Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

As a Christian, I believe war and participation in war is diametrically
opposed to the teachings and Spirit of Christ.

Others feel that some armed conflicts can be morally justified.  Or is it
that they don't feel morally prohibited?

The intent of war is always to inflict injury, death, and destruction.  The
one possible exception is perhaps the Lamb's war.

In times past, two armies would face each other on an unpopulated battlefield.
As weaponry has become increasingly sophisticated, civilians have become
simply the unfortunate - but legitimate - victims of faceless warfare.

Jesus taught love of enemy and failed to limit this teaching to one's own
personal enemies.

Shalom,
Richard

    Do you believe in the use of violence as an act of self-defense,
    Richard?  Some wars are just that, a concerted act of self-defense on a
    national level.  And, to my mind, wars of self-defense are morally
    justified.  
    
    Mike

	What do you speculate that Jesus would say, Mike?  In fact,
what - if anything - did Jesus say about self-defense?

Peace,
Richard

    The scriptural support for what Richard says is Mt 26:52 where one who
    was with him (traditionally Peter) cuts off the ear of one of the
    temple guard.  It is often translated as "those who live by the sword
    shall perish by the sword."
    
    Through the efforts of people like Reagan, Bush, Gorbachev, and
    Yeltsin, the risk of an unbounded nuclear war has been significantly
    reduced if not eliminated.

    re: .3
    
    Do you mean the famous "turn the other cheek" defense, Richard?  I
    understand what you mean, and sort of agree that a passive response is 
    a reasonable defense at times.  I can't help but wonder, though, how
    this applies to the use of counter-violence to defend one's own life,
    or the life of one's family?  And by extension, one's country. 
    
    Surely Jesus didn't intend that people be willing to lay down their
    lives in pursuit of total non-violence, did He?
     
    Mike

Mike .5,

Jesus didn't provide us with hard and fast formulas for every occasion.

I've wrestled with the questions you're asking within myself for a number
of years now.  In fact, they're questions I still wrestle with internally.

I cannot say what others may do.  I can only attempt to follow Christ to
the limits of my own understanding of what that means.

But allow me to share what is supposed to be a true encounter between
William Penn and George Fox.  Fox was looked up to as someone strong and
seasoned in the Christian faith.  Both were Quakers, Penn being comparatively
new to Friends at a time in history when wearing a sword was a customary
part of how men dressed.  Knowing of the peace testimony of Friends, Penn
asked Fox, "When should I stop wearing the sword?"

Fox's reply, "Wear it as long as thou canst."

Peace,
Richard

    Okay.  I understand your position much better now. 
    
    Thank you, Richard.
    
    Mike

 "Naturally the common people don't want war... but after all it is
the leaders of a country who determine policy, and it is always a
simple matter to drag the people along...  All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

                          -- Hermann Goering, 1936

    re: .8
    
    Certainly an expert opinion!
    
    Mike

    
    Richard,
    
     I think the bible supports a nation going to war. What do you think?
    
    David

    Weeell, it depends.  Parts of the OT would *seem* to support it.  In
    fact, much of the OT seems pretty blood-thirsty, taken at face value.
    
    And then, there's the doctrine of the "just war."
    
    Participating in war becomes much more difficult upon introducing
    the Spirit and teachings of Christ Jesus -- not that it *can't* be
    done -- (We humans have a tremendous capacity to rationalize whatever
    we wish to rationalize)!
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Speaking from a historical (or traditional) perspective, for the first
300 years virtually *all* Christians were pacifists.

Peace,
Richard

    The idea of the pre-Edict of Milan Christianity being "pacifist" is
    wrong.
    
    Christians lacked the army not to use which is the essence of pacifism.
    On the other hand, it seems that baptised Christians formed close to a
    majority or were actually the majority religion of the Empire by 200 AD
    
    The more interesting point is why the mightiest empire that world has
    ever seen, feared Jesus Christ who they thought was dead, and put all
    his followers to the lions and to the sword.

    No, it isn't wrong, Patrick.  But it was wrong of the church to jump
    into bed with the government, which it has done seemingly ever since
    Constantine.
    
    Richard

    What advice would you give Constantine?  Tell God to show the Sign of
    the Cross to Maxentius?
    
    What advice would you give to Sylvester, the Bishop of Rome at the
    time?  Refuse baptism to Constantine?

>Biblical non-resistance should not be confused with passivity or compliance.
    
    Would you expalin the difference for those of us who don't know?
    
    			Alfred

Note 499.17

>>Biblical non-resistance should not be confused with passivity or compliance.
    
>    Would you expalin the difference for those of us who don't know?

I wish I could articulate it, but I'm afraid I wouldn't do it justice.  Any
Mennonites out there??

Richard

I may end up having to pick up Hershberger's book at the library.

"All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers ... Each one owes
infinitely more to the human race than to the particular country in
which he was born."
    
						-- Francois Fenelon
    

    I think that parts of the bible supports genocide and the wiping out of
    those who religios ideas are different.  i.e. pagan.  I think that the
    early Hebrew thought that their god gave them the lands of Canaan and
    that they had the moral responsibility to exterminate the Canaanites.
    
    I think that our ideals of right and wrong need a higher authority than
    biblical literalism or else any nation or religion can justify war,
    rascism, ethnic cleansing, and religious persecution and homophobia based
    on the old testament.
    
    I believe that all those things are immoral and not sanctioned by  a
    just and loving and merciful God.
    
    
    Patricia
    

    
    
    
    > I believe all those things are immoral
    
     lets play this out. I will play DEVILS advocate.. Please note that I
    play the part very seriously but mean no harm by it..
    
    > a higher authority than biblical literalism or else any nation can
    justify war..
    
       Patricia would you please name this higher authority??
    
    > ethnic cleansing, and religious persecution and homophobia
    
      Amazing how we work all these politically correct topics in. I
    suspect you feel that a truely spiritually person would view
    homosexuality as ok??  Do you recall the prophecy in the the NT where
    they state that people will turn from sound words and instead seek
    teachers were instruct them on matters that do not conflict with there
    lusts??? Shopping mall religions, pick the one that you like and accuse
    anyone else of being the enemy??

	It interesting to note what the Bible says about wars and whether
	or not God sanctions them, especially in the time the Bible refers
	to as "the last days" (2 Tim 3:1).

	Jesus said that "YOU are going to hear about wars and reports of
	wars; see that YOU are not terrified. For these things must take
	place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation
	and kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in
	one place after another. All these things are a beginning of pangs
	of distress." Matt 24:5-8 also see verse 3. Jesus prophesied that
	sometime in the future there would be global warfare. Christians
	no doubt would be habitants in these lands that go to war. Would
	they join up as it were to fight for their country especially seeing
	that it would probably pit themselves against their own spriritual
	brother in another land?. Well Paul indicated that they would not
	for 2 Corinth 10:3,4 NWT reads "For though we walk in the flesh, we 
	do not wage warfare according to [what we are in the] flesh. For the
	weapons of our are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning
	strongly entrenched things." and this goes hand in hand with verse
	14 of Matthew 24 NWT were Jesus showed that "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." No doubt that Jesus
	would use his servants to do this preaching (just as he commisioned 
	them to, as mentioned in Mattew 28:19,20) and with this in mind they
	would not allow anything to come between them and that commission
	even carnal warfare, putting Kingdom interests first in their lives
	(Matt 6:33). 
	
	This preaching work would pave the way for a war that God definitely
	has sanctioned. Note in Matthew 24:14 that the "end would come" once
	there has been a global witness, the end coming about through what 
	Revelation 16:16 refers to as Armageddon. This is not world war III 
	but God's war as indicated in verse 14 of Revelation 16 "the war of 
	the great day of God the Almighty." 

	
        Armageddon will be a war that clears the way for peace under the
	rulership of the "Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6,7) . Psalms 46:9
	NWT tells us "He is making wars to cease to the extremity of the
	earth. The bow he breaks apart and does cut the spear in pieces;
	the wagons he burns in the fire." God's war will not only bring
	about peace but also render all weapons of carnal war as useless.
	But has not man learnt how to wage war to the highest degree,well 
	Isaiah 2:2-4 NWT shows that in the last days those seeking Jehovah 
	would learn war no more thus showing their earnest desire to live in
	a peaceful new world in which there will be no room for those who
	have the inclination to wage war against their own spiritual brother.

	So the admonishment of Paul, noting that Armagedden is ever nearer,
	is "The night is well along; the day has drawn near. Let us therefore
	put off the works belonging to darkness and let us put on the weapons
	of the light."( Romans 3:12) These weapons of the light are mentioned 
	in Ephesians 6:11-17 and the "works belonging to darkness" would 
	include carnal warfare.

	Phil.   

    re:  499.21
    
    The higher authority is the Divine who dwells within me and within you
    and within everyone here and all around.  My spirituality is not a
    shopping mall experience where I willy nilly pick and choose.  My
    spirituality involves digging deep into my self to connect to that true
    self that is divine.
    
    My religion involves experiencing as much of different religions as I can
    and to attempt to experience them deeply enough to feel that kernal of
    truth that is in each of them.  The way, whether it be Christianity,
    Judaism, Islam, Pagan, humanism is only the way.  The reality is the divine whom
    we can encounter through our participation.
    
    If you perceive that as a shopping mall approach to religion, then you
    don't understand.  It is not an approach that works for everyone.
    
    I did notice in your reply your particular sensitivity to my outcry
    against homophobia.  The bible says a whole lot less about
    homeosexuality than it does about adultery or divorce or many other
    things.  Why are you so sensitive to my including homophobia in my list.
    What are you afraid of?
    
    love and peace
    
    
    Patricia

    
    
    > what are you afraid of
    
      I fear death, increased taxes, Dan Quayle winning in 96 :-). I am not
    homophobic.. I meant to suggest that certain fringe groups ( rightly
    or wrongly) choose to include themselves in the " Victims R Us bus".
    This gives them a certain appeal to the nations sympathetic types.."Look
    at us we are being treated just like the Jews in WW2 ".  The question
    that always begs to be asked  is  " Do you deserve protected status?"
    
    > the higher authority is the Divine who dwells within me an within you
    
     Oh is see.. And what happens when our individually wrapped HA
    disagree??
    
    David

Patricia,

I just finished reading a wonderful book entitled 'Circle of Stones:
Woman's Journey to Herself' by Judith Durek (sp).  I've given it to my
daughter in hopes that she will find value in it as well.  It affirms
your way of searching within for the wisdom and spark of divinity that
is there.  I highly recommend it.

Ro
 

    Ro,
    
    Thank you.  I will pick up the book.
    
    
    Patricia

re Note 499.21 by COMET::DYBEN:

>     > ethnic cleansing, and religious persecution and homophobia
>     
>       Amazing how we work all these politically correct topics in. 

        God help us when criticism of "ethnic cleansing" and
        "religious persecution" are viewed (and therefore ridiculed)
        as "politically correct" topics!!!!!

        Perhaps the next holocaust is much closer than we think!

        Bob
        +++++++++

        P.S. I will agree that "homophobia" is not in the same
        league.  But my understanding of the term "homophobia" is
        great fear of all association with homosexuals and an active
        effort to deny them basic human rights and dignity in all
        areas because of their sin.   To me this goes far beyond
        "hating the sin" and is squarely in the center of "hating the
        sinner".  Compare the reaction to homosexuals in today's
        American society with our reaction to the practitioners of
        other Biblically-defined sins.

    
    
    -1
    
      Good points. That is what I was looking for..
    
    
    David

Just pause for a moment and think how religion has been used in wars to cause 
many people to be killed with the untold suffering to the lives of many 
civilians. 

Below is a compilation of quotes from the book "Mankinds search for God"
page 14.

"Religious wars tend to be extra furious. When people fight over territory
for economic advantage, they reach the point where the battle isn't worth
the cost and so compromise. When the cause is religious, compromise and 
conciliation seem to be evil." Roger Shinn, professor of social ethics,
Union Theological Seminar, New York.

"Men will wrangle for religion, write for it, fight for it, die for it;
anything but live for it.... Where true religion has prevented crime,
false religions have afforded a pretext for a thousand." Charles Caleb
Colton (1825).

"We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make 
us love one another." Jonathan Swift (1667-1745).

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from
religious conviction." Blaise Pascal (1623-62)

"The true purpose of a higher religion is to radiate the spiritual counsels
and truths that are its essence into as many souls as it can reach, in order
that each of these souls may be enabled thereby to fulfil the true end is to
glorify God and to enjoy Him for ever." Arnold Toynbee, historian. 


Rather than "dieing for it" why not "live for it". How many obey Jesus' 
command in John 13:34,35 when nations begin to war mongor?. Does it give 
God glory to kill ones own brother or even ones neighbour?.

Phil.

	Phil, that was a real nice note. Thanks for posting it.




Glen

    Most everyone I know has been supportive of the US forces effort into
    Somalia. If war does happen and lives are lost ...like the
    "technicals", will it still be O.K.?
    
    I believe it is O.K., and that war is not *always* wrong.
    
    Marc H.

    .31
    
    Marc,
    
    	I'm following the events in Somalia very closely.  This situation
    is certainly a departure from traditional warfare.
    
    	And I must say that I do support the use of the National Guard to
    intervene in cases of natural disasters, such as Hurricane Andrew,
    etc..
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

	U.S. military aid from the early 1970's to mid-1980's to Somolia
totaled $403 million.  Now we're in Somalia to clean up what we helped to
create.

Richard

    This is taking the abandonment of individual responsibility and denial of
    conscience to a new level.

    How did the "United States" help create random murder, the theft of
    grain from warehouses, deliberate starvation, etc.?

    The Somalians didn't manufacture the weaponry.  They just pull
    the triggers.
    
    Richard
    

    RE: .35
    
    The history of somalia is really a complicated "mess". The USA and USSR
    used the area to dump piles of weapons into. In addition, the 
    breakdown in their society can be traced to historical conflicts.
    
    Its a very complicated mess.....but....An excellent example
    of what happens when society breaksdown, and thugs are able to
    get weapons, while the ordinary  people can't.
    
    Marc H.

    RE: .34
    
    		Interesting how we (U.S.) can pay farmers not to grow
    anything while others in this world starve.  When people are hungry and
    food is power and we (U.S) has the capibility of relieving that
    suffering and we don't, then the label of "Christian Nation" is in
    serious doubt.
    
    
    Dave

    RE:37
    
    Dave, the problem has always been *GETTING* the food to the third
    world , not the growing of it. It doesn't make any sense to grow
    food and then dump it....thats what would happen here.
    
    Now, just in case I'm not clear...I don't support any of the current
    US policies to the farmers.
    
    Marc H.

    re: .37                             
    
    There was enough food in warehouses in Mogadishu to feed _twice_ the
    population of Somalia.  More of it eventually was spoiled or consumed
    by rats than delivered to people.
    
    It was the Somalians themselves that starved Somalians.
    
    There is no country in the world that is asking for food and not
    getting it except where the government of that country is preventing
    distribution for political purposes.

>    The Somalians didn't manufacture the weaponry.  They just pull
>    the triggers.

	So the Somalians are not responsible for what happens when they
	pull triggers? It's the fault of the people who make the tools
	that are being badly used. Good to know for the future.

			Alfred

    During the Revolutionary War, when demanded to convert their
    industry to the manufacture of arms, several Quakers burned
    their businesses to the ground.
    
    Too bad conscience fails to dictate conduct quite as much anymore.
    
    Richard
    

.40, Alfred

>	So the Somalians are not responsible for what happens when they
>	pull triggers? It's the fault of the people who make the tools
>	that are being badly used. Good to know for the future.

Yes, I believe the Somalians do bear responsibility; just as the alcoholic
is responsible for what he does even if he's locked in a liquor store.

Richard

    RE: .42 Than I miss your point.
    
    		Alfred

    RE: .41
    
    Bad conclusion I think. If the original patriots had all refused to
    fight....we would be part of England.
    
    Marc H.

    .44  A definite possibility, Guv'!  ;-)
    
    Richard
    

	Author Anne Wilson Schaef, in her book _When Society Becomes an
Addict_, alerts us that the major structures of U.S. society - government,
churches, corporations - all function much like addicts.  Whole societies
are mired in false promises, illusions of control, denial of problems, and
a numbing of rational and emotional processes, apparently oblivious to the
dysfunctionality of it all.

	Though there exists broad agreement that entities - entire nations -
may exhibit the same destructive tendencies as individuals who struggle with
addictions, there's been relatively little effort put forth towards finding
avenues of 'collective recovery,' ways of communal healing.

	When it comes to the individual, we've been saturated with information.
The effects of co-dependent relationships and unhealthy behaviors have been
articulated by harbingers such as John Bradshaw, the author and lecturer who
rose to popular recognition through the PBS television series "Bradshaw On:
the Family."  A visit to just about any bookstore will quickly reveal how we've
become enveloped in an epidemic of concern to break the cycle of abusive
behaviors.

	Yet these resources rarely address any collectivity beyond one's
intimate and immediate relationships -- one's family, one's love interest,
one's circle of friends, and possibly a few others.

	It's time we, as Americans, end the denial.  It's time we face up to
our addictions as a society.  It's time to acknowledge our resulting collective
personality disorders.

	We're corporately caught up in a chronic spiral of dependency,
manipulation and abuse.  We're addicted to power.  We're addicted to prestige
and status.  We're addicted to material wealth and comfort.  We're addicted
to cheap fuel.  We're addicted to easy acquisition of a disproportionate share
of the Earth's resources.

