that!!
    
    The question at hand is, do you believe the Jesus of Revelation is the
    same Jesus of the gospels, or do you believe that the Jesus of the
    gospels is the same as the God of Joshua?  I am not interested in
    eschatology at this point.  I am concerned as to your stand on the
    Holiness of God and his judgement side apart from his grace side. 
    That's all
    
    Peace,
    
    -Jack.  
         

    .34  You could throw out the Revelation of St. John the Divine
    and I'd never miss it.  The only thing of any significance to me
    in the Revelation is that the "good guys" win in the end (which,
    incidentally, they do in every apocalyptical writing I've ever
    read or heard about).
    
    I already gave my non-answer about Joshua.
    
    And to me, it's a slap in the face of Jesus to sit idly by while
    people are being shot, beaten, molested and raped, looking for signs
    that this could be the beginning of the end.
    
    Shalom in Christ,
    Richard
    

re: Note 781.33 by Richard "On loan from God" 

>    	Frankly, eschatological discussions bore me more than watching
>    mollusks mate.
    
Even that most randy of mollusks--the WHELK?!?

.-)

Jim

    Re: Violence.
    
    Richard, ever read Foxes Book of Martyrs?
    
    -Jack

    It's funny I've been requested by Glen to read in here and get to know
    the participants, as long before my time in notes, these same folks
    were part of CHRISTIAN, but were offended by the *attitudes* of
    so-called fundamentals. :-)
    
    Well, after having read in here for a few weeks, I am very glad this
    conference was created.  I agree with you that CHRISTIAN is
    fundamental, inerrant Bible-Believing, and Faith-minded as a
    conference.  And I *love* it.
    
    Richard,
    
    Your notes grieve me so deeply... I can't even tell what you believe. 
    Do you believe in the saving blood of Jesus Christ?  Do you believe in
    the Trinity?  What is your stance?
    
    The name Christian doesn't apply to this conference based on what I've
    read... To say that it is "in Jesus' face" to believe He'd sit idly by
    as the beginning of the end, or so-called signs of the times appear
    before us, is blasphemy.
    
    Christ did not sit idly by, He gave His LIFE for us.  To blame Him or
    infer blame based on Biblical prophecy [because you don't believe the
    Bible to be inerrant] is ludicrous.  
    
    We have free will to choose the destiny of our lives.  We reap what we
    sow. And to infer that Christ's nature wouldn't allow that, is beyond
    my comprehension from where you base your beliefs.
    
    When I read your notes Richard, they leave me with the impression that
    God's son isn't enough for the world, because of your stance that
    should accept other means of salvation.  
    
    My God's love encompasses the world...not just certain parts of it and
    then set up other Saviors to push through the rest.
    
    Nancy

    RE: .38
    
    Nancy,
     If you have the time, check out some of the older notes.......past
    replies were even more "interesting" than today.
    
    
    Personally, I've found that after reading both Richard's and /johns
    comments over the years.....that I have benifited from both sides.
    Both sides have part of the answer. 
    
    Marc H.

    .39
    
    Humanistically speaking I would agree with you.  Spiritually speaking I
    cannot.  There is but one Savior, not many.  Then again perhaps we are
    asking different questions?????  
    
    Nancy

    .40  That's a gross misrepresentation.  Futhermore, nobody here
    is claimimg multiple Saviors.
    
    Richard
    

    Re: .40
    
    "What we have here, is a failure to communicate!"
    
    Cool hand luke
    
    Marc H.

    .42
    
    Shakin da bush boss, I'ze shakin' da bush.
    
    :-)

    .41
    
    Uhmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....  Well, we can agree to disagree can't we?
    
