Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Oh, great!  Now we can fight over this one....   :-)

    Tom be quiet you condescending trouble maker!! :-)
    
    I picked this reading at my Mother n law's funeral (Romans 12), because
    I felt it epitomized her very well.  I also did it for myself as I
    continue to deal with a dysfunctional Sister n law.
    
    -Jack 
    

    "The best way to vanquish your enemy is to make him your friend"
    -A.Lincoln

    Of course Abe was heavily influenced by God's Word too.

    >Of course Abe was heavily influenced by God's Word too.

    No argument there.  His actions fell somewhat short of this ideal
    during the war, but his policy afterwards was right on.  
    
    -dave
    

    Is there historical evidence that this philosophy works?  Is there
    evidence that the counter philosophy works?

    Well, there's personal experience that it works.
    
    What I mean by "works" is that by getting past whatever makes you hate
    them you are freed.
    
    If you love everyone, including your enemies, you are always with
    people that you love.  When that happens, heaven can't be too far
    away...
    
    Tom

    Well, the reason I ask is because it's a philosophy which is so counter
    intuitive in the physical "dog-eat-dog" world.  The only historical
    instance that I can think of where it apparently "worked" was with
    Gandhi.  It's true that the church has rarely practiced violence in
    achieving it's goals (at least in modern times), but it's also true
    that it's expanded on the coattails of countries which would routinely
    practice violence... hate and kill enemies... conquer and colonize
    foreign lands and squash rebellions using military might. 

    Gandhi said that when you practice nonviolence, the oppressor sees the
    injustice in harming someone who means no harm and will in turn, stop
    harming you.  But I can't picture this policy of love working too
    well with soemone like Genghis Khan.  
                                      
    Of course I'm only speaking of the physical evidence of what "works"
    and what doesn't and am not mentioning the personal spiritual rewards
    and/or evidence.
    
    -dave

.6

>    Is there historical evidence that this philosophy works?  Is there
>    evidence that the counter philosophy works?

Nothing works all the time.  Even war, vengeance and coersion may appear
to "work" for awhile.

It's more a matter of 'what way will you choose?'

War heroes do get more space in the history books than peacemakers.  Ever
heard of Franz Jaegerstedter?

Richard

    .8
    
    There are those who'll tell you that Gandhi failed, too.
    
    Have you ever heard of the Holy Experiment?  How about how the Danish
    king dealt with the Nazis?
    
    Richard
    

	Jesus used the expression "I have conquered the world" John 16:33,
	in other words he did not allow this world or system to squeeze
	him into it's mold. Jesus encourages his followers to conquer the
	world also, loving ones enemies that is following Jesus' example
	will help persons overcome this world and it's desires. Ie though
	this world may encourage hating ones enemies, one need not be molded
	by this spirit of returning like for like but endeavour to follow 
	Jesus' example of mildness, long suffering, compassion and mercy. 

	Phil.

    Richard:
    
    I suppose what "works" is a function of what one's goals are.  In the
    physical world, war and violence and hatred and all the rest are all
    means to achieving the physical goals.  And guess what, they work.
    Practicing all of this stuff is very effective in achieving goals in
    the physical world.  It might be an all out act of war or simpy taking
    advantage of a competitor's mistake in the marketplace.  Dog eat dog.
    
    And I beieve you're right.  These "gains" are really short lived.  When
    you're in that mindset, you can never get enough.  Why is it that
    billionaires are constantly striving to make more money?  Why is it that
    we're not satisfied with driving a Chevy when we know we "could" be
    drinving an Acura?  Like a carrot on a stick, you'll never get it.
    
    >Ever heard of Franz Jaegerstedter?
    Nope.
    
    >Have you ever heard of the Holy Experiment?
    Nope.
    
    >How about how the Danish king dealt with the Nazis?
    He basically surrendered, didn't he?
    
    
    -dave

>    I think we need to examine the possibility of becoming less
>    results-oriented and more process-oriented.

    Good for the soul.   Bad for the bottom line.

    .12
    
    :-)
    
    A.J. Muste said, "There is no way to peace.  Peace is the way."
    
    Jesus didn't say, "I am the goal."  He said, "I am the Way."
    
    There's a saying or song that goes something like, "It hain't what
    cha do; It's that way hatch cha do it!"
    
    I think we need to examine the possibility of becoming less
    results-oriented and more process-oriented.
    
    Richard
    

.12

>    >Ever heard of Franz Jaegerstedter?
>    Nope.

I'll bet you've heard of General George S. Patton though.

Jaegerstedter refused to be conscripted into Hitler's army on the grounds
that his Christian faith prohibited it.  Hitler hated conscientious
objectors.  And no wonder -- enough of them would have brought Hitler's
machinery to a screaming halt.
    
>    >Have you ever heard of the Holy Experiment?
>    Nope.

I'll bet you've heard of General George Armstrong Custer.

The Holy Experiment resulted in a 100 year period of peace between the
Native Americans and the newer arrivals (Largely Quaker, Mennonite, etc..)
of the region we call Pennsylvania.  Even after the promises began to be
broken (you can guess by which faction), not a single Quaker was attacked
by the aborigines.
    