	As writer and social activist William O'Brien has asserted, "U.S.
foreign policy is one vast, dangerous addiction to militarism and control --
with all the trappings of denial and manipulation so universal among addicts.
The Persian Gulf War was an immense paroxysm of national dysfunction;
addiction to our oil-fueled lifestyle, denial of our own vulnerability,
projection of all evil onto some international bully, and the resulting
manipulative, violent, and destabilizing behavior."

	The United States is now recognized as the world's sole super-power.
That perception is based on military capability.  We have more sophisticated
and ingenious ways to inflict punishment on foreign soil than anyone else in
the world.  Technologically, we're brilliant.  And though technological warfare
is enormously expensive, we choose to afford it.  Under the circumstances,
it's not surprising that the Strategic Defense Initiative is a virtual
bottomless pit of spending.

	With such magnificent power at our disposal, one might think we'd
feel secure.  Instead, we're engulfed in an relentless search to maintain a
sense of security and well-being.  We yearn to feel connected to all others
who share our world with us.  Yet we insulate and anesthetize ourselves
against the suffering and shame we might be forced to confront were we to
make ourselves vulnerable.  It has become all too easy to blame others
for our anxieties, to explain away our coping mechanisms.  At the same time,
it's too painful for us to look in depth inwardly.  These are some of the
symptoms we share with substance abusers and those enmeshed in co-dependent
relationships.

	The United States maintains an antiseptic approach to warfare.  We
speak dispassionately in terms of "surgical strikes" and of kill ratios of
2000:1.  We watch with a kind of morbid fascination the images on video tape
of actual ballistic deliveries as recorded by bomb-mounted cameras.  We find
the genius of it all remarkable, while our remoteness buffers and desensitizes
us to the destruction inflicted at the other end.  These, too, are symptomatic
of our addiction.

	"Stars Wars," the Strategic Defense Initiative, is simply an ambitious
next step in our efforts to seize a semblance of control.  And in time, even
that won't be enough.

	It's time to begin to let go of our faith in militarism.  It's time
to place our faith in something more enduring.  It's time to get about our
healing.

Thanks Richard for entering that (.46).  As a fan of Anne Wilson 
Schaef, I'll put that book on my to-read list.  Once again, she seems 
to have hit the nail on the head.  

<<addictions, there's been relatively little effort put forth towards finding
<<avenues of 'collective recovery,' ways of communal healing.

The only disagreement I would have with this is that although there 
doesn't appear to be any 'official' efforts, I do believe there are
many grass roots movements to heal the collective.   For instance, 
John Robbins began one a few years back with "Diet for a New America".

I highly recommend the book Ishmael by Danial Quinn as a way of waking 
up and looking at our problems from a different perspective.  As I 
recall, it has been awarded the Turner mumble award for a work of
literature that has impact in changing the 21st century (or something 
like that).  It is one of those books that is difficult to put down.
(BTW, the main character is a gorilla).

Ro

(The following letter appeared in last Sunday's [March 21, 1993] editorial
 page.)

	Editor
	Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph
	30 S. Prospect
	Colorado Springs, CO 80903


	Dear Editor,

		The United States is now recognized as the world's sole
	super-power.  That perception is based on military capability.
	We have more sophisticated and ingenious ways to inflict
	punishment on foreign soil than anyone else in the world.

		With such magnificent power at our disposal, one might
	think we'd feel secure.  Instead, we're engulfed in an relentless
	search to maintain a sense of security and well-being.  We yearn
	to feel connected to all others who share our world with us.  Yet
	we insulate and anesthetize ourselves against the suffering and
	shame we might be forced to confront were we to make ourselves
	vulnerable.  It has become all too easy to blame others for our
	anxieties, to explain away our coping mechanisms.  At the same time,
	it's too painful for us to look in depth inwardly.

		Americans are corporately caught up in a chronic spiral
	of dependency, manipulation and abuse.  We're addicted to material
	wealth and comfort.  We're addicted to cheap fuel.  We're addicted
	to easy acquisition of a disproportionate share of the Earth's
	resources.

		It's time we face up to our addictions as a society.  It's
	time to begin to let go of our faith in militarism.  It's time to
	place our faith in something more enduring.

		In light of these circumstances, I am rendering under
	protest that portion of my income taxes which contributes to the
	support of the military.


						Respectfully yours,
						<signature>

Subj:	NicaNet NY Weekly Update #166 4/4

NEW YORK TIMES CRITICAL OF PANAMA DECEPTION OSCAR

The New York Times recently saw fit to print an editorial
criticizing the Motion Picture Academy's method of selecting its
Oscar winners in the documentary film category. The editorial
fails to mention that the winner this year, The Panama Deception,
forcefully criticizes and exposes the 1989 US invasion of Panama,
while the Times strongly supported the intervention. [NYT
3/31/93]

Colman McCarthy has articulated quite well what's been on my mind a lot lately
regarding the equal rights movements (women and gays) and the military in the
most recent issue of _The_Other_Side_ magazine.

Maybe I'll snare a couple of key paragraphs and punch 'em in here.

Richard

The following are excerpts of a feature by Colman McCarthy which appears in
the July-August '93 issue of _The_Other_Side_ magazine.

	"War itself is a word of evasion.  Other wars which are waged -- on
drugs, crime, poverty -- are equated with exertions of moral resolve against
social evils, not the organized taking of life.  By that standard, troops
sent into combat are serving a noble cause, not engaging in legalized
homicide.

	The fact that women and gays are seeking to be equals in the rites of
mass murder -- once the preserve of heterosexual males -- indicates how
sorrily they have been failed by feminists and gay rights leaders.  Adolescent
girls, as well as gays of high school or college age, need someone to hold
high the fact that compassion, justice, and empathy are at the heart of
feminism and gay rights.  The military ethic is a raw betrayal of those
ideals.

	Feminists and gays should be encouraging their constituencies to be
picketing military bases, not groveling to get in.  War is the state's use
of violence against people seen as inferior and different."

RJC

	Whoops of "Hallelujah!" went up when we saw the Berlin Wall being
brought down by the hands of the people.  We cheered Mikael Gorbachev for
the reforms set in motion toward openness in the Soviet Union under his
leadership.  We waited and watched as the coup by Communist hardliners
in Moscow buckled and failed.  And we came to the brink of joyous tears
when we saw peace given a chance between the generations-old enemies
of Israel and Palestine.

	And as we turned our attention toward these events, we may have
felt a sobering sense of astonishment.  Nothing we had done had brought
these things about.  Neither doves nor hawks could legitimately claim
credit for any of it.  Worse, the aftermath of such dramatic events has
often exposed an even deeper infection of injustice and suffering: A
rise of neo-Nazi brutality in Germany, the horrific conditions of
institutionalized children in Rumania, and the outbreak of bloody
fighting among neighbors of the former Yugoslavia.  And so, we sigh
a collective, "Alas!"

Peace,
Richard

	As prophesied in Huxley's "Brave New World," there's a low-touch
quality inherent in high technology.  This impersonal, detached quality
lends itself utterly to the "us or them" binary thinking required to wage war.
Increasingly, the U.S. prepares to conduct combat from a keyboard.  Ironically,
high technology remains transcendentally complex and supremely mystifying to
most Americans.  The American people have seen fit to entrust a disturbing
degree of faith in instruments otherwise widely regarded as bewildering and
unfamiliar.  Even more disturbing, like a powerful god insisting on allegiance
without question, reliance on American technological wizardry as martial
Messiah insists on a certain suspension of personal responsibility.

Peace,
Richard

	Pictures have become pivotal.  U.S. military involvement in Viet
Nam was supported by a majority of Americans before they saw it the through
the lens of a news camera.  It was the agonizing pictures of sick and
starving children which demanded our intervention in Somalia.  And it was
pictures of an American corpse being dragged through a Somalian street
and pictures of a rattled and battered American pilot which ignited
the outcry for U.S. withdrawal from Somalia.  Immeasurable is the impact
of the visual image.  It is any wonder that the Pentagon carefully screened
and selected the images we were allowed to see during the Persian Gulf War,
the most intensively televised war in history?

Peace,
Richard

re: Note 499.54 by Richard "Pacifist Hellcat" 

>                           -< The Power of Pictures >-

I remember an essay by I forget who, declaring television as the force that 
would topple Soviet communism, and this was several years before the Berlin 
Wall came down.

His argument was this...  With words, it is possible to censor what people 
hear or read, but the imagery of television cannot be so easily editted.
Say what they will about "poor Americans protesting their brutal government" 
in a voice-over depicting some scene of American citizens protesting, the 
Soviet viewer could not miss the fact that the average American wore nice 
clothes, and drove a nice car to the protest.

I wonder, though, these days even pictures and video are becoming suspect.  It 
is relatively easy with today's technology to doctor a photographic negative 
indetectably.  Photographic evidence is coming under attack as evidence in 
court cases, and video processing is falling to the same peril.

Pictures do indeed have great Power.  But today, what the camera "sees" may 
have little to do with reality, and it is becoming increasingly easy to 
manipulate that power.

Peace,

Jim

re Note 31.710 by COVERT::COVERT:

> >I appreciate that.  What is your position on war?
> 
> To be avoided if at all possible.
> 
> To be engaged in only to stop current aggression by the other side,
> only if that is the only means of stopping it, only if it has a
> likelihood of success, and only with the minimum means necessary
> to accomplish the goal.
  
        John,

        I respect and appreciate the strength and consistency of your
        pro-life stance.

        Bob

re 9.1432

Jill,

;I have no trouble with the fact that you are
;called to it, indeed we probably need reminders about peace in this
;world, but I think you need to be sensitive to the fact that God may
;not have called all of us to that stance.

I know that your comments where directed at Richard, but I cannot see
how Christians are not called to peace. The Bible is explicit in
showing that Christians should be found by their Master living 
peaceably (compare 2 Peter 3:14). BTW I'm not advocating pacifism just
that it is wrong to fight in carnal warfare at this present time for
Jesus is calling persons from all nations, also the taking of innocent 
life is wrong. Let me explain....


The Bible does indicate that Jesus commanded his followers to live
peaceably amongst themselves. I only have the NWT handy but other
versions read similar John 13:34 NWT "I am giving YOU a new commandment, 
that YOU love one another; just as I have loved YOU, that YOU also 
love one another.". Love would include being peaceable to ones brother.

Isaiah 11:10 NWT reads "And it must occur in that day that there will be 
the root of Jesse that will be standing up as a signal for the peoples. 
To him even the nations will turn inquiringly, and his resting-place 
must become glorious." Jesus, is the one that has drawn people of all
nations of the earth to follow in his footsteps. These are commanded
to show love to each other. With this in mind, it is logical that this
love would transcend national borders. Such ones would have to learn
to live peaceably with each other (compare Isaiah 2:2-4). Hence, 
personally I cannot see how professing Christians can justify taking
up arms against their own spiritual brother or sister in another land
under any circumstance. Surely, they would refuse to allow their own
government to put them in the predicament of being pitted against
their own brother or sister.  

Additionally, in Jesus' parable of the "Sheep and the Goats" (Matthew 25) 
how we treat Christ's brothers is how we treat Jesus himself. I cannot 
see how one is justified in taking Jesus' life under any circumstances, 
so in turn how can one allow oneself to be in the potential situation of
taking the life of Christ's brothers and sisters.

Further, it is wrong to take innocent life or to kill. Unfortunately, in
modern carnal warfare innocent persons or civilians suffer many casualities
or fatalities. 

The Apostle Paul wrote "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage 
warfare according to [what we are in the] flesh. For the weapons of our 
warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly 
entrenched things." 2 Corinthians 10:3,4 NWT. Here Paul says that "we
do not wage warfare" eg carnal warfare . However, Christians should not
be Pacifists for they are called to wage Spiritual warfare.

When treathened by war, Christians should put their trust in God and not
in military forces as brought out by the Psalmist in Psalm 33:15-18 NWT 
"He is forming their hearts all together; He is considering all their works.
There is no king saved by the abundance of military forces; A mighty man 
himself is not delivered by the abundance of power. The horse is a deception 
for salvation, And by the abundance of its vital energy it does not afford
escape. Look! The eye of Jehovah is toward those fearing him, To those 
waiting for his loving-kindness," The horse often sybolises warfare in the
Bible, and persons look to arms as a way of defense, but here it indicates
that strong military might is a deception to salvation. Persons should
put their trust in God and wait for him to show his loving kindness rather
than relying on their own nation's military force. After Armageddon there
will be no more warfare among mankind (compare Psalm 46:9) , so persons
who want to live in that new system, need to learn how to live peaceably 
now (Isaiah 2:2-4).


Phil.







 
    

RE .9.1432

Jill,

Regarding the Centurion Cornelius, though the Bible does not indicate
what changes he had to make as a Christian, he certainly would have made 
some (compare 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). For example, as a Roman soldier he 
would have been expected to burn incense to the emperor and this would 
have been against his Christian conscience. Note the following comment by 
a Jesse E. Wrench "The Christians refused to show their loyality by burning 
incense to the emperor. Being men of peace, they would not serve in the 
Roman armies." - The March of Civilization, Ancient and Medieval World 
(New York 1931) P.205.

Also it is interesting to note Tertullian , who died about 230 CE, 
"To begin with the real ground of the military crown, I think we must first 
inquire whether warfare is proper at all for Christians...Shall it be lawful 
to make an occupation of the sword? When the Lord proclaims that he who uses 
the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in 
the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? And shall he apply 
the chain, and the prison, and the torture, and the punishment, who is not 
the avenger even of his own wrongs?...And shall he keep guard before the 
temples which he has renounced? ...Shall he carry a flag, too, hostile to 
Christ?...Ofcourse if faith comes later, and finds any preoccupied with 
military service, their case is different, as in the instance of those whom 
John used to receive for baptism, and of those most faithful centurions, I 
mean the centurion whom Christ approves, and the centurion whom Peter 
instructs; yet; at the same time, when a man becomes a believer, and faith 
has been sealed, their must be an immediate abandonment of it, which has been 
the course with many; or all sorts of quibbling will have to be resorted to 
in order to avoid offending God, and that is not allowed even outside of 
military service...Nowhere does the Christian change his character." 
Tertullian, "The Chaplet," or "De Corona," The Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by 
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Vol III (Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1957), 
pp.99,100.

So Tertullian indicated that Roman soldiers would immediately abandon
military service as soon as they got the faith. I found his arguement
quite thought provoking, especially the part "And shall he keep guard
before the temples which he has renounced?" this certainly would be
the case if one fought for ones country and not for God as the
Israelites did. And as mentioned in my previous reply, Paul shows that
God has called Christians to fight spiritual warfare not carnal.  

With all these thoughts in mind I cannot see how Cornelius did not abandon
his military service.

Phil.


Reference material book "Make Sure of All things, Hold Fast To What Is Fine"
published by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc 1965.

    re: 499.29
    
    Those are some wonderful quotes.
    
    Patricia

    RE. 58
    
    Sorry Phil for the delay.  I'm not ignoring you, I've just been getting
    caught up in other issues and have been doing some further studying and
    praying on this issue and still cannot resolve it to your position. The
    1 Cor 6:9-11 passage has nothing to do with this.  Just because your a
    soldier doesn't mean your heart is wicked.  This is way out of context
    when applied here.  The other passages you gave are in the context of
    individual responsibility, not on a nation scale.  There is a distinct
    difference between individual and national responsibility.  As you've
    already admitted there will be a judgment of nations, as well as a
    judgment of individuals.
    
    As I thought about soldiers I know they are very godly man who pray
    about everything in their lives and they've felt called to be in the
    military.  How would you explain that?  I mean these are guys that you
    can tell that God dwells in them.  You can tell by their fruit.  You'd
    be more success convincing me that the world didn't exist then
    convincing me that these guys are just mistaken about God's will.  No,
    I think God desires a remnant of His people in positions of leadership
    to hold His standard up.  If God placed them there, God can protect His
    children... all of them.
           
    Jill

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 369.135                   Christian Pacifism                     135 of 135
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Heat-seeking pacifist"            27 lines   9-JUL-1994 19:56
               -< 300 years and closest time-wise to the Source >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"From the first to the fourth century, most Christians would neither engage
in Rome's military campaigns nor justify killing as a means to achieve one's
goals.  This consistent practice caused the non-Christian Celsus (AD 178)
to reproach them: 'If all men were to do the same as you, there would be
nothing to prevent the king from being left in utter solitude and desertion.'

o  St. Justin Martyr (165) writes: 'We who formerly murdered one another
now not only do not make war upon our enemies, but, that we may not lie or
deceive our judges, we gladly die confessing Christ.'

o  St. Clement of Alexandria (220) writes: 'Various peoples incite the passions
of war by martial music; Christians employ only the Word of God, the instrument
of peace.'

o  St. Cyprian (258) lamented that, although homicide when committed by
individuals was a crime, it was considered a virtue by the pagans when
carried on publicly.

After AD 170 there were isolated reports of Christians in the Roman army,
but it appears that they acted as police rather than soldiers.  St. Martin
of Tours (397) remained in the Roman army for two years after his conversion.
But, when he was called upon to participate in battle, he resigned from the
service stating: 'I am a soldier of Christ, I cannot fight.'"