    Nancy

| <<< Note 781.38 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>




| It's funny I've been requested by Glen to read in here and get to know the 
| participants, as long before my time in notes, these same folks were part of 
| CHRISTIAN, but were offended by the *attitudes* of so-called fundamentals. :-)

	Wow Nancy..... when did I ever say that? If memory serves me correct, I
have MANY times BEEN told that I should take my perspective OUT of YUKON:: and
come over to here. I have read MANY times that people said this conference was
started for the reasons you wrote above, but I don't recall ever requesting you
to read in here. Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else Nancy?

| Well, after having read in here for a few weeks, I am very glad this 
| conference was created.  I agree with you that CHRISTIAN is fundamental, 
| inerrant Bible-Believing, and Faith-minded as a conference. And I *love* it.

	As you should. It is something you believe to be true, so you enjoy it
very much. That's cool.... :-)



Glen

    .45
    
    Uh, yeah... Glen you asked me 3 times in SOAPBOX to read over here and
    see for myself why these participants left CHRISTIAN.  Darn that
    memory, must have lost some current along the way. :-) :-) :-)
    
    Not to worry though, you can get a replacement bulb at walgreens for
    .49 cents. :-) :-)
    
    Nancy

In the US, domestic distubance calls to the police increase during the holidays
and major sports events.

Shalom,
Richard

21 homocides have taken place in Colorado Springs to date this year.
Eight of those were women.  Five of those were killed with a gun.
Four of those were murdered in the presence of the woman's child
or children.

The region has a population of approximately one quarter of a million.
The geographic size (square mileage) is about that of Los Angeles
(according to local police).

Richard

    And your point is what?
    
    		Alfred

    It's horrifying.  It's a condition we can no longer just wring our
    hands about.  We've got to get to the root of it.  We cannot simply
    address the result, we have to address the cause.
    
    What can Christians do about violence in our society?
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    
    
    
    > what can Christians do
    
   1.)  Prosecute the criminals..
     
    2.) Dump the liberal school system!
    
    3.) Protect yourself !!
    
   4.) Stop blaming society for what is an individuals problem.
    
    David

    .51
    
    Could you somehow reconcile your remedies with the gospel of
    Jesus Christ?
    
    Schools.  Do you believe a liberal education is somehow more
    conducive to violence than a strict, conservation education?
    Having had a liberal education, as you've lamented before, would
    you say you are a more violent person because of it?
    
    Protect yourself.  This is apparently what Vern Smalley did, but is
    this what Jesus taught?

    Blaiming society.  Indeed, individuals are responsible for their own
    behavior.  At the same time, wouldn't it be irresponsible to ignor a
    society which produces sick individuals?

    Peace,
    Richard

    
    
    Society does not produce sick individuals. Individual families may
    be responsibly but I do not believe I as a taxpayer can do anything
    for them. Reconcile with the Gospel of Christ
    
     " Remove the log in your own eye before your try and take the speck
    ought mine"
    
    Schools teach permissiveness. 
    
     Vern Smalley was found not guilty and rightly so. I regret the loss of
    life but the kid reaped what he sowed.....
    
    " Ye shall reap what you soweth" somehwere in the bible.....
    
    
     Protect yourself:: Axiomatic
    
    
    David
    

Note 781.53

>    Society does not produce sick individuals. Individual families may
>    be responsibly but I do not believe I as a taxpayer can do anything
>    for them.

"Are there no workhouses?  Are there no prisons?"

> Reconcile with the Gospel of Christ
    
>     " Remove the log in your own eye before your try and take the speck
>    ought mine"

Eeewww!
    
>    Schools teach permissiveness.

Maybe yours did.
    
>     Vern Smalley was found not guilty and rightly so. I regret the loss of
>    life but the kid reaped what he sowed.....

Not guilty of 2nd degree murder.  They should have nailed the roadside
vigilante on manslaughter.
    
>    " Ye shall reap what you soweth" somehwere in the bible.....

I always try to be careful whenever I do my sowething.    
    
>     Protect yourself:: Axiomatic
    
Hmmm.  I wonder....

Oh, well.  I pray your Christmas is a pleasant one, David.

Peace of Jesus be with you,
Richard

 Well, Richard, what do  you see as the solution?

    Would that I had a simple answer, Jim.
    