>    >How about how the Danish king dealt with the Nazis?
>    He basically surrendered, didn't he?

I don't know about that.  I do know that when ordered by the Nazis to
have the Jews wear the star of David, he had *everyone* start wearing
the star of David.  There are many ways to deal with evil.  The use of
deadly force is only one of them.
    
Richard

    You're right.  I've heard of Patton and Custer and a plethora of other
    generals and warmakers.  A few peacemakers pop into the picture from
    time to time, but you're right, the warriors take center stage in the
    history books.
    
    So why is that?  I'll propose that it's because war means change and
    change is noteworthy.  Peace means "business as usual", less noteworthy.
    Sure there's the landing on the moon and the discovery of Hale-Bopp and
    other peacetime events and people we remember, but they pale in
    comparison to mass destruction and political change imposed by the
    victors.  
    
    So why is peace so boring?
    
    -dave

    Boring is good.  
    
    Peace isn't notable because the Jocks didn't get to do their thing. 
    History is written by the winners of conflicts which is probably why it
    is around the battles instead of the years of quiet.  
    
    meg

    Would you say that peacetime is when the non-Jocks get to do their
    thing?  Why is their peacetime thing less noteworthy?  Could it be
    because the "jocks" make a greater impact on people's lives, even
    though it's usually a negative one?  
    
    -dave

    In the course of my career I have worked for some good bosses,
    some OK bosses, and some bosses I would objectivly classify as
    'evil'. By this I mean that the only thing that matters to them 
    is protecting and furthering their own power, with no regard for
    the organization or the damage to the people working for them. 
    The frustrating thing about these bosses is that if you try and
    challenge them, you lose; if you keep quiet, you lose. The only
    way out of a situation is to move on. I've found that these type
    of people tend to clump together (the last org I was in had 3
    evil managers and 1 weak one, all under a weak and incompetent
    senior manager). How do you 'love' somebody like that?

    Actually the non jocks do make a bigger impact, but you have to look at
    it.  Medicine, agriculture, art, metalwork, religion were not
    propogated by the jocks although all were used to further those
    interests.
    
    meg

    The greatest technological developments always come about in wartime. 
    At the advent of WWII, the most advanced technology was a propeller
    driven airplane.  By the end they had jets, ICBMs, radar and nuclear
    weapons (resulting in airliners, weather satellites and nuclear
    medicine).  Some of the greatest works of art are inspired from
    experiences of war. The method for mass producing penicillin was
    developed to support the war effort.  In a nutshell, a country gets
    stressed in wartime.  Survival is a strong driver for innovation.
    
    Were these things all invented or developed by "jocks"?  Were the
    chemists who worked on penicillin "jocks"?  The physicists at Los
    Alomos?  Was Shostikovich a "jock" for having written a symphony about
    WWII?  I guess the generals who lead armies into battle are "jocks", but
    what about the brainwashed 18 year old who's shiverring in a ditch,
    holding a rifle?  
    
    Who are the "jocks"?  Are they bad?  Evil?  Wrong?  
    
    -dave
    
    (who's defending the "jocks" because no one else will)
    
    

    Dave,
    
    My reference here is something I learned when going into the history of
    the Druids and Vedics.  It is pretty refined but:
    
    Basically there are three kinds of leaders:
    
    1.  Rulers (Royalty or elected)
    2.  Clergy and magicians
    3.  Military  and sportspeople (the jocks)  
    
    Problems come when the ruler is also a jock, or if the clergy doesn't
    find other ways to keep the jocks diverted, or worse decides the gods
    required forced converts.  That is the beginning of a war.
    
    meg
    
    

    
    Jocks or pencil-neck geeks, problems come when someone wants what
    someone else has. Sometimes the Jock (Eisenhower) is more of a dove
    than stereotype would lead us to be.

    War is the effect of an unchecked desire for power, and that desire for
    power is not the exclusive domain of the Jock.

    Eric

    Perhaps "Jock" is a bad term.

    It is a stereotype and you are casting dispersions on it.

    I don't consider myself a jock, but there are people that
    do.  Getting out onto a field to knock heads with other like
    minded people is not tantamount to engaging in war.  Most 
    people understand the difference between real and makebelieve,
    including "jocks."

    I guess I'm just uncomfortable with such stereotyping.  It's
    not unlike saying... well, nevermind.
    
    Tom

    Re .22 (Meg)

    I think rulers, and everyone else for that matter, have some of each of
    the qualities you mentioned. Some of the early popes had to be political,
    religious and military leaders all rolled up into one.  Certain parts
    may get emphasized when the need arises.


    RE .23 (Eric)

    >War is the effect of an unchecked desire for power...

    Maybe not always.  Sometimes nations go to war as an act of
    desperation.  I think we may be seeing some of this today in east
    Africa.  Go to war, take from your neighbors, or starve.  Sometimes
    they go to war out of vengeance.  Hitler played that card.  Averting
    oppression might be another one.

    "Peace is the cry of the haves"

    When you're a "have-not" and you can't get what you need any other way,
    you resort to violence.  Find a "have-not" nation that's peaceful, and,
    IMO, you have a very mature people... (e.g. Nepal).


    -dave