From "Peace, War and the Christian Conscience," by Joseph J. Fahey.
Published by the Christophers, New York, NY.

re 499.60

Jill,

It's good that your praying on this issue, at the end of the day all
those who are doing God's will be taught to "learn war no more" Isaiah 2:2-4 
RSV. The reason for mentioning 1 Cor 6-9:11 was to show that Christians 
have to make changes or abandon their previous course on becoming Christians
if their lifestyle is not in line with God's will. Let the reader discern if 
God approves carnal warfare, that we see today. Regarding individual and 
national responsibility, I'm not one who sees the difference in this respect. 
Even at the Nuremburg (sp?) trials individuals could not hide from judgement 
just because they were ordered to commit the attrocities that they committed.  

You mention that the soldiers that you know are very godly men, I don't
question their being devout or sincere. But as you say you can tell
whether they are or not by their fruit. In Jesus' day there were some 
who were devout believing that they were followers of God and felt they
were doing his will, but listen what Jesus had to say to them:

"I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me, 
because my word finds no place in you. I speak of what I have seen
with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father." They
answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were
Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did, but now you seek to kill
me, a man who has told the truth which I heard from God; this is not what
Abraham did. You do what your father did." They said to him, "We were not
born from fornication; we have one Father even God." If God were your
Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I
came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what
I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your
father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was
a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, 
because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to
his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:37-44 RSV

You may feel that your friends are bearing good fruit, but please consider
that being part of your nations military that in worldly conflicts they
will have to show partiality in regard to their foreign spiritual brother.
They are required to show allegiance to their country and not their brother.
Yet the apostle Peter had this to say about God:

"Truly I percieve that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one
who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him." Acts 10:34,35 RSV

Surely, professing Christians would want to follow the example of God by
showing impartiality.

This century, during times of war, Protestant has killed Prostestant and
Catholic killed Catholic and yet we read in the Scriptures:

"If anyone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he
who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has 
not seen. And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God 
should love his brother also." 1 John 4:19-21 RSV

Surely then a Christian would not allow anything to put him in the position
of being pitted against his own brother. He would follow the example of Jesus
in laying down his own life for his brother rather than taking his brother's. 
Jesus said that people would identify his followers by this mark that they had
love for each other the same that Jesus showed (John 13:34,35). During the 
Second World War though there were many German individuals who refused to 
fight for their country, there was one group in particular who has a whole 
refused to fight. Many of this group died in concentration camps, yet they 
never took up arms against their brother. I am sure that their God was well
pleased with the stand they took as a group.

What has been preached since Jesus' day is the "good news of peace" Acts 
10:36 RSV, and it's being preached throughout the inhabited earth (Matt
24:14). Those responding to it's message will recognise Christ's brothers
in other lands and will display peaceable fruit. Prefering to lay down
their own life rather than risk, by joining the military, taking the 
life of a fellow believer. So the love for the whole association of brothers
and sisters and fear of displeasing God are compelling reasons for not bearing
arms (1 Peter 2:17).

Phil.

 Re .62

 First in America there always has been an alternative :
 When I went into the service it was mandatory. One could become a Conscientous
 Objector (CO) but would still have to serve as a medic or some other support
 group for the wounded.

 Others (non-COs), such as myself could enlist and pretty much pick ones 
 assignment. The combat groups were the draftees (mostly). I volunteered 
 and stayed in the states, while others went to Nam. Although at the time 
 I would have fought (and might now if it were a "just" war).
 
 Because (secondly) from another point of view than your own;
 To fight for ones country imo is just an extension of the fact that I would 
 protect my family from the wicked if they showed up at my door or window with
 murderous intentions. Would you really stand by and watch someone slit the
 throats of your loved ones or gas them or burn them. What do you think 
 H had in mind for the jewish people in America (or gentiles for that matter).
 Jesus said to turn the other cheek, but a slap is a lot different than a 
 bullet in the head or chucking me and/or my loved ones into an oven.

 Yes, if everyone chose not to fight war would cease. Thats not the case and
 wont be until the Lord destroys the wicked. Until then I believe we have the
 scriptural right to use deadly force to save our (and our loved ones) lives
 from the wicked, if the Lord does not intervene.

 Hank D
 

    Scriptural right??  I don't think I've seen the phrase before.
    
    Kill as God has given you the right.  Right?
    
    I believe the highest and most Christ-like paradigm is to live
    in that life and power that takes away the occasion of war.  I
    believe the Kingdom of God demands it.
    
    Richard
    

    How do you reconcile your pacivism with the Battle of Armageddon?

    It's pacifism.
    
    To answer you in terms you might understand, I'm ready for the Lamb's War.
    
    The Revelation is filled with symbolism and should not be taken
    literally.
    
    Richard
    

   Re .64

  "He wieldeth not the sword in vain"

  My interpretation is that Our Heavenly Father both appoints and approves of 
  those who enforce the law and protect the rights of the innocent. 

  Hank D  

    "The one who lives by the sword shall die by the sword."
    
    I believe God is pleased with justice and mercy, and that not all who
    who are charged with enforcing human legislation consistently do so.
    
    Richard
    

  Re .68

  Millions who have "lived by the sword" have not died by the sword.

  Perhaps this was Jesus way of saying that those who wield the sword
  *offensively* as opposed to *defensively* will die by the sword.
  
   But then again this has not always been true either, so perhaps this
   passage has a hidden meaning.

  In either event he isn't necessarily condeming those who die in defense 
  of their country, just stating that if one takes up the sword in defense
  of their nation (presumably in self-defense) he runs the risk of death.

  We agree, justice is a rare commodity currently.

  Hank D

Note 499.69

>  Millions who have "lived by the sword" have not died by the sword.

I believe the the death Jesus was speaking about was a spiritual death.
Yes, it is possible to outlast the slain.  It is also possible
to die long before death.  (Let the dead bury the dead)

>  In either event he isn't necessarily condeming those who die in defense 
>  of their country, just stating that if one takes up the sword in defense
>  of their nation (presumably in self-defense) he runs the risk of death.

You could say Jesus was condemning only those who take up the sword in
defense of the Messiah, since that was what Peter was doing.  But I sense
you and I would agree that that probably wasn't the case.

I don't see that defending one entity (a country) with the sword is any
better than defending another (the self).

Shalom,
Richard

  Re .70 Richard

  I think we're close to agreement, but not exactly there.
  My judgment call which I feel is tolerated by scripture :
 
  Do whatever you can to avoid violence, turn the other cheek, go the
  other mile, let yourself me humiliated, etc, however when you see that 
  incoming deadly violence or the threat of it is inevitable, either on the 
  personal or national level, then one has to decide whether to receive it 
  meekly (along with your loved ones)  and perhaps die or witness the death 
  of your loved ones, or to resist.

  There are several non-violent methods to resist violence, but when all those
  are exhausted, one has to decide whether to return in like kind.

  I'm not very good at being meek when it comes to my children. If someone
  breaks into my house, I would go immediately to protecting my family
  and myself mode with whatever weapons are at my disposal, if thats not
  the christian thing to do then I'll answer for it later.

  Hank D

re .63

Hank,

I have to disagree that fighting for ones country is an extension of
protecting ones family. Nations fight for differing reasons and it's
not always in defense of ones home land. Ofcourse I would do what I
could to safeguard the safety of my family, but not to the point of
breaking integrity with God. To be honest, though one should show 
respect to the authorities, none of the manmade political regimes are 
worth dieing for even if they are Democratic. The government I want for 
my family is a Theocracy that is God's government or God's kingdom, this 
is worth dying for. Fortunately, Jesus does not require his servants
to fight carnal warfare, but they are called to fight spiritual warfare
(2 Corinthians 10:3,4).

; Yes, if everyone chose not to fight war would cease. Thats not the case and
; wont be until the Lord destroys the wicked. Until then I believe we have the
; scriptural right to use deadly force to save our (and our loved ones) lives
; from the wicked, if the Lord does not intervene.

Jesus, published the good news of peace (Isaiah 52:7), it's message was that 
people of all national groups could live in peace together, not just after 
Armageddon but also NOW (Isaiah 2:2-4,Micah 4:1-3). Infact, this would 
be an identifying mark of true Christians (John 13:34,35).

Jesus' followers are to be found in all nations of the earth, should one
allow national conflicts to rob one of the fellowship that one can have
with their brothers and sisters?. Jehovah's Witnesses don't allow this
to happen and we enjoy peace and unity in the whole brotherhood earth
wide, it is something that we hold of great value and something our
Master expects (Compare 2 Peter 3:14).

"Finally, brethren, farewell. Mend your ways, heed my appeal, agree with
one another, live in peace, and the God of love and peace will be with 
you. Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the saints greet you. The
grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship
of the Holy Spirit be with you all." 2 Corinthians 13:11-14 RSV Paul
admonished Jesus' followers to live in peace and unity, why would any 
of them allow anything to rob them of such fellowship?. 


Phil.


 



Nancy,

Was your question directed at Richard in reply .65?.


Phil.

re: Note 499.72 by Phil.

>Of course I would do what I could to safeguard the safety of my family, 
>but not to the point of breaking integrity with God. 

Something that just occured to me...with the world in general, knowing the
stand JW's take with regard to violence, is there any evidence that they are
more often targets of violence, say robbery or burglary, than others?  Are JWs
perceived as an "easy target"?

I certainly hope not, mind you.  I'm questioning whether such a widespread 
and well known pacifist attitude can work in this world.  

Peace,

Jim

  Re .72  Phil

  you signified John 13:34-35 as a premise for non-violence in essence 
  "that you love one another" And so I do love the Children of God, but 
  Jesus in another place said of the pharisees "you are of your father 
  the devil". I feel no need to love them, in fact Our Heavenly Father 
  had said  "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated". Those who belong to 
  their father the devil and those who are of the "Esau kind" I am under 
  no obligation to love, but join with my Father in "hating" them. I would 
  like to see them become righteous. Apart from that I will resist them 
  and their evil deeds.

  Also in the other passages which you cited, the words "brethren" are used. 
  I dont consider the children of the wicked one my brethren. Do you?

  Hank

re: Note 499.75 by Hank

> in fact Our Heavenly Father had said  
> "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated". 

So God hates the sinner as well as the sin?

Peace,

Jim

re .75

Hank,

No I don't consider the wicked as brothers, even so Jesus instructed
his followers to love their enemies.  However, the point I'm making
is that Jesus' brothers and sisters are found in *all* lands of the 
earth not just the western world. Hence, Jehovah's Witnesses do not 
allow themselves to be pitted against their own brother in another 
land under any circumstance.

During the two world wars, Protestant killed Protestant and Catholic
killed Catholic. War prayers were being given by the clergy on both 
sides requesting divine help in killing their brother in another
land. Did God listen to any of these prayers? compare 1 John 4:20-21.

Psalm 37 is good chapter to read in regard to what will happen to the
wicked and shows that the righteous will find their exquisite delight
in the abundance of peace.

Phil.

re .74

Jim,

Jehovah's Witnesses are targets for crime, but I wouldn't say that they
are targeted more than any other group. In fact, the authorities
have come to realise that in certain inner city areas that postmen
and Jehovah's Witnesses are less likely to be attacked. I guess 
people have come to realise that Jehovah's Witnesses pose no threat
to them. Also many Witnesses keep their "eyes simple", hence they
may not have the materials things that theives are seeking to take.
But time to time, they do get touched by crime,for friends of mine had
their house broken into just the other day. This however is more of
a sign of the times rather than Jehovah's Witnesses being targeted
specificially. However, Jehovah's Witnesses have been targets because
of their preaching and have suffered persecution even in your own
country at the beginning of this Century.

We do look to the authorities for protection, such as the Police. If
robbed we would rather lose our possesions than our lives, so would
give in to a robbers demands. Ofcourse we would report such crimes
to the police.

Phil. 

  Re .76

  > So God hates the sinner as well as the sin?

  Yes, in some cases, if their sin ripens into the blasphemy against the
  Holy Ghost. The text reads Lit. "He who speaks against the Holy Spirit".
  Those who continuously resist the convicting voice of The Spirit of Truth
  will at some point in time  "be cut off and that without remedy" this is 
  a fearful state to be in.

  "God is love" does not preclude the fact that Our Heavenly Father can hate
  certain individuals.

  I am a loving father to my children, but I "hate" child molestors and
  will give them what for if they attempt to seduce my children or any
  children for that fact.

  Re .77 Phil

  I would mostly agree, I would hope my Heavenly Father would keep me from
  the circumstance of having to fight my brother, in fact I think I would
  choose death if I knew I had to kill my spirit-born brother (his body).
  I don't know, wars now-a-days seems so ridiculously stupid and based on
  who-knows-what. When we had the 3rd Reich slaughtering innocent people
  things were much clearer, we were defending our lives.

  Hank D

    Hank,
    
    Let me challange you take your note a little further and explain what
    kind of hate is righteous?

   Re .80 Nancy
 
   Nancy the only thing I feel that is appropriate is to re-quote the 
   scripture and a bit more of the context.

   "as it is written, Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated, what shall we
    say then? is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not, for He says
    to Moses, I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy and I will have
    compassion on whomever I will have compassion. So then it is not of him who
    wills nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy"  Romans 9:13-16 NKJV

  I've seen comentaries that say hate dosn't mean hate in this passage, but
  "loves less" or something else. I dont see why its a problem for people
  to see that God hates the wicked, especially the unregenerate wicked who 
  have wilfully overthrown the love of God and His Truth.

  We are His to do with as He pleases. This may be a little unsettling for
  those who belive in the God of the Bible, but if one reads Romans 9 in its 
  entirety, thats the only conclusion one can come to (imo).

  Hank

People have a hard time letting go of what they deem to be rational
and clear-headed.

And so it is with notions concerning self-defense.  Certainly you want
to protect the lives of your loved ones.  Certainly if you are in a
life-threatening situation you must do what you can to perpetuate your
own existence.  Christ didn't need to teach these.  Life teaches these.
They are universal.

I think people want to find the teachings of Jesus to be sensible
and full of balance.  I hear a lot of preachers qualifying their
message by elaborating on what they DON'T mean by what they've said.
Sometimes such qualifications are vital.  Usually the underlying messages
is, "Don't think I've gone off the deep end, folks."

Jesus went off the deep end.  Maybe the deep end isn't always such a bad
place to be.

Shalom,
Richard

re: Note 499.81 by Hank

Hank, what book are you quoting?  I read Genesis, chapter 25-27 or so, and 
this is what I saw...

Esau and Jacob were twins, with Esau born first (Jacob was holding onto his 
heel).  Esau was his father's (Issac) favorite, Jacob his mother's (Rebekah).

As a child Jacob cheated Esau out of his birthright (being born first) by 
extortion (Esau was hungary and Jacob wouldn't share his food with Esau unless 
the birthright was given to him.)

Later, when Issac was dying and it was time to pass the blessing of the father 
onto the oldest son, Jacob, with Rebeckah's help, again cheated Esau out of 
his father's blessing.  (Esau had a hairy back and his mother fit him with an 
animal skin.  Issac was blind, but could tell that the voice was not Esau's, 
but he felt the fur on Jacob's back and blessed Jacob, thinking it was Esau.

Now, your quote begins "as it is written..." so we can only guess that this 
was a reference to the story of Jacob and Esau, but nowhere in the story (in 
my New American Revised Standard (I think that's the title)) does it say that 
Esau incurred the hate of God.

Certainly looking back, Esau did not fare well, but that was not God's doing, 
it was his brother and mother's scheming.

Peace,

Jim

  Re .83 Jim 

  > What book are you quoting?

  Romans 9.   I'll get the OT ref for you tomorrow (unless someone else does)
  I cited the reference, you probably missed it because its at the very end
  of the last line of the passage.

  Hank D

re: Note 499.84 by Hank

>  Romans 9.   

Thanks.  I already entered a quick paraphrase of the OT.  
What did you think about it?

Peace,

Jim

 Re  .85 Jim

 > Quick paraphrase

 If you mean the struggle between the brothers, Esau was the biggest loser
 He sold his birthright for a "mess of pottage" a bowl of stew.

 The Bible dosnt get down to too many specifics about why God hated Esau.
 I believe its in Hebrews that it says he was a fornicator (pornaia). I 
 believe this is apparent (I've heard) by examining the biblical geneology 
 of Esau, where incest seems to be evident.

 I'll check this PM.

 Hank 

re: Note 499.86 by Hank

> If you mean the struggle between the brothers, Esau was the biggest loser
> He sold his birthright for a "mess of pottage" a bowl of stew.

The price that was demanded by Jacob.  
Would you deny your brother as Jacob did?
Yes, Esau was the "biggest loser", but not at the hand of God.

BTW, in a Bible Study class, I learned that such manipulations such that Jacob
pulled were admired by people in Biblical times.  Deviousness and craftiness
were approved of as attributes of a patriarch. 

Peace,

Jim

    RE:  .62
    
    Phil,
    
    There are passages both in Isaiah 2 and Joel 3 that I'm familiar with
    where God said He would judge nations.  There is a clear distinction
    from individual judgement here.  I'm not saying that individuals won't
    answer for any of their actions during disputes between nations, but
    it's clearly different.  God judges a person's heart, actions can be
    misleading.
    
    I'm bewildered by your use of scripture.  You use a speech Jesus used
    on non-believers and applied it here to believers.  You don't even know
    these men and women.  Yet your willing, apparently, to make a judgement
    on their relationship to God?  This strikes me as a little
    short-sighted considering you don't even recognize the diety of Christ
    by whom they were reconciled to God.  We've talked about Christ before
    offline about a year or so ago.  How can you truly know peace, if you
    don't know Christ?
    