    I'm afraid there's going to be a lot more bloodshed before our
    propensity toward violence subsides.
    
    I'm quite certain I don't have the whole solution.  And even if I
    did, I'd probably meet with resistance because the price would be
    too high for many (and I'm not talking taxes).
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    RE: .50
    
    While I largely agree with .51 I believe that the first and best thing
    that Christians can do is share the news and love of Jesus Christ. This
    is getting harder to do in the US but we need to try.
    
    			Alfred

 Amen Alfred...that, is the answer..we spend billions of dollars on studies, 
 prisons, medicals costs, etc..the answer is a heart transplant through Jesus
 Christ.  The answer is right before our eyes.






 Jim

I agree in no small measure with Alfred.  Part of the problem is a matter
of the spirit.  Truly, with violence we're often faced with the manifestation
of problems which are spiritually rooted.  We cannot ignor the spiritual in
seeking solutions.

But saying that all we really need to do is to Christianize the whole
world, I'm not sure would be completely accurate, either.  It's too easy
to find seemingly contradictory evidence: Northern Ireland, sexual misconduct
by clergy, the Dark Ages, etc..

Of course, it's easy to say that these Christians somehow have or had it wrong
and that we would do things differently.

Richard

    
    
    Richard,
    
    > are there no workhouses, no prisons
    
     Yep. There are all sorts of those things. There are even gas chambers.
    
    
    I checked my spellin much kloser this time :-)
    
    David

    Reply .51 is an excellent list of how to survive in an already violent
    society, but it does little to address what causes the violence in the
    first place. Knowing how to treat a disease is one thing... knowing how
    to prevent it is a much loftier goal.

    On the one hand .51 blames our societies school system and then on the
    other hand .51 says don't blame society for an individuals problem.

    What are we, collectively, if not "society"? Until more people start
    viewing themselves as part of society, and not just individual looking
    out for number one, we will continue to breed violence, selfishness, and
    bitterness. After all, don't most criminals see themselves as victims
    of society and not members of it?

    Until our society -- businesses, governments and individuals -- begin
    to conduct themselves with love, joy, peace, patients, kindness,
    goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control there will be those
    who will rationalize their violence.  Therefore, we, as Christians,
    must work toward affecting the companies we work for, the government
    under which we live and the families we raise to achieve these ideals.
    This should be our priority above prosecuting people, self protection
    and denying social (and therefore personal) accountability.
    
    
    With love and hope,
    	Eric

    
>But saying that all we really need to do is to Christianize the whole
>world, I'm not sure would be completely accurate, either.  It's too easy
>to find seemingly contradictory evidence: Northern Ireland, sexual misconduct
>by clergy, the Dark Ages, etc..

    I'm not so sure that anyone is saying that just Christianizing the
    world is all there is to it. Yes, in an ideal world that's all it would
    take but we know that we don't live in an ideal world. But the single
    greatest thing we can do is to lead others to Christ. All else are
    comparatively minor things by comparison.

>Of course, it's easy to say that these Christians somehow have or had it wrong
>and that we would do things differently.

    Just a nit. I don't think that anyone who has looked into it really
    believes the problems in Northern Ireland are related to religious
    differences near so mush as they are economic differences. And
    education and learning stayed alive at all during the "Dark Ages"
    almost entirely as a religious effort. And sexual misconduct, by clergy
    or anyone else, is I believe, contributed to more my cultural sexual
    pressures that would be somewhat diminished if a) the world were
    Christian and b) the Catholic Church followed a more Biblical view
    of marriage for clergy. :-)

    			Alfred

I have wondered more than once if David knew what work I was quoting
when I asked in Note 781.54:

>"Are there no workhouses?  Are there no prisons?"

Especially since his response in Note 781.60 was:
    
>    >are there no workhouses, no prisons
    
>     Yep. There are all sorts of those things. There are even gas chambers.

Shalom,
Richard

	"Violence is the last resort of the incompetent."

					-- Isaac Asimov