    Jill

  Re .87 Jacob and Esau

  Jim,

  > Deviousness and craftiness were approved of as attributes of a patriarch

  Because, in an age of bloodshed, any character attributes of a leader which 
  created non-violent solutions to social problems were considered the 
  products of Wisdom.

  Jacob was no angel, though he did use non-violent methods to get what he
  wanted. Esau, on the other hand, plotted to murder Jacob for supplanting
  him both of his birthright and first-born inheritance. Also, Esau married
  into Caananite blood lines just to displease his parents. In addition, if 
  you study Gen 36 you will see where Esau (apparently) took his daughter 
  Aholibamah as his wife who was the daughter of Anah (also his wife). 

  Jacob wrestled with "the angel" and became Israel (a name from heaven 
  indicating the birth from heaven).  

  The Jacob and Esau historical event is a type or an allegory regarding the
  persection of the righteous by the religious.

  Hank

re: Note 499.89 by 

Hank, I think we're drifting from the issue.  The question is about hate.  
Certainly God hates sin, but does God also hate the sinner?  Where in Genesis, 
does it say that God *hated* Esau?  I couldn't find it.  Now is Paul speaking 
through his hat?  Did our version of Genesis change from the time that Paul 
lived?  Did our version od Ephesians (I believe it was) change since Paul's 
time?  There's a disconnect here somewhere.

Peace,

Jim

re .79

Hank,

You seem to have strong convictions and you can see that it's wrong to
take the life of a brother, that's good. You say that you hope that your
Heavenly Father would hold you back in such circumstances during national
conflicts. Though, God disciplines his subjects he still allows
them free will to do good or bad. He wants his subjects to make
wise choices for this would be pleasing to him for Proverbs 27:11 NWT
reads "Be wise, my son, and make my heart rejoice, that I may make
a reply to him that is taunting me." How much better would it be
if God's subjects were to choose to live in peace, rather than God 
having to hold such ones back from killing each other. It's also worth
remembering David's example when he had the opportunity to take
King Saul's life, who was persuing him, without hesitation he knew 
that it was wrong to take the life of Jehovah's anointed one. God
did not need to hold him back.

Also in times of national conflict, the comrades that one might fight 
with may not have such strong convictions and would not think twice
about taking the life of one of Christ's brothers or sisters. By
aligning oneself with such persons, is one party to their actions?. 

This century ever bigger weapons of mass destruction are being developed.
These are designed to kill indiscriminately, in fact in modern warfare
it is civilians who suffer the most casulaties and fatalities. One might 
not press the trigger but agreeing and backing in development of such 
weapons, could one be party to their use?.

For the Rwandan refugees the main threat to them going back to their
home land is not the rebel forces, but land mines that where planted
in and around houses and footpaths etc when the war was being fought.
Whether Christian or not, the principle remains the same "One reaps 
what one sows". 


Phil.

reposting of note .90

.re .88

Jill,

Some comments on your note....

;God judges a person's heart, actions can be misleading.

The heart is known as the "seat of motivation", so our actions are an
indication as to what is in our hearts. For this reason Jesus' disciples
will be known by the fruit they produce.
 
;    I'm bewildered by your use of scripture.  You use a speech Jesus used
;    on non-believers and applied it here to believers.  You don't even know
;    these men and women.  Yet your willing, apparently, to make a judgement
;    on their relationship to God?

The reason for using John 8:37-44 was to back up your own arguement that
Jesus' disciples will be known by the good fruit they produce. At no time
did I say that your friends reflect the Jews as mentioned in this portion
of Scripture. This portion of Scripture reminds myself that it is not
just good enough to say that I'm Christian,but one also needs to do God's
will with ones whole heart,soul and mind. If one does the works of Satan
the Devil, then one will be identified as one of his children.

;This strikes me as a little short-sighted considering you don't even
;recognize the diety of Christ by whom they were reconciled to God.  We've
;talked about Christ before offline about a year or so ago.  How can you
;truly know peace, if you don't know Christ?
 
Strangely, Jesus got a similar reaction in verse 48 of John 8 when he
spokes these words. To answer your question, one cannot know real
peace without knowing Jehovah's anointed one (John 17:3). Jesus is
the master of those who follow him, but as individuals we only show
that he is master if we are obedient to his commands. So let's look
at John 13:34,35 RSV "A new commandment I give to you, that you love
one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love another. By
this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for
one another." The point I'm hoping to make is that should Christians
allow national conflicts to come between the love they should have
for their brothers and sisters in other lands?. Jehovah's Witnesses
don't allow this to happen, hence they enjoy peace and unity with their
brothers and sisters worldwide. In my own mind and heart, this is what
Jesus Christ wants of his followers in fact he said it would be an
identifying mark.

Phil.

re: Note 499.78 by Phil.

Phil,

Thanks for your answer.  It's heartening to know that such pacifism can be 
maintained in this world.  I admire JW's strength to walk that path.

Peace,

Jim

 Re .91 Jim 

 > drifting, 

 yes, but God will make WAR on the wicked, someday in a place called Armageddon.

 Paul was quoting (in Romans 9) from Malachi 2-3 I believe.

 > Certainly God hates sin, but does God also hate the sinner?

 For you are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness, 
 nor shall evil dwell with you
 The boastful shall not stand in your sight
 You hate all the workers of iniquity        
 You shall destroy those who speak falsehood
 The Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man      Psalm 5:4-6 NKJV

 The Lord tests the righteous
 but the wicked and the one who loves violence
 His soul hates
 Upon the wicked He will rain coals, fire and brimstone
 and a burning wind shall be the portion of their cup
 For the Lord is righteous
 He loves righteousness
 His countenance beholds the upright.                    Psalm 11:5-7 NKJV

re .94

Jim,

Thanks for your kind words, btw though we are viewed as Pacifists (sp?)
we do not class ourselves as such. For we are willing to fight for our 
God, it's just that he calls us to fight spiritual warfare and not carnal
warfare (compare 2 Corinthians 10:3,4).

Phil.

    .94
    
    I would confirm what Phil said.  JW's have consistently distanced
    themselves from the term pacifist, though many have spent time in
    jail alongside pacifists for refusing military conscription.
    
    Richard
    

Note 499.89

>  Jacob was no angel, though he did use non-violent methods to get what he
>  wanted.

Hank,

	A statement like this demonstrates a lack of understanding of the
nature of nonviolence.  Manipulation, coercion, unprincipled negotiation,
while not observably violent, are frequently at the root of what leads to
overt violence, and therefore, should not be construed as genuinely nonviolent.

Shalom,
Richard

  Re .98 Richard

  > A statement like this demonstrates a lack of understanding...

  Let me ask you a question :
  
  Is the statement above manipulative or do you sincerely believe I lack
  understanding of the nature of non-violence?

  And if I did, how could I ask the question above?

 Hank D

re: Note 499.95 by Hank

>                            -< judge for yourself >-

Well, the words are there, but...

I still go back to Genesis.  Nowhere does it say God hated Esau.  He certainly 
got the short end of the stick, but to come to the conclusion that God hated 
Esau is a big stretch in my opinion.  Did Malachi have access to the same
scripture we have today?  Was he reading between the lines?  He is a minor 
prophet.  Is God contradictory?  There is a dilemma here, and I don't have the 
answer.

On the other hand, perhaps we have a hateful God.  Paul exhorts us to imitate 
God.  Who shall be my Esau?  (That's a rhetorical question.)

My God is not a hateful God.  Merciful and just, but not hateful.

Peace,

Jim

  Re .100 Jim, 

  > to come to the conclusion that God hated Esau is a big stretch...

  Its the conclusion that Malachi and Paul came to when inspired to write the
  scriptures. I know its a difficult doctrine, nevertheless its one which the
  Bible propounds, and not only Esau, but others like him. Apparently there
  are those whom God deals with that intelligently reject Him and His love
  either by decision or a continual display of animosity towards Him.

  Look at the description of who it is he hates :

  the bloodthirsty, deceitful, perjurous and violent person
  He repays them according to their own works. 

  You see, they receive His justice, not His mercy.

  That Our Heavenly Father is just, does not preclude His mercy
  or take away that fact that He is love.

  He exercises His "strange" work of judgement for the benefit of the
  others. He takes no delight in the death of the wicked and the judgement
  His justice demands He dispense toward them.

re: Note 499.101 by Hank

Hate, justice without mercy...Makes me wonder if I want to remain a Christian.

>  That Our Heavenly Father is just, does not preclude His mercy
>  or take away that fact that He is love.

I agree, however that seems to be in direct opposition to the previous
statement.  Justice does not equal hate.

>  He takes no delight in the death of the wicked and the judgement
>  His justice demands He dispense toward them.

This is good, yet it again seems opposed to God's hate.

And yet, as a person who does not always take the Bible literally, and sees 
contradictions in scripture, I can work on processing this.  It does help me 
see how "good Christian folk" can carry a sign saying "God Hates Faggots".
(Not speaking of anyone here.)

Peace,

Jim

    Another example of the Bible identifying attributes of God that are not
    Godly.  Again each of us must choose whether we believe the Bible's
    description which is erroneous or what we intuitively know is an
    attribute of a God of Love.
    
                                      Patricia

re Note 499.103 by POWDML::FLANAGAN:

>     Another example of the Bible identifying attributes of God that are not
>     Godly.  Again each of us must choose whether we believe the Bible's
>     description which is erroneous or what we intuitively know is an
>     attribute of a God of Love.
  
        In the final analysis you can't say "description which is
        erroneous" if you don't have an absolute standard against
        which to judge God as depicted in the texts.

        I can see the appeal of having a text which you believe is
        entirely inerrant and entirely a message direct from God.  It
        enables one to make absolute statements.

        On the other hand, one can't use the appeal of being able to
        make absolute statements a rationale for believing in
        word-for-word authorship by God.  

        Bob

 
 Re .102 Jim

 >...Makes me wonder if I want to remain a Christian

 your decision to remain a Christian or not, will not change God's mind one
 way or another about his essential being and character.
 This sounds as if you see and understand what the scripture is saying 
 but reject it because you don't like it. That's your choice.
 
 Personally, I don't think anyone can know on an individual basis just
 who God hates or dosn't hate (other than Esau) and I for one wouldn't 
 carry a sign around with the slogan that you mentioned even if I did
 believe it to be so. Again and personally, I believe God hates those
 who have hated Him first.

 Re .103 Patricia

 > what we intuitively know is an attribute of a God of love

 We have come full circle Patricia, even if we trust in our intuitive
 sense of what God is like, the question "How can these REALLY BAD things be..."
 (Holocaust, Africa tragedy, etc) is still there in our face. We don't need 
 the revelation of the Word of God to see that we have a problem with God.

 We are a fallen race, we love darkness, it is natural and normal for us 
 to judge Our Heavenly Father. But He still loves us.

 Hank D 
 

    Hank,
    
    Yours is one solution to the question.
    
    Each of us is fallen and cannot really tell the difference between love
     and hate. We cannot know that these two are really opposites.  If the
    Bible says that God is a God of love and that God loves us all and the
    bible also says that God hates Esau, we must accept that the Bible does not
    contradict itself and has attributed two inconsistent opposits to the
    character of God.  It must be the falleness and studitity of humankind
    that sees these as essential contradictions.
    
    The other alternative is that their really are contradiction in the
    Bible and that each of us must use the rational facilities that God has
    given us to determine when we find inconsistencies such as this one,
    which one we are going to regard as authoritative.
    
    I am going to use the image of God is Love as authoritative.
    I am going to hold false the text that God hates Esau.  God does not
    hate any one of us.  God may hate sin and corruption but not the
    individuals.  Contradictions in the Bible the falsifiy the nature of
    God are caused by the misunderstanding, limitations, and falleness of
    the individual authors of those statements.
    
    I do not have a clue how anyone who defines God as a God of Love can
    read that God hates Esau and not see an absolute contradiction.
    
                                    patricia

    
    RE: .93
    
    Phil I would agree with you that war is not good and we should strive
    for peace, but you skirted the only issue that really counts.  To be a
    follower of Jesus Christ you have to recognize who He is...and He ain't
    no angel. He's God.  Even your JW's own reference books show it;
    Colossian 2:9.  You're right about one thing...it's not good
    enough to say that you're a Christian if you don't do the will of God -
    accepting Jesus for who He is and for what He came to do for us, is 
    what God desires first and foremost from all of us.
      
    Jill

    .99
    
    Hank,
    
    	What I'm saying is that Jacob's manipulation of Esau wasn't
    in keeping with nonviolence, even though superficially it wasn't
    a violent act.
    
    Richard
    

  Patricia,

  There are many probable solutions to the apparent problem of the 
  contradictions of life. Let me offer yet another one Re the apparent 
  contradiction of a God of whom the Scripture states "God is love" and 
  yet also speaks concerning His hate for certain individuals and groups 
  ("the wicked").

  "God is love" - His essential character of being.
  That God hates certain individuals - His exceptional character of being.

  We all know of people who are characterized as being, for instance,
  "cheerful", yet have seen them on occasion to be sad. Or those whom we
  think of as "easy going" getting angry. When we see this we often say
  "she's out of character" or "thats not his style" 

  Its out of character and not His style for God to hate, but He does.

  Why do we find this difficult to accept about Our Heavenly Father? He is 
  not a robot we can hurt and grieve Him to the point that His love will
  turn to hate and thats an awful situation for either God or man to be in.

  The fact is that there are certain individuals who although they know and 
  understand intuitively that God is love, work very hard at overthrowing 
  Him in their lives, I don't mean they just ignore Him , many if not most 
  of us do that on a regular basis, or that they do not acknowledge Him. These
  actually hate God and go out of their way to be antagonistic towards Him
  and His authority, their deeds culminating into such things as murder and
  violence. Though our God is a God of love He is also a God of justice
  He may have, at one time, loved them on an individual basis, but since 
  they have this need to hate Him, He simply returns their animosity and 
  one day will repay their evil deeds with their own devices and in the 
  violent manner with which they have dealt with their fellow man.

  There is a sense in which we can say that God still loves them potentially
  in that if they would turn to Him He would yet receive them.

  This is my solution to this apparent problem of God's hate, and to be 
  frank, I admire the honesty of yours : to go with your heart. You know, 
  I think many  "thumpers" feel the same way but can't openly admit it.


  Re .108 Richard  <I perceive we both misunderstood>
 
  I agree, Jacob was rightfully called the "supplanter".


  Hank

re: Note 499.109 by Hank

>  Its out of character and not His style for God to hate, but He does.

If God does, then it IS in God's character.  Or are you saying that God's
character is not constant? 

>  He is not a robot we can hurt and grieve Him to the point that His 
>  love will turn to hate ...

Hank, are you missing a comma after the word "robot"?  That completely changes 
the meaning of your sentence.  

>  These actually hate God and go out of their way to be antagonistic towards 
>  Him and His authority, ...

Can you show me where Esau went out of his way to be antagonistic towards God?
(Refer to Genesis, not a third hand account please.)

>  Though our God is a God of love He is also a God of justice...

Justice AND Mercy together, always.

>  He simply returns their animosity and one day will repay their evil deeds 
>  with their own devices and in the violent manner with which they have dealt 
>  with their fellow man.

Again, where did Esau show animosity?

>  This is my solution to this apparent problem of God's hate, 

Well, if it works for you, fine.  I must side with Patricia on this.
(You're still my brother, even if you ARE wrong...  .-) .-) .-)

Peace,

Jim

    Hank,
    
    YOur explanation sounds like a real rationalization of the issue of
    Love and Hate to me.  Love and Hate are two inconsistent opposites.  If
    God's character is to love than he cannot hate.  If God is perfect and
    omnipotent, than humans cannot provoke him to hate.
    
    I am a mother of teenage children.  Often they do a lot to try to
    provoke me.  I can get angry at them, I can punish them.  I could not
    imagine ever hating them.  Sometimes as teenagers they tell me they
    hate me.  It would be wrong and childish for me to return this anger
    and provocation with hatred.
    
    If God is a God of love he cannot hate.  He cannot hate Esau or anyone
    else.  I do agree with Jim's questions though.  In Genesis Esau does
    nothing to cause God's hatred.  There is no indication that God hates
    Esau.  Again an indication of how successive biblical writers can alter
    and distort the original stories and use them to illustrate their
    theological orientations which are a constant evolution and change.
    
    Hank, do you not believe in unconditional love?  What does that mean to
    you?
    
    Patricia

  Re .110 Jim; .111 Patricia
  
 > If God does, then it IS in God's character. Or are you saying that God's
   character is not constant.
 
 Ok, Let me give you an example : God sent Jonah (after his own personal crisis
 and yes, I believe Jonah was literally in the belly of a fish for 3 days) 
 to the wicked Ninevites and said "40 days and Ninevah will be destroyed" 
 We all know the story, they repented and God "repented" of the "evil" He
 had planned for Ninevah. God is *consistent* in His feelings and emotions
 towards sin and evil. We repent of our evil and Our Heavenly Father "repents".
 This is the constant part of the equation.

 > Hank are you missing a comma?   Yes.

 Our Heavenly Father has chosen to enter the time continuum and meet us where
 we are. His feelings do fluctuate, not in the same manner as ours. He is 
 SLOW to anger VERY patient and difficult to provoke to wrath, but it is 
 indeed possible, as the scriptures attest. 
 
 He is a real person, not a robot. He has feelings. He loves us and wants
 what is best for His children as any parent does. I know it is not PC, but
 He can be a VERY HARSH Father, rebuking and chastising us.

 > Can you show me where Esau went out of his way to be antagonistic towards
   God? (Refer to Genesis, not a third hand account please.)

 Not today, (dont have an OT here) maybe Tuesday (when I'll be back). Re 
 Third hand account... To me it makes no difference where in the Bible it 
 states "Esau have I hated", since the God who inspired the human author of 
 Genesis, also inspired the human author of Malachi. Malachi's  mind was 
 illuminated by The Spirit of Truth to write what he did. presumably we differ 
 in our beliefs here.
 
 Patricia

 > If God is perfect and omnipotent, then humans cannot provoke Him to wrath.

   I know you don't like the book of Revelation, but this is  what the book is
   all about, The Wrath of God. To be sure it draws upon the OT for quite a
   bit of its text. The book of Revelation shows that on "The Day of The Lord"
   the wicked will be given several opportunities to repent before their
   final demise. They cannot be allowed to go on forever killing and working
   iniquity, God has promised throught out the Bible to put an end to the
   deeds of the wicked. He will repay them in their own language of violence.
   
 > If God is a God of love he cannot hate. He cannot hate Esau or anyone else.

   "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated
    what shall we say, is there unrighteousness with God?..."

 The disconnect is related to our difference of opinion concerning the 
 scriptures.

 Yes, I believe in unconditional love. Love includes correction. "whom I
 love I chastise and rebuke". It also includes the removal of the Hitlers
 of this world for the benefit of those who are not violent.

 You've asked me a question, let me ask you one

 Do you love people like Adolf Hitler, Stalin, Charles Manson and Po-Pot?
 
 Hank

re: Note 499.112 by Hank

> Third hand account... To me it makes no difference where in the Bible it 
> states "Esau have I hated", since the God who inspired the human author of 
> Genesis, also inspired the human author of Malachi. 

To me it does.  I think it's that context thang.  Jesus' words speak clearer 
to me than Paul's.  I don't put the same emphasis on each book of the Bible.  
The Bible is a library.  Some books are more factual based, others are more 
spiritual based, et cetera. 

Peace,

Jim

>Jesus' words speak clearer to me than Paul's.

But in both cases they are God's words, put onto paper by human authors
under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Q. Why do we call the Holy Scriptures the Word of God?
A. We call them the Word of God because God inspired their human authors
   and because God still speaks to us through the Bible.
                                                          [79 BCP p.853]
/john

re:  Note 499.114 by /john

>But in both cases they are God's words, put onto paper by human authors
>under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Not quite.  As Glen has pointed out, there are instances where Paul states 
that he is speaking for himself.  Could he have done the same and forgotten to 
tell us?  Could he have been influenced by his culture and personal 
perspective?  After all, he's only human.  I hold the Bible to be inspired by 
God, but I am not a literalist or an inerrantist.  Nor am I looking for an 
easy way out.

Besides, if you hold to that position, then the story in Genesis, the original 
story, must agree, yet it does not mention God's hate of Esau.

>Q. Why do we call the Holy Scriptures the Word of God?

The Word *of* God.

of:	a function word to indicate origin or derivation
	a function word to indicate cause, motive or reason
	on the part of
	relating to
	a function word to indicate belonging or a posessive relationship
	a function word to indicate separation
	a function word to indicate a particular example belonging to a class
	a function word to indicate apposition
	a function word to indicate the object of an action
	a function word to indicate the application of a verb or adjective
	a function word to indicate a characteristic

There are many possible meanings of the phrase.

Peace,

Jim

>As Glen has pointed out, there are instances where Paul states that he is
>speaking for himself.

We discussed Paul speaking for himself before; you must have missed my reply.
Paul is expounding on a teaching by Jesus.  He indicates what Jesus himself
said, and then indicates what his exposition upon it is.

His exposition, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is part the
Word of God, and has the same authority as the rest of the document.

As for "Esau have I hated" -- this must be understood in the context of
all of Scripture, which shows that God loves all humankind.  Therefore,
God also loves Esau.  However, when compared with God's special love of
Jacob, his behaviour towards Esau looks like hatred.  This sort of contrast
is a very common Semitic way of speaking; Jesus uses it as well, when he
speaks of love of God which must be so strong that love of parents may
look like hatred by comparison (Mt 10:37 & Lk 14:26).

/john

re Note 499.116 by COVERT::COVERT:

> We discussed Paul speaking for himself before; you must have missed my reply.
> Paul is expounding on a teaching by Jesus.  He indicates what Jesus himself
> said, and then indicates what his exposition upon it is.
> 
> His exposition, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is part the
> Word of God, and has the same authority as the rest of the document.
  
        Certainly possible, but it certainly strains credibility.

        It seems that there are quite a few cases in the Bible (which
        the the inerrantists claim was authored word-for-word by the
        God who made heaven and earth, who made all things) which have
        a contextual ambiguity in the text -- and one which would by
        the inerrantists' standard lead to a major misdirection --
        which a slight change in wording would have cleared up for
        all time!  Sometimes the God of the inerrantists seems *so*
        careless (or so devious).

        Bob

re .107

Jill,

Accurate knowledge of Jesus and whom Jesus termed the "only true God" is
essential (John 17:3). Those living in harmony with this knowledge will
enjoy peace not just in the future but also now, something that would
stand out in the world that we live in today (John 13:35). 

You state that I'm skirting the issue, but is this the case. At the
end of the day, if one allows animosity to come between oneself and
ones brother or sister of <insert any nationality> under any circumstance
then one does not trully know or love God at all (Compare 1 John 4:19-21).

Btw I know of no Jehovah Witness reference books that state that Jesus
is God. And I can't see how this is in line with this topic. If you
want to, quote which publications and page in an appropriate topic and 
we can discuss this there.

Phil.

  Re .112 

  God's hate of Esau in the book of Genesis.

  You are right, its not in the Book of Genesis, however as I said before,
  that's of no real consequence to me, since I hold to the inspiration of
  the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit illuminating the minds of those who later
  wrote of this matter (such as Malachi, Paul).

  I know this is difficult, and you can see that even those who hold to 
  inerrancy of the scripture will compromise this word "hate" when applied
  to Our Heavenly Father. However the word when applied to God in the
  Psalms and Malachi is a Hebrew word which has no compromise. It is hate
  plain and simple (SANAH - Sin-Nun-Aleph). It is more intense than the
  english word for hate. Lets Look again :

  The Lord (Jehovah) tests the righteous, but the wicked and the one who loves 
  violence His soul hates.
  Upon the wicked He will rain coals; fire and brimstone and a burning wind
  shall be the portion of their cup.
  For the LORD (Jehovah) is righteous, He loves righteousness, His countenance
  beholds the upright.    Psalm 11:5-7.

  Here is possibly one of the most difficult passages in the scripture, yet
  Pauls (when speaking of God's hate for Esau) question is "Is there 
  unrighteousness with God?" Several things should be observed : (1) This 
  passage is under the Old Covenant. When we choose Law rather than Grace
  then we will be tested and judged as under the Law Covenant. These are those 
  rare individuals (in all probability) that have committed the "Great 
  Trangression" which David mentions. The  "breaking" of the Spirit of Torah 
  (Thou shalt love the Lord   thy God with all thy heart...and thy neighbor as 
  thyself) 2) Those judged and found guilty Under the Law He repays in like 
  kind "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life" violence for their 
  violence. 3) It would seem to me that only Our Father in heaven can know 
  who has commited this great transgression. Only He can see the hatred for 
  Him in their hearts. 4) No specialty group has a 99 year lease on this sin. 
  The Pharisees were among the fundamentalists  (thumpers) of Jesus day. Some 
  truly loved the Torah, (Joseph, Nicodemus) some did not. So it is possible 
  that even amongst the "religious" these exist. ("Beware of wolves in sheep's 
  clothing"). 5) John Covert has posted the prayer of Manasses in note 954. 
  Here was a man who "shed much innocent blood" and thereby would have been 
  the recipient of the violence of Psalm 11:5-7 when he stood in the Judgement, 
  yet he turned (please read his prayer) and Our Heavenly Father forgave him 
  and loved him again.

  So it is with anyone who will turn to Him. Our Father's hate is His last
  attempt to convict a person of sin (through the scripture) and is 
  paradoxically, an expression of His love.
  
  Hank

    
    	"War crimes" is a redundant phrase.
    

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired
signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are
not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone.  It is spending the sweat of
its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children...
This is not a way of life in any true sense.  Under the cloud of threatening
war, is it humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

						- Dwight D. Eisenhower

    Yes.  How stupid we as a human race are.  What a tremendous waste of
    resources and talent.  
    
    One can look at the glass half emptry or half full.  I would hate to
    learn what oppression would be faced without a strong national defense.

    I guess the moral absolutists get to "pick and choose" the
    absolute morality (based on self-interest) to which they'll
    adhere.
    
    Richard
    

    Well don't worry Richard.  If you're ever my neighbor and I see three
    muggers climbing a ladder to get into your house, I'll still knock them
    off the ladder despite your wishes!!!
    
    -Jack

Note 499.124

>    Well don't worry Richard.  If you're ever my neighbor and I see three
>    muggers climbing a ladder to get into your house, I'll still knock them
>    off the ladder despite your wishes!!!
    
If this is supposed to somehow parallel national security, you probably
sold the muggers the ladder and trained them in covert operations in the
first place.

Richard

    No Richard:
    
    It was your gimme gimme ilk that taught a whole generation the art of
    irresponsibility.  Now we were a world of dysfunctionals who don't
    understand the value of achieving excellence!!
    
    -Jack

Note 499.126

>    No Richard:
>    
>    It was your gimme gimme ilk that taught a whole generation the art of
>    irresponsibility.  Now we were a world of dysfunctionals who don't
>    understand the value of achieving excellence!!
    
Man, that's rational.

    Yeah, well at least I'm not cranky over it!!!!

    I think President Clinton needs to begin legislation requiring all high
    school students upon graduation to serve one year in the military.  
    
    Not so much to teach the war part, but to develop skills in building
    character and responsibility.  I believe this will raise the number of
    students attending college and I believe scores to increase.
    
    The remarks I made a few replies ago aren't accurate; but they do stem
    from a frustration I have with flag burners and individuals who take
    take take and reap the bennies of the US but haven't the integrity 
    to take some pride in the country.  I find most of these individuals
    are baby boomers.
    
    -Jack

Jack,

A question.

Do you believe the quote "My country, right or wrong" sums up the attitude we
should all display?

Steve

    Steve:
    
    No, it isn't the attitude.  The Civil War is a good example of this.  
    Abortion is legal in this country yet I believe in the right of
    protest.  
    
    I do however support the Constitutional edict of a strong defense, but
    not a strong offense.  Remember, Hezekiah befriended the Babylonians
    and showed their emmisaries all the treasures of Israel.  Israel was
    plundered because of this Godly mans stupidity.
    
    Post Vietnam ot present has offered a time of peace within this
    country.  Fear is an international language.
    
    -Jack

re: .131 AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!"

OK. I do believe that you can burn a flag as an act of protest and still have
integrity and not be on the dole.

Overall I have great pride in this country, but as a nation we have done many
things that I also take great shame in.

Steve

    Okay, so we have done some shameful things.  Does this mean we throw
    out the baby with the bath water or do we continue to uphold the
    Constitution?  A strong defense is still required both by law and by
    conviction.  During the Revolutionary War, there was always a
    flagholder bearing the phrase, "By God and Musket".  
    
    Fear is an international language.
    
    -Jack 

    How Christ-like.
    
    Richard
    

    Richard:
    
    Could you provide a pointer or a blue print here for your solution.
    I'd be very interested in hearing it considering you are living in a
    country that has been relatively secure under the current plan.  
    
    Somehow, I have a feeling you aren't going to comply...right?

    .135
    
    Christ said, "Base your relationships on fear," eh?
    
    How about this switch: "Perfect fear casts out love"?  The trouble is
    that it's true.
    
    Richard
    

    Okay Richard, good point.  Now what about the question I
    asked...considering 99% of the world believes not the verse you just
    quoted.   What about plan B?  I've heard alot of your views on military 
    issues but you haven't given any feasible solutions in a sinful world.
    
    I would think Reagans Star Wars program would be very attractive to
    you.
    
    -Jack

    Plan B?  You would settle for less than Christ's way?
        
    Richard
    
    PS  Star Wars should remain the realm of filmmakers.

            re 499.129 by AIMHI::JMARTIN

    > I think President Clinton needs to begin legislation requiring all high
    > school students upon graduation to serve one year in the military.

    This is a restatement of the 18th century French notion that the
    military is the university of the nation. The romanticism of chivalry
    in the military is highly overrated, at best.  

    In *The New Realities*, Peter Drucker explains why militarism,
    specifically in the guise of foreign policy, is counterproductive. He
    does so very clearly and in very pragmatic terms. 
    
    Eric

   >>     Plan B?  You would settle for less than Christ's way?
    
    Jesus told us that nation would rise against nation and kingdom would
    rise against kingdom.  You don't have to tell me about Christ's way
    Richard.  Tell it to the guy who loathes your existence and would think
    nothing of knocking your house out with a cluster bomb.  So, what is
    your plan B?
    
   >>     PS  Star Wars should remain the realm of filmmakers.
    
    Okay...but why?  It is strictly a defensive set up.
    
    I would like to remind the readers here that the Patriot Missile is
    part of the Strategic Defense Initiative, which incidently the
    democrats fought against tooth and nail.  I submit to you that had not
    Israel had the Patriot missile, Iraq would very likely have gone up in
    flames.
    
    Richard, with all due respect, you don't seem to realize that we live
    in a sinful world with ALLLOOOOOOTTTT of bad people.  Wake up
    Richard!!!!
    
    -Jack

re Note 499.140 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>    >>     PS  Star Wars should remain the realm of filmmakers.
>   
>     Okay...but why?  It is strictly a defensive set up.

        If you see a man carrying a shield and he has no weapons,
        then his shield is clearly defensive.

        If you see a man who is armed to the teeth *also* carrying a
        shield, then you would be wise to regard his shield as part
        of his offensive capability, since it supports his ability to
        attack you.

>     I would like to remind the readers here that the Patriot Missile is
>     part of the Strategic Defense Initiative, which incidently the
>     democrats fought against tooth and nail.  

        The development of the Patriot missile started under Jimmy
        Carter.  It was brought under the SDI umbrella when SDI
        desperately needed something good to show for its
        expenditures.

        Bob

    Well, I highly commend the Carter Administration for the foresight!
    
    I also remind you that Reagan was willing to share the technology with
    the Soviet Union.
    
    -Jack

Note 499.140

>    Jesus told us that nation would rise against nation and kingdom would
>    rise against kingdom.  You don't have to tell me about Christ's way
>    Richard.  Tell it to the guy who loathes your existence and would think
>    nothing of knocking your house out with a cluster bomb.  So, what is
>    your plan B?

Jack, did Jesus indicate that these circumstances were the result of God's
will?  Or did Jesus perhaps realize that, for the most part, God's will
would be disregarded?

You perhaps believe the former.  I believe the latter.

>    Okay...but why?  It is strictly a defensive set up.

You've bought the Teller/Reagan lie.  Too complex to go into here.  More
relevant, what example did Jesus provide his followers concerning self-
defense?

Tell me, Jack, do you pray the Lord's prayer?

What do you mean when you pray, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven"?

Shalom,
Richard

    Jesus gave a perfect example of how he was.  He submitted to the will
    of God by not putting up a fight.  He waited for the appointed time and
    relinquished His authority and power to the will of man, submitting to
    death on a cross.  
    
    This all sounds very good Richard but I'm still trying to understand. 
    Is it your position that we burn our weapons of war, open our borders
    to all intruders, and let the chips fall where they may?  
    
    -Jack

    Weapons will be here until the prophecies of Revelation are all
    fulfilled.  Israel will finally see the conquering Messiah that they've
    been looking for.

    I'd still be very interested to hear if Richard is a man of conviction
    here.  That if unilateral disarmament meant his home and family were to
    be destroyed that he would count it worth the cost!
    
    -Jack

    .145
    
    That is the easy way out.  With such a perspective, one is
    helpless and need do nothing.  I reject it.
    
    Richard
    

    Richard, you have a lot more nerve than I in rejecting the track record
    of Messianic prophecies.  The power of God's Word humbles me.
    
    Mike

 Even as we speak, the pieces of the puzzle are coming together...

    >>I'd still be very interested to hear if Richard is a man of
    >>conviction here.  That if unilateral disarmament meant his home and family
    >>were to be destroyed that he would count it worth the cost!
    
    Richard?

    .148
    
    I am merely rejecting your interpretation and perspective.
    
    God's Word is Jesus Christ.  I refer you to John 1.1-5.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

.144

Jack,

	I don't have all the answers.  I realize that you're looking
to me for a solution, some grand plan.

	I am less into solutions and more into process.  I am less into
ends and more into means.  I believe Christ's teachings speak more to us
in terms of "the way" than of the outcome.

	I also know that we still need to turn our thinking upside-down
just as much now as ever, in order to truly follow the One we call Lord.

Shalom,
Richard

    Richard:
    
    I understand the principle, I really do.  You may recall I brought upon
    the example of how Hezekiah, a Godly King of Israel invited the
    Babylonians in to show them the treasuries of Israel.  The end result 
    was that God cursed Hezekiah for his lack of foresight and wisdom.  The
    curse or end result was that all that was before him would be plundered 
    by the Babylonian empire...and it was.  In fact, Hezekiah's stupidity 
    became the pivotal reason for Babylons offensive posture with Israel.
    
    God knew there was wickedness in the world.  Our attitudes, mine in
    particular, may very well be the cause of self fulfilled prophecy.  The
    world is full of distrust and tension.  So right now, until Christs
    return, it appears that fear draws temperance and respect by foes. 
    I'd certainly be sure to think twice before putting my hand in the fire 
    again.  
    
    -Jack
    
    

    .153
    
    You've chosen to venture only into charted waters.  It's
    understandable.  It is the way of the world.
    
    Better safe than sorry.
    
    The trouble is that it's incongruent with the teachings and example
    of Christ.  Oh, well...
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Richard:
    
    When we get news that a hurricane is on its way, we board our doors,
    tape our windows, fill the bath tub, make sure there is extra food,
    charge the battery to the pellet stove, etc.  
    
    I would hope you take similar precautions when a tornado passes
    through.  
    
    This example has everything to do with the subject and God commanded
    Israel to always be prepared.   There is nothing wrong with this.  It
    usually saves more lives in the long run!
    
    -Jack

Luke 17:22
And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see
one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.
Luke 17:23
And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor
follow them.
Luke 17:24
For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth
unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.
Luke 17:25
But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.
Luke 17:26
And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of
man.
Luke 17:27
They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage,
until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed
them all.
Luke 17:28
Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they
bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
Luke 17:29
But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from
heaven, and destroyed them all.
Luke 17:30
Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
Luke 17:31
In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house,
let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him
likewise not return back.
Luke 17:32
Remember Lot's wife.
Luke 17:33
Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose
his life shall preserve it.
Luke 17:34
I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be
taken, and the other shall be left.
Luke 17:35
Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other
left.
Luke 17:36
Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Luke 17:37
And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them,
wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.

The Bible indicates that waiting for the Messiah, when he executes judgment on
this wicked world, before one learns the ways of peace will be to late.

                               2Pe3:14
  14 Hence, beloved ones, since YOU are awaiting these things, do
YOUR utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and
in peace.

Jesus' disciples will be found in the four corners of the earth (compare 
Matthew 24:14) so Jesus would find them in peace with each other (John
13:34,35). But what if ones country is in conflict with an other country,
well the apostle Paul reassures such ones:

                              1Co15:58
  58 Consequently, my beloved brothers, become steadfast, unmovable,
always having plenty to do in the work of the Lord, knowing that
YOUR labor is not in vain in connection with [the] Lord.

Christians would not allow worldly conflicts to pit them against their 
own spiritual brother in another land:

                               Php1:10
  10 that YOU may make sure of the more important things, so that
YOU may be flawless and not be stumbling others up to the day of
Christ,

                               1Th3:13
  13 to the end that he may make YOUR hearts firm, unblamable in
holiness before our God and Father at the presence of our Lord
Jesus with all his holy ones.

In fact, their will be an education program of learning the ways of peace
before Jesus executes judgment:

                               Isa2:2
  2 And it must occur in the final part of the days [that] the
mountain of the house of Jehovah will become firmly established
above the top of the mountains, and it will certainly be lifted up
above the hills; and to it all the nations must stream.
                               Isa2:3
  3 And many peoples will certainly go and say: "Come, YOU people,
and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God
of Jacob; and he will instruct us about his ways, and we will walk
in his paths." For out of Zion law will go forth, and the word of
Jehovah out of Jerusalem.
                               Isa2:4
  4 And he will certainly render judgment among the nations and set
matters straight respecting many peoples. And they will have to
beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning
shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will
they learn war anymore.

Learning the ways of peace now is most important. For it is not man who
will bring peace about through strength, but only Jehovah God who will
bring lasting peace and an end to wars:

                               Ps46:9
  9 He is making wars to cease to the extremity of the earth.
The bow he breaks apart and does cut the spear in pieces;
The wagons he burns in the fire.

Not only will weapons be eradicated but also the waring attitudes of people.
For this is what causes conflicts. Psalms 37:9-11 assures us:

			       Ps37:9
For evildoers themselves will be cut off, But those hoping in Jehovah are
the ones that will possess the earth. 
			      
			       Ps37:10
And just a little while longer, and the wicked one will be no more; And you
will certainly give attention to his place, and he will not be.

			       Ps37:11
But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, And they will indeed 
find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.

How wise it would be to put ones hope in Jehovah and not in the weapons of war. 
For God is bringing an end to war and one would not want to be swept away
with the wicked ones who refuse to learn the ways of peace that Jesus
advocated for his followers.

Phil. 

re: .133, .140 AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!"

Actually, if we upheld the constitution in general I would be happy. Some of the
ways we are running roughshod over it today are some of the 'shameful' things I
was thinking about. I also happen to agree with a strong defense for a lot of
reasons. What I disagree with is slogans such as America, Love it or Leave it,
My Country Right or Wrong, etc. I would rather admit to and fix the problems. In
the case of protesters, this is often an attempt to do this. You may not agree
with what they see as a problem, but that is the nature of a democracy.

    I would like to remind the readers here that the Patriot Missile is
    part of the Strategic Defense Initiative, which incidently the
    democrats fought against tooth and nail.  I submit to you that had not
    Israel had the Patriot missile, Iraq would very likely have gone up in
    flames.

(I assume you meant that Isreal would have gone up in flames).
I have nothing against the patriot missle, but it has become apparant (after the
war) the reports of its effectivness were exaggerated.

Steve

>    democrats fought against tooth and nail.  I submit to you that had not
>    Israel had the Patriot missile, Iraq would very likely have gone up in
>    flames.
>
>(I assume you meant that Isreal would have gone up in flames).
    
    You can take this either way.  Israel may not have been so restrained
    in not countering Iraq.  Given the miltary strengths of Israel and
    Iraq, and which God they serve, Israel would've dusted them severely
    and quickly.
    
    Mike

    No...I meant that Iraq would have went up in flames!
    
    Ever hear of the Sampson Bomb?  Pray that you don't!
    
    -Jack

    Fine.  Be prepared to kill, maim, and destroy.  Prepare to continue
    the legacy and example the *world* (not Christ) has provided since
    the beginning.  Live by the sword.  Crucify the seditious and those
    considered to be a threat.  Be sensible: Choose death for others.
    Choose life for yourself.
    
    This version of the "good news" sure sounds like the same old news to
    me.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

re: .159 FRETZ::HEISER "Grace changes everything"
 Title:  Israel is #1 in nuclear and air force capabilities

    You can take this either way.  Israel may not have been so restrained
    in not countering Iraq.  Given the miltary strengths of Israel and
    Iraq, and which God they serve, Israel would've dusted them severely
    and quickly.

Are you saying that God would have taken sides in this :^0 

Militarily Isreal certainly could crush Iraq, are you saying that they couldn't
lose because of the entity they profess to believe in? If this is true, why have
an army at all, just let God take care of it. 

Man for man Isreal may have the best army/air force in the world, but they are
not #1 overall for nuclear or air force capabilities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .160 AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!"

    Ever hear of the Sampson Bomb?  Pray that you don't!

No. What is it?

Steve

 >>       Ever hear of the Sampson Bomb?  Pray that you don't!
    
 >>   No. What is it?
    
    It is Israels answer to the Hydrogen Bomb....and they were on the verge
    of using it.  The word was...one warning to all American
    fighters...clear the Baghdad area immediately.  Kind of the same plea
    as the angels gave to Lot and his wife!
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Richard, regarding your last entry...you didn't say one thing I can
    dispute.  Wrong target audience....tell it to the Hitlers, the
    Husseins...the Khaddafi's of the world.  Tell it to the nation of
    Palestine who vowed to Allah that they would drive Israel into the
    Meditarranean Sea...tell it to the CIA...yes, we're not lilly white.
    Unilateral disarmament will invite nothing less than complete anarchy
    into the world.  You see, you live by this fallacy that people are
    generally good.  This has proven generation after generation to be
    absolutely false...yet you still believe in this.  
    
    -Jack

re: .163 AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!"

If this was not an actual nuclear weapon it sounds like a fuel-air bomb...

Steve

.163
    
>    Richard, regarding your last entry...you didn't say one thing I can
>    dispute.  Wrong target audience....tell it to the Hitlers, the
>    Husseins...the Khaddafi's of the world.  Tell it to the nation of
>    Palestine who vowed to Allah that they would drive Israel into the
>    Meditarranean Sea...tell it to the CIA...yes, we're not lilly white.
>    Unilateral disarmament will invite nothing less than complete anarchy
>    into the world.

Then the only difference between your position and mine is that I would be
the first to lay down the instruments of death and you would be the last.

I am not impressed by your fears.

Peace,
Richard

  >>  I am not impressed by your fears.
    
  >>  Peace,
  >>  Richard
    
    Your answer to this is not peace but destruction.  You put far too much
    faith in the good side of human nature....the same mistakes that
    Hezekiah made just before Israel was plundered.  
    
    You never directly answered my question Richard so let me put this in
    another way.  If the United States knew for a fact that unilateral
    disarmament strengthened the chance of a nuclear bombardment (which it
    definitely will), and the US knew for a fact that Colorado Springs
    would be the first target; then would you be willing to sacrifice the 
    lives of your immediate family and friends to uphold your principles?
    
    -Jack

re Note 499.167 by FRETZ::HEISER:

>     You may also recall that the neutron
>     bomb destroys (melts) people only (before they hit the ground) and doesn't
>     affect buildings/structures.  Now read the amazing prophecy in
>     Zechariah!
>     
>     Zechariah 14:12
>     And this shall be the plague wherewith the lord will smite all the
>     people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away 
>     while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in 
>     their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.
  
        Mike, you amaze -- and frighten -- me.  You'll believe any
        garbage as long as it superficially supports Scripture!

        Neutron bombs do not "melt" flesh!  The neutron flux disrupts
        enough metabolic processes that death is the result.  (A
        level of disruption that would kill a living thing typically
        would do little or no damage to non-living substances.  But
        even steel is weakened by enough neutron exposure.)

        Enough neutrons to literally melt flesh would damage a lot of
        other substances, besides!

        Bob

        >>    Steve, you amaze -- and frighten -- me.  You'll believe any
        >>    garbage as long as it superficially supports Scripture!
    
    An overt attempt at dicrediting the writer.  Let's all be scared when
    we read Steve's entries from now on.  He got his data wrong on the
    Neutron bomb so he may end up being another David Koresh.
    
    I am of the belief that the prophecy in Zachariah is the battle of
    Armageddon (sp?).  The prophecy can only be speculated, that is all!
    Considering the verbage Zachariah used, it appears we need to be more
    fearful of God's judgements than war!!
    
    -Jack

    Bob, if military experts state that it melts flesh, pardon me if I take
    they're word over yours.

    Okay...so what's your answer in rgds. to the nuclear bomb dropped over
    thy place of domain??

    Well, I thought I typed 'next', but somehow 'reply' got out of my
    fingers. So I'll jump in with the thoughts about self defense.
    
    I would NOT like a nuclear bomb dropped over my place of domain - 
    can't imagine anyone would.  But I have to consider something an
    Eastern Rite Catholic priest once asked me  -  Who do you say that
    Jesus is?; and what does Jesus promise to those who believe in Him?
    
    If I believe (and I do) that Jesus is the Messiah, my Lord and Savior,
    then I want and need to believe in what he says to me. One of the Lords
    promises is that of Eternal Life, some might say Divine Life, with
    Him after our human death.
    
    If we believe that we will inherit Eternal Life, why would we kill
    other children of God solely to protect our human life?  If the worst
    that could happen to us is the loss of Eternal Life, why risk that 
    to maintain our human life, by disobeying the NT commandment to Love
    our others as ourself?
    
    
    In His Peace,
    
    
    Dick Kirk

    .172  Look, Jack.  Your premise is too much at variance with mine to
    be able to communicate.  I *do* live in a primary target.  My faith
    and security lies not in the ability of the U.S. to kill and destroy
    pre-emptively or in retaliation.
    
    Richard
    

re .173

	Dick,

	Nice reply, additionally Jesus is the Prince of Peace and peace will 
	only come about through him and not military might. The question is,
	in whom do we trust ? the Messiah or the war chariots.

	Phil.

    .166  I do not share your faith in latter-day warhorses and chariots.
    
    Hezekiah's problem was not a matter of misplaced faith.  It's a rather
    weak choice to support your position if you ask me.
    
    Richard
    

   >>> My faith
   >>> and security lies not in the ability of the U.S. to kill and
   >>> destroy pre-emptively or in retaliation.
   
    Richard, you wouldn't be alive today if your plan was implemented.  I
    see nothing virtuous in being a sitting duck for the name of peace.  
    It's foolhearty.
    
    -Jack
    

    Jack, I don't think Richard is able to give you a serious answer on this.

re: .167 FRETZ::HEISER "Grace changes everything"

    God often took the side of His people in their battles.  I'm not just
    talking OT either.  Look at the 6-day war in 1967 for a more current
    example.

He must have been napping through the crusades...

I wasn't thinking about neutron bombs, that is an interesting point. My point
was, if Isreal and the (US/USSR/China) really went toe to toe, which side do you
think would prevail? It is not strictly a matter of expertise or weaponry, it is
also a matter of size and available resources. 

    And this shall be the plague wherewith the lord will smite all the
    people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away 
    while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in 
    their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

Seems like fairly standard old style imagery to me. Although the neutron bomb
will kill people, it will not do the damage described above if the person is in
a building, directly out of the blast range.

    As for the air force, Israeli ranks right up there with the U.S.  The
    F15 pilots are trained out here at Luke Air Force Base (outside metro
    Phoenix).  It is very common to see Israeli pilots around here training
    right alongside the U.S. pilots.

Agreed. Given their combat experience, I would guess that they are, again, man
for man the best on earth. There's just not enough of them to rank in the top 3
or so of the world. I would suspect that they would also lack the U.S.'s C&C
advantages, particularly around satellite surveillance.

Steve

>I wasn't thinking about neutron bombs, that is an interesting point. My point
>was, if Isreal and the (US/USSR/China) really went toe to toe, which side do you
>think would prevail? It is not strictly a matter of expertise or weaponry, it is
>also a matter of size and available resources. 
    
    I don't have to guess at some of this since it's covered in the Bible. 
    The U.S. is strangely absent from the eschatological events.  In
    Ezekiel 38-39, Israel via the hand of God destroys Russia.  China
    ("kings of the East", "200 million", etc.) among other nations, is
    also defeated by Israel in Armageddon.  China is the only eastern power
    that can field an army of 200M+.  
    
    The gradual decline of the U.S. as a superpower over the last 2 decades
    partially explains why we're a non-factor in this scenario.  Our
    massive debt to other countries, coupled with the GATT approval, will
    make us just a pawn.
    
>Seems like fairly standard old style imagery to me. Although the neutron bomb
>will kill people, it will not do the damage described above if the person is in
>a building, directly out of the blast range.
    
    Doesn't the extreme heat from radiation cause flesh to melt away?  The 
    sources I've seen about Samuel Cohen's new weapons indicate the neutron 
    bomb has this effect.
    
    Mike

re Note 499.179 by FRETZ::HEISER:

>     Doesn't the extreme heat from radiation cause flesh to melt away?  The 
>     sources I've seen about Samuel Cohen's new weapons indicate the neutron 
>     bomb has this effect.
  
        Even 1945-style atomic weapons were capable of producing this
        heat.  Once you get to this level of heat, you do a lot of
        damage to non-living things, too (e.g., you create a blast,
        you start fires, perhaps fire storms).

        The motivation behind the neutron bomb was to kill without
        blast or heat (or residual radiation).

        Bob

    Steve:
    
    I was thinking of that the other night.  Considering a third of the
    world will be burnt up before Armageddon, it stands to reason the US
    will be obliterated.  This could explain our absence in eschatology.
    
    -Jack

    Look, Mike and Jack, you may choose to reinforce yourselves all you
    want with the notion that your security lies in the power to inflict
    death and destruction.  Place your faith in overwhelming force.
    Others have, and it's worked, at least for a time.

    Just because you lack the ability to wrap your minds around my rather
    radical perspective doesn't mean I haven't provided any kind of 'serious
    answer'.
    
    I think it's really quite queer what you've chosen to believe and
    disbelieve.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

re: .179 FRETZ::HEISER "Grace changes everything"

    The U.S. is strangely absent from the eschatological events.  In
    Ezekiel 38-39, Israel via the hand of God destroys Russia.  China
    ("kings of the East", "200 million", etc.) among other nations, is
    also defeated by Israel in Armageddon.  China is the only eastern power
    that can field an army of 200M+.  

Russia, as opposed to the Soviet Union? Was that an army of 200 million, or a
population of that size. If you are talking far enough in the future, any
scenario is possible. If you are talking the next 10 years or so, the absence of
the US doesn't seem likely.

    The gradual decline of the U.S. as a superpower over the last 2 decades
    partially explains why we're a non-factor in this scenario.  Our
    massive debt to other countries, coupled with the GATT approval, will
    make us just a pawn.

Yeah, right. Again, we must be 10 years or more from the Armageddon before it
becomes likely the US is a non-factor (and for that matter for Russia to become
a factor again).

    Doesn't the extreme heat from radiation cause flesh to melt away?  The 
    sources I've seen about Samuel Cohen's new weapons indicate the neutron 
    bomb has this effect.

Yes, but that is not how a nuetron bomb works. Remember, the idea is to confine
the damage to living organisms only. Generating that much heat would wipe out
buildings along with the people.

Steve

 >>>   Look, Mike and Jack, you may choose to reinforce yourselves all you
 >>>   want with the notion that your security lies in the power to
 >>>   inflict death and destruction.  Place your faith in overwhelming force.
    
    No Richard, it's not that.  Quite frankly Richard, I've gotten to know
    you in the last two years and I read your tones pretty accurately at
    times.  I understand this topic is a pet peave of yours and it seems
    when somebody is in disagreement with you regarding same, you are pious
    and condescending in your replies.
    
    I put no stock in a bully pulpit.  I don't condone a bully attitude. 
    What I do stand for is a strong deterrence of aggression toward our
    land, our property, and our national interests...yes, Kuwait is one of
    them.   It can be easily likened to a neighborhood citizen police
    watch program.  If I'm riding through your neighborhood and I see
    somebody attempting to break into your house, it is not violence for me
    to knock the burgular off the ladder and handcuff him.  The message you
    are giving me is to leave the burgular alone, I am forcing violence on
    him.  Far from it...I am attempting to restore Richards right to
    privacy and property.  
    
    -Jack

    .184  I don't agree with your assessment.  Is that too pious or
    condescending for you, Jack?
    
    Richard
    

Note 499.166

>   then would you be willing to sacrifice the 
>   lives of your immediate family and friends to uphold your principles?

Mine are Christian principles, reject them as you will.  It's downright queer
that you would try to leverage me to discard them.

Shalom,
Richard

re .166 & .186

>   then would you be willing to sacrifice the 
>   lives of your immediate family and friends to uphold your principles?

;Mine are Christian principles, reject them as you will.  It's downright queer
;that you would try to leverage me to discard them.

Jack,

I too find your reasoning strange, especially based on Jesus' words in
Matthew 10:37 NWT "He that has greater affection for father or mother
than for me is not worthy of me; and he that has greater affection
for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me." especially when
comparing it with 1 John 5:3 NWT "For this is what the love of God
means, that we observe his commandments; and yet his commandments 
are not burdensome, because everything that has been born from God
conquers the world. And this is the conquest that has conquered the
world, our faith." Now Richard doesn't go into detail as to what
his Christian principles are, however would you expect him to discard
them because of the love he has for his immediate family?.

Personally as a Jehovah's Witness, John 13:34,35 NWT is enough to show 
that it is wrong to take up arms. It reads, "I am giving YOU a new 
commandment, that YOU love one another, just as I have loved YOU, that
YOU also love one another. By this all will know you are my disciples,
if YOU have love among yourselves." Christ's disciples can be found in
all lands, so what should a Christian do when his nation is at war with
another nation?. Should he allow worldly conflicts to break his brotherly
bond?. Jesus instructed to show love "just as I have loved YOU" that is
being prepared to lay down ones life for ones brother eventhough he
may be stranger. It is a principaled love.

Keeping to Christian principles is foolishness with the world. But one
needs to safeguard oneself from being molded by this world, so as to
conquer it as Jesus did. John 16:33 NWT reads "I have said these things
to YOU that by means of me YOU may have peace. In the world YOU are having
tribulation, but take courage! I have conquered the world." YOU is in 
capitals denoting plural, so Jesus the head of the Congregation is 
addressing the whole brotherhood. So by keeping to Jesus' commands the
whole Congregation (that's all nationalities) may have peace.

Going back to the principle of having greater affection for Jesus it is 
reassuring , for oneself and family, to note what Jesus carries on to say 
as recorded in Matthew 10, verse 39 NWT "He that finds his soul will lose 
it, and he that loses his soul for my sake will find it."

Phil. 

	I am myself at my most ambivalent when it comes to war and weapons.

	It seems clear to me that to *start* a conflict is wrong and is
	so whether from within or without a Christian perspective.

	However, the world is far from perfect and there are always those
	who will start. The question, for me boils down to: to what extent
	am I justified in employing force to defend myself and those I love
	and, yes, that which I own?

	I think that, biblically, one could say that Jesus condoned the
	bearing of arms. The scene of his arrest point this up clearly
	when he told a disciple, "put away your sword." Thus, it is fair
	to conclude that, if the bearing of arms is allowed by Jesus, he
	would also condone their use under appropriate circumstances.(The
	circumstances in Gethsemane were not appropriate: a) they were
	out-powered and b) it would have spoiled the story-line).

	The biblical argument does not sway me one way or the other. I
	abhor force, weapons and hate. Believe me, I have very good reason
	to know that there is no pleasure to be gained from the use of
	force and, especially, the use of weapons against fellow humans.

	BUT I will never, ever, sit back and allow those whom I love, and
	for whom, as a result of that love, I have assumed responsibility,
	to be molested, offended or destroyed by anyone or anything. I will
	take all appropriate measures within my power up to and including
	killing.

	My only hope is that I am able to apply just the right amount of 
	force to achieve this and not, in the the truest sense of the word,
	commit over-kill.
	
	Greetings, Derek.

                         

Derek .188,

	I can sympathize.

	Unfortunately, the nationalistic model is not a accurate reflection
of the familial model, try as many do to equate the two.

	When it comes to "national security," and more commonly now in the
name of "national interest," it's our bully-nature that comes to the fore.
Of course, we never call it that.

Shalom,
Richard

>Russia, as opposed to the Soviet Union? Was that an army of 200 million, or a
>population of that size. If you are talking far enough in the future, any
>scenario is possible. If you are talking the next 10 years or so, the absence of
>the US doesn't seem likely.
    
    I'm talking about Russia.  The Soviet Union doesn't currently exist,
    though it is foolish to think they've diminished in power at all. 
    China became the first country to field an army of 200M troops about 10
    years ago.
    
    The U.S. is already diminishing.  The rest of the world is amused too
    at the disarming of America while Russia remains a superpower.
    
>Yeah, right. Again, we must be 10 years or more from the Armageddon before it
>becomes likely the US is a non-factor (and for that matter for Russia to become
>a factor again).
    
    If you truly believe Russia is a non-factor right now, you're buying
    the snow job from the media.  For very good non-biased reporting, take
    a look at the Jerusalem Post sometime and you'll see what is going on.
    
    Mike

    re: Note 499.176 by AIMHI::JMARTIN 
    
    > I see nothing virtuous in being a sitting duck for the name of peace.
    > It's foolhearty.
    
    Hmmm... Fortunately Jesus felt differently.
    
    Eric

 I wonder how much commentary there is when, for example, the United States
 sends humanitarian aid around the world in times of floods, earthquakes,
 etc, or we just prefer to moan about the military involvement.




Jim

    Look..it comes down to this.  Protecting life and limb is not
    bully...far from it.  
    
    You believe it's not fair for me to pose the question to
    Richard...well, I think it's completely fair considering his stand 
    would put him in that very situation.  
    
    Does anybody here feel the American Indian had a right to fight the
    white man?
    
    -Jack

    .193  By any chance, do you use a flag as a bookmark for your Bible?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    No...Nationalism and faith are mutually exclusinve.
    
    FWIW, I believe the American Indians had a right to protect their land.
    What do you think?
    
    -Jack

re .195

Yeah, but they lost the wars fair and square, so they should just be quiet and
vote and live like the rest of us now.

/john

	Re:  .189 Richard

	> Unfortunately, the nationalistic model is not a accurate reflection
	> of the familial model, try as many do to equate the two.

	But, surely, this is only a question of degree? I am thinking, for
	example, of the Falkland Islands.  I was there in 1966/67. That was
	one big family (1900 population) with all the usual mixes. They
	were overwhelmingly pro-British and lived a "very British" life-
	style, at times reminiscent of the Victorian culture.

	When they were invaded in 1982 (?) by the Argentines, they were
	faced with the total disruption of their family life and with
	separation from their national heritage. The islanders called for
	help from Britain.

	What, in your opinion, should have been the correct response to this
	appeal?

	Britain responded, at the basis level, correctly IMO. It can be
	argued that their response had little to do with mother/child
	feelings for the Falklanders, but was motivated by "national
	interests" in relation to Antarctic exploitation; and that, there
	was a degree of overkill (Belgrano sinking). I would agree with
	these arguments.

	On the other hand, for the right motives, and with a more measured
	degree of force, I would maintain that the response was right.

	Re: .190 Mike Heiser.

    > I'm talking about Russia.  The Soviet Union doesn't currently exist,
    > though it is foolish to think they've diminished in power at all... 
    
    > The U.S. is already diminishing.  The rest of the world is amused too
    > at the disarming of America while Russia remains a superpower.

	Russia has diminished in power significantly. The simple fact that
	they have lost more than 70% of their former Warsaw Pact partners
	(and, indeed are actively fighting some of them) should be enough to
	convince you of this. It would, of course, be folly to underestimate
	thir remaining strength.

	The rest of the world is not "amused" at the disarming of the US.
	The rest of the world is amused at the US's disarming naivity (sp?)
	in foreign affairs. Most of the rest of the world is thankful for
	the US disarmament programme. Some because we saw it as being far
	too great a killing power for such a small planet. Others because
	they grow, automatically, in relative strength. There is nothing
	amusing in any of this.


	Re: .195 (Jack) and .196 (John)

    > FWIW, I believe the American Indians had a right to protect their land.
    > What do you think?
    
	>-Jack

	>> re .195

	>> Yeah, but they lost the wars fair and square, so they should just 
	>> be quiet and vote and live like the rest of us now.

	>> /john

	Fair and square is, of course, a matter of opinion. Some would argue
	that there just might have been other ways to find an accomodation
	with the rightful owners of the land. But, as usual, the winners get
	to write the history books.

	Jack, I hope that the American Indians continue to defend the litle
	land which the gracious victors kindly left them. Of course, within
	the boundaries of the constitution with which they were also kindly
	presented.

	Greetings, Derek.
                                                      

re: .195 AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!"

    No...Nationalism and faith are mutually exclusinve.

Really? Does this mean that Christians can be neither patriots nor citizens (to
paraphrase a recent president)?

Steve

re .193

Jack,

I guess your reply was addressed to me.

;Look..it comes down to this.  Protecting life and limb is not
;bully...far from it.

I don't think anyone is saying that it is, ofcourse persons who
love their family will do what they can to safeguard them.

;You believe it's not fair for me to pose the question to
;Richard...well, I think it's completely fair considering his stand 
;would put him in that very situation.  

I said that it was a strange one, meaning that it should be something
that a professing Christian should know the answer to. That is if,
saving ones own life and that of the immediate family means recanting
ones faith then what should one do?. Obviously the right thing to do,
is to do ones utmost in saving ones family when in danger, as long as 
it doesn't mean being disobeying God. Perhaps a better approach would 
have been for you to question what his principles are based on and not 
why he sticks to them.

Phil 

>>    I said that it was a strange one, meaning that it should be something
>>    that a professing Christian should know the answer to. That is if,
>>    saving ones own life and that of the immediate family means recanting
>>    ones faith then what should one do?. Obviously the right thing to do,
>>    is to do ones utmost in saving ones family when in danger, as long as
>>    it doesn't mean being disobeying God. 
    
    Yes and therein lies the question.  Is an act of defensive posturing in
    a war that was not perpetrated in any way by you an act of disobedience 
    toward God?  It is abundantly clear that in the Old Testament for
    example, there are many instances where God had a neutral stance on
    war.  "For Saul has killed his thousands and David his 10s of
    thousands."  Yet David was a man after God's own heart.  When David
    sent Bathsheba's husband to the front lines, there is no condemnation
    by the prophet regarding his sending Uriah to the front lines of
    battle...even the fact that the troops moved away from him.  But the
    condemnation was toward his deceptiveness and lust toward Bathsheba.
    
    This issue, of course, has been dealt with many times.  The battle of
    Jericho is another example.  Of course we are under a new covenant;
    however, it has been hinted that certain individuals here feel that the
    Israelites acted on their own and they were heartless and ruthless and
    that God had nothing to do with it and that if it was initiated by God,
    then they didn't want to worship God, etc. etc....and the revisionists
    continue to try to change biblical history to try and make their square
    piece of the puzzle fit into a round circle!!!  It is simply uncanny.
    
    -Jack

.195

>    FWIW, I believe the American Indians had a right to protect their land.
>    What do you think?

Yes, the American Indian had a right.

And their faith principles apparently did not prohibit the American Indian
from killing the "non-savage" intruders, at least, in some cases.

Of course, the non-bullying, unoppressive U.S. military, which was merely
acting as a neighborhood cop at the time, had nothing to do with the situation,
right?
    
Richard

    .197
    
    I know very little of the background of the Falkland Islands.
    
    I do think it was a fight over real estate.
    
    I also think that if one believes that we all sprang from the
    same Source, whether or not there were the actual persons of
    Adam and Eve, that one must ultimately conclude that we all all
    related and that we are all family, even with our enemies.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

It's the classic prisoner's dilemna.

If everyone has Richard's view the world is good for all.

If one party betrays the other, they have it good at the expense of the other.

If both parties are 'betrayers', it is the worst for all concerned.

I am anti-war, but I don't want others forcing their views on me as long as I am
not hurting them, so I am for a strong deterrent. However when the strength is
there, the temptation to use it is strong, and in my opinion we have stepped
over that line on a number of occasions.

So although I do not agree with Richard, I do admire his stand. Were that God
had created a world in which it wasn't considered so remarkable or naive.

Then again, being atheist, I have no morals :^)

Steve

>>    Of course, the non-bullying, unoppressive U.S. military, which was
>>    merely
>>    acting as a neighborhood cop at the time, had nothing to do with the
>>    situation, right?
    
    Absolutely Richard, I don't deny that.  The point is however, they
    fought to defend themselves and I believe they had the right to self
    preservation.
    
    -Jack

Note 499.204

>    Absolutely Richard, I don't deny that.  The point is however, they
>    fought to defend themselves and I believe they had the right to self
>    preservation.

Now, are you going to tell me that some kind of Christian principles were
being employed in this, your frontier example (Manifest Destiny versus
Native Americans)?

Shalom,
Richard

	Re: .202 Richard.
    
    	> I do think it was a fight over real estate. [Falklands war]

	Sure it was! The Argentines invaded to get closer to their interests
	in the Antarctic, and the Brits responded to protect theirs. In the
	middle were 1900 Falkland Islanders who were calling for help to
	protect their families and their meagre livlihood.	

	The motives were wrong -- as I implied in my note -- but, from the
	point of view of the Falklanders, the response was right.
    
    	> I also think that if one believes that we all sprang from the
    	> same Source, whether or not there were the actual persons of
    	> Adam and Eve, that one must ultimately conclude that we all all
    	> related and that we are all family, even with our enemies.
    
	Not if "one believes", Richard, but if (almost) 6-thousand-million
	believe.
	
	I think that most of us here with agree 100% with your core principle
	but see it as a practical impossibility. You have, yourself sewn
	the seeds of the counter argument with "even with our enemies".
	Where do the enemies come from if...

	There will be wars as long as there are two or more people around.

	There will be wars as long as every bullet fired means a few cents
	more in someone's bank account.

	Our highest, practicable, principle can only be: do not in any way
	contribute to agression.  This should also include withholding
	taxes which are used to build forces of agression.

	Personally, I lack the courage to go that far. I rationalize it with
	the argument: If I go to jail for tax-ducking, my family starve. It
	is my lie. I can live with it.

	Greetings, Derek.

    .206  Well said, Derek.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    	Just as a matter of interest. The government office responsible
    	for the military in England was once called the War Ministry.
    	It was renamed Ministry of Defence.
    
    	I have often wondered if the word Ministry as used in government
    	has any commonality with the word Ministry as used in relation to
    	Jesus' works.
    
    	Greetings, Derek.

Note 499.208

>    	Just as a matter of interest. The government office responsible
>    	for the military in England was once called the War Ministry.
>    	It was renamed Ministry of Defence.

Same here.  What was once the War Department is now the Department of
Defense, frequently abbreviated to DoD.  "Political correctness" is
really not all that new.
    
Shalom,
Richard

Note 497.349

>    Phil, while I agree with you, perfect peace won't happen until Christ
>    returns and sets up His kingdom.  As long as believers have their flesh
>    to war with, we won't be able to perfectly model Jesus Christ in our
>    lives.
    
I don't buy it.  Of course, it depends on how you define "perfect" peace,
but I find one of the greatest obstacles to peace lies the minds of those
who think peace cannot be realized in the present.  Such thinking grants
permission to stand ready to inflict deadly force and little else.

I believe Christ has returned, though not bodily.  I believe the Realm is
within our very midst.

Shalom,
Richard

Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers."  Noone who claims the name
of Christ is exempt from trying to make peace with others.  Individually.

>I believe Christ has returned, though not bodily.  I believe the Realm is
>within our very midst.

The Bible is pretty clear that when Jesus comes back, everyone will know it.
He has not returned yet.

-Steve

Note 499.211

>Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers."  Noone who claims the name
>of Christ is exempt from trying to make peace with others.  Individually.

I don't see Jesus making such a qualification.  I confess I do see many who
claim to be his followers reserving all kinds of exemptions for themselves.

>The Bible is pretty clear that when Jesus comes back, everyone will know it.
>He has not returned yet.

Are you unaware of Christ's presence?

Shalom,
Richard

 Christ is present in us through the Holy Spirit.  Those who are His are aware
 of His presence.  He has not returned bodily, and when He does, as Mr. Houston
 has stated, there will be no doubt as to whether or not He has returned.




Jim

Funny, that's what I thought I said in Note 499.210:

>I believe Christ has returned, though not bodily.  I believe the Realm is
>within our very midst.         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You judge for yourself.

Besides, I think the writer of the Apocalypse didn't intend it quite the way
the literalists want us to interpret it.  But this is tangental to the topic.

Shalom,
Richard

>Funny, that's what I thought I said in Note 499.210:

>>I believe Christ has returned, though not bodily.  I believe the Realm is
>>within our very midst.         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


  My apologies..perhaps I was confused by your question in .214 "are you 
  not aware of Christ's presence" which caused me to miss your statement
  in .210.  Yes, Christ is present in believers through the Holy Spirit
  (John 14).




 Jim

re .214

Richard, you have read the New Testament enough to know that it is not
only the writer of the Apocalypse who describes the second coming of
Christ as an event that will be accompanied by great glory.

/john

Note 499.216

>Richard, you have read the New Testament enough to know that it is not
>only the writer of the Apocalypse who describes the second coming of
>Christ as an event that will be accompanied by great glory.

Truly.  At the same time, I am cognizant of the biblical tension between
the ALREADY and the NOT YET.

Also, I believe that when we pray the Lord's prayer (Thy will be done on earth
as it is in heaven) we're praying for peace, and not merely among individuals.

I was referring to the verse where it says "everyone will know it":

>The Bible is pretty clear that when Jesus comes back, everyone will know it.
>He has not returned yet.                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I thought this was an allusion to a verse in the Revelation.  But I can't put
my finger on it, so I'm no longer certain where it's to be found.

Shalom,
Richard

Note 499.217

>The Bible is pretty clear that when Jesus comes back, everyone will know it.
>He has not returned yet.                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

;I thought this was an allusion to a verse in the Revelation.  But I can't put
;my finger on it, so I'm no longer certain where it's to be found.

It may be best to wait and see what Scripture(s) they are alluding to 
(Rev 1:7 perhaps). One should note that just before Jesus' death he
told his disciples "A little longer and the world will behold me no more, 
but YOU will behold me, because I live and YOU will live." John 14:19 NWT.
Jesus here indicated to his disciples that the world in a physical sense
would behold him no more. Further when Jesus ascended to heaven, two angels 
told Jesus' disciples about the manner in which he would return...

                                Acts 1:9
  9 And after he had said these things, while they were looking on,
he was lifted up and a cloud caught him up from their vision.
                               Acts 1:10
  10 And as they were gazing into the sky while he was on his way,
also, look! two men in white garments stood alongside them,
                               Acts 1:11 NWT
  11 and they said: "Men of Galilee, why do YOU stand looking into
the sky? This Jesus who was received up from YOU into the sky will
come thus in the same manner as YOU have beheld him going into the
sky."

Now let's analyse these verses, Jesus would return in the same manner
as he ascended to heaven. That is with no pomp and ceremony, only a select
few would witness it and his return would be hidden from view as if by a 
cloud just as he ascended to heaven.

Jesus gave signs to indicate his presence (another reason to believe that
not every physical eye would witness his return) as recorded in such places
as Matthew 24. With the signs we can understand what the angels meant by
returning in the same manner, for just as on a cloudy day we know that the
sun is there for although it is hidden from view we can see the effects of
it's presence. Likewise, as the disciples did not see Jesus' ascension to 
heaven for their view was hidden by a cloud, they did indeed see the effects 
of Jesus' heavenly resurrection that is when the holy spirit was poured out 
on them on the day of Pentecost 33 CE. This was as Jesus had promised just
before his ascension.....

                                Acts 1:4
  4 And while he was meeting with them he gave them the orders: "Do
not withdraw from Jerusalem, but keep waiting for what the Father
has promised, about which YOU heard from me;
                                Acts 1:5 NWT
  5 because John, indeed, baptized with water, but YOU will be
baptized in holy spirit not many days after this."

Phil.
 

Matthew 24:30 seems to indicate that more than a "select few" will be 
aware of the return of Jesus Christ.



Matthew 24:30  And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and 
then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of 
man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 

re:      <<< Note 499.212 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Okeley-dokeley, Neighbor!" >>>

>>Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers."  Noone who claims the name
>>of Christ is exempt from trying to make peace with others.  Individually.
>
>I don't see Jesus making such a qualification.  I confess I do see many who
>claim to be his followers reserving all kinds of exemptions for themselves.

My understanding of what Jesus was almost always talking about was dealings
between individuals - person-person, and person-God.  I have not thought
completely thru whether it extends to nation-nation and such.  I'm
not trying to reserve an exemption - just trying to stay in what Jesus
says.  I'm not sure I'm there in this case - that's just where I am
coming from.

>Are you unaware of Christ's presence?

No, I'm very much aware of it - at least when I'm paying attention ;-)
As the other notes have gone thru, I'm aware of Jesus thru the Holy Spirit.
If this is what you meant, then sorry for the knee-jerk - I get that way
when I hear blatantly incorrect theology, like "Christ has returned, and
you missed it".

As to refs speaking of Christ's return - there are a bunch - Jesus talked
about it in gospels, Paul talks about it, and Revelation talks about it.
I don't want to take time to look them up now.

-Steve

> as Mr. Houston has stated...

People _always_ get my name wrong when saying it for the first time, but
this is a first for typing it wrong ;-)

-Steve

 re .221


whoops!  Sorry about that.






Jim

re .219

Jim,

Matthew 24:30 shows that all will visibily see this "sign of the Son 
of man in heaven" and most persons on the earth would mourn for they 
would know who was behind this phenomenon realising (see through the 
mind's eye) judgment is about to be administered by Jesus for "they
shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power
and great glory". Again we have the mention of the Jesus being hidden
from physcal view by the clouds (in a symbolic sense), but all will 
realise who is behind this judgment and their pending destruction. 
Kind of reminds me of Ezekiel 38.

Obviously this event mentioned in Matthew 24:30 has not happened yet.
But there is a question that needs to answered, is this presence of
Jesus over a period of time or is it just one event?. I would like
to know how other's view this.

Jesus gave his disciples many signs that would make up a composite 
sign indicating his presence. For example, there would be unprecedented 
wars (in line with this topic) earthquakes, pestilences, increasing in 
lawlessness, love cooling off, food shortages etc (Matthew 24, Luke 21). 
One of the major parts of the sign would be the preaching of the good 
news of God's established kingdom (Matthew 24:14). So when would the 
sign or event mentioned in Matthew 24:30 take place in the time period
of Jesus' presence?. I'm interested in your view on this.


Phil. 

    I was reading some of the earlier notes in this file and must say that
    much of the sentiment is admirable.  "..every gun that's made
    represents food denied someone else."  
    
    History shows us that indeed many people, whole communities, nations, 
    have died (admirably?) holding to these ideals.  Is this your point?
    Is it hoped that those with guns will grow tired of the slaughter of 
    the unarmed and throw away guns themselves?  
    
    Looking again to history, we can find few such precedents.  Many more 
    examples show this is not a likely occurrence (Hitler and 6-10 million, 
    Stalin and 20 million, Mao + those following and ??? million).  This 
    is just within the past half century.  Hitler even provides us of an 
    example of what might happen when an aggressor is confronted with a 
    pacifistic opponent.  What would have happened if the Allies remained 
    pacifistic?
    
    I truly do find the ideals admirable.  I hope my faith in Christ is 
    strong enough for me to live or die by that faith.  However, I just 
    don't expect us to be able work things out on earth prior to the second 
    coming of Christ.
    
    Otto

re Note 499.224 by ASDG::RANDOLPH:

>     History shows us that indeed many people, whole communities, nations, 
>     have died (admirably?) holding to these ideals.  Is this your point?
  
        The point is that each individual's primary responsibility is
        for how *they themselves* choose to act.  The fact that one
        cannot change the destructive behavior of another does not,
        in itself, give that first one the right to be destructive.

        I agree, it is silly to claim that if one renounces violence
        that all others will do the same.  That just won't happen. 
        On the other hand, if (some) one doesn't renounce violence,
        then no one will.

        Bob

    
    Well you either missed or affirmed my point.
    
    For illustrative purposes:
    
    One chooses to be a pacifist, fully knowing that others are not.
    One must therefore be willing to sacrifice life, family, and all 
    they hold dear in the face of aggression (ultimately enslavement 
    or death for themselves and their families).
    
    
    I agree that we each are responsible for our own behaviour.  Too many
    people forget that they can *choose* what to do or how they do things
    and instead blame others (system, childhood, drugs, etc., etc.).
    
    But I'm digressing further from our topic.  If one culture chooses 
    to abandon all military or ways of war, another culture (including 
    rebellion) is likely to supplant it.  Submission or death has been 
    the historical choice.  I see little cause to belive humankind has 
    changed the available choices in this circumstance.
    

    
    Forgot to comment on your other observation - that someone must 
    take the first step.
    
    A procession of steps would go from aggression (i.e. conquest) 
    to military for defense only.  No aggressors --> no wars.
    No wars ---> less need for military.  Etc.  The U.S. *might*
    be learning to keep the military at home (at least the number 
    of conflicts and numbers of troops involved abroad has generally 
    decreased in the past half century).  Other nations (especially 
    emerging (conquering?) nations) are not.
    
    On the other hand, we have agencies like ATF which prefer using 
    weaponry on our own citizens......

re Note 499.226 by ASDG::RANDOLPH:

>     One chooses to be a pacifist, fully knowing that others are not.
>     One must therefore be willing to sacrifice life, family, and all 
>     they hold dear in the face of aggression 

        Not all, my friend, not all.  If you do believe that physical
        force can take *all* you hold dear, then certainly pacifism
        makes no sense.

        Christians have always been seen as subversives by
        governments precisely because, to a Christian, the most
        important things are those that *cannot* be taken by force
        and, ultimately, governments rule by force.

        Bob

re Note 499.226 by ASDG::RANDOLPH:

>     But I'm digressing further from our topic.  If one culture chooses 
>     to abandon all military or ways of war, another culture (including 
>     rebellion) is likely to supplant it.  Submission or death has been 
>     the historical choice.  
          
        Certainly, the history of the early Church proves otherwise;
        but perhaps the "culture" of following Christ is an exception
        to your otherwise good analysis.

        Bob

    
    You caught me in an omission.  In my previous note, I was 
    referring to material, not spiritual things.  Thanks for 
    catching this for clarification.
    
    otto

    
    re .229
    
    Those Christian martyrs are what I had in mind with one of 
    my illustrations.  They were indeed willing to be enslaved 
    or executed for their faith.  
    
    Gandhi provides us with another example of the power of pacifism 
    (but one must remember the nature of the opponent to India's 
    self-government...not quite a Hitler).
    
    So much of the early Christian Church was amazing and is a powerful 
    testament.  The Christians' faith could not be removed by force, 
    and despite the threat of death, so many people became Christians.  
    Kind of makes me ashamed for grumbling of today's persecutions of 
    Christians.  It is my continued prayer that my faith could become 
    so strong and that I would really live for Christ.
    
    Otto         

    .231
    
    A historic reminder:  For the first 300 years, Christianity was a
    virtually pacifistic movement.  It wasn't until the church jumped into
    bed with the state at the time of Constantine that that direction was
    altered.
    
    There are a few instances, though not widely known, where nonviolence
    prevailed even over Hitler's Nazi regime.
    
    Besides, I wonder how different this rationalization for militarism is
    from Paul Hill's rationalization for killing an abortion clinic doctor
    and his bodyguard.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    
    Yup, Emperor Constantine's declaration of Christianity as the 
    State Religion was a serious blow for the faith.  After this, 
    politics and people with secular ambition came to dominate 
    the church hierarchy.

	"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money
on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching
spiritual death."

					- Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

re Note 499.234 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> 	"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money
> on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching
> spiritual death."
  
        I'm sure some will point out that without physical security
        it is pretty hard to have "programs of social uplift."

        On the other hand, the pendulum has swung quite far in the
        opposite direction when the attitude regarding the military
        is that we need to spend a lot more whereas "programs of
        social uplift" are considered "stealing" (since they are
        tax-funded).

        Bob

.235

>        I'm sure some will point out that without physical security
>        it is pretty hard to have "programs of social uplift."

Abraham Maslow and I would agree with you.  We may vary, of course, on
just what constitutes security.

>        On the other hand, the pendulum has swung quite far in the
>        opposite direction when the attitude regarding the military
>        is that we need to spend a lot more whereas "programs of
>        social uplift" are considered "stealing" (since they are
>        tax-funded).

A sad, but accurate commentary on a presently pervasive mindset.

Shalom,
Richard

    Prosperity for all was promised within ten years.  Thirty years later
    we see that the redistribution of wealth only promotes dependency...it
    promotes the wrong kind of thinking.
    
    I am all for programs of social uplift.  I just feel the government
    needs to relinquish the responsibility to those who are supposed to be
    handling it.  We know the government is incompetent in such matters and
    I believe that is what frustrates the average Joe.  It is not
    necessarily robbery to have the programs.  It is robbery when you know
    for a fact that your dollar isn't being utilized the best way it can
    be.  That's robbery!
    
    -Jack

re Note 499.237 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     Prosperity for all was promised within ten years.  

        Please document -- I came of age during that period, and I
        don't remember any responsible party suggesting this (stoned
        hippies and members of radical groups like the SDS don't
        count!).


>     It is not
>     necessarily robbery to have the programs.  It is robbery when you know

        Well there are some people who claim that, per se, it is
        stealing regardless of effectiveness.  (On the other hand,
        the government programs *they* favor are not stealing, also
        without regard to effectiveness.)

        Bob

    I have a situational ethics for all you pacifists out there.
    
    As you know, Japan just suffered a devistating earthquake.  What a time
    for North Korea to attack.  Assuming they did and started bombing
    sordees throughout Japan, what should be the response of the United
    States?
    
    Thanks,
    
    -Jack

"What if" questions are very hard to answer, because you don't have
all the facts.  (You don't necessarily have all the facts in real
life, either.)

"Just war" questions are hard to answer, too.  I am totally opposed
to war, but not to defending ones own homeland, or helping those too
weak to defend themselves.  The situation with Japan is more complex;
they have been kept weak by design since WWII.

The other difficulty with "just war" is determining what the minimum
means are that are necessary to accomplish the objective.  Ideally,
you would simply shoot down each aircraft as it invaded Japanese
airspace.  Only extremist-roll-over-and-play-dead pacifists could
oppose that.  But that probably isn't practical, and in order to achieve
the objective, it may be necessary to bomb bases from which aircraft can
be launched.  Now the issue of civilian collateral damage gets into the
picture.  How much of that (if any) is acceptable in a "just war"?

/john

re Note 499.240 by COVERT::COVERT:

> "What if" questions are very hard to answer, because you don't have
> all the facts.  (You don't necessarily have all the facts in real
> life, either.)

        I've just been reading a book on complexity theory, and one
        of the most recent chapters discusses how you *never* have
        all the facts and can *never* reliably predict outcomes and
        can *never* select the optimal.  (This was in the context of
        why traditional economic models, which assume perfect
        rational decision-making on the part of persons and
        corporations, are totally bogus.)

        Bob

Note 499.239

>    I have a situational ethics for all you pacifists out there.
    
Oh God, there's just *so many* of us pacifists out here. %^}

Shalom,
Richard

    I'm sitting here laughing hard at the last response Richard...well...
    Okay...the question was directed at you!!! :-)

    	I wonder just how weakened Japan is by this earthquake.
    
    	Even if all of California was obliterated by natural disaster
    	(for example), would the USA really be weakened militarily?

>    	I wonder just how weakened Japan is by this earthquake.

Weakened militarily?

Note 499.239

>    I have a situational ethics for all you pacifists out there.

Though I'm flattered that you should seek out my perspective, I'm just
not very much into the hypothetical.  But let's see how the picture is
affected when we change who the aggressor is.
    
>    As you know, Japan just suffered a devistating earthquake.  What a time
>    for <Israel> to attack.  Assuming they did and started bombing
>    missions throughout Japan, what should be the response of the United
>    States?

Shalom,
Richard

    Hey...that's not fair!  You changed the parameters of the game here!!!
    
    But actually, you make an interesting analogy here.
    It looks like we are stuck in a very precarious situation.  Israel is
    an ally and yet Japan is not only an ally, but quite important to the
    stability of the US economy.  
    
    Hmmm, I see your point...I don't have an answer either.  My example,
    however, is a little bit less heart wrenching considering North Korea
    is considered a terrorist state and is NOT an ally!
    
    -Jack

499.247  You nailed it, Jack.

Consider going a little further.  The US has emotional ties to Israel.
We share a mythic heritage with Israel.  The Israeli people tend to be
thought of as "like us."  The North Koreans tend to be thought of as
"not like us."  It's emotionally more palatable to inflict devastation
on those who are not like us.

It was fifty years ago this year that Japan surrendered.  Since that
event, Japan has not had much in the way of military might.  This
situation may have actually facilitated Japan's rise as an economic
power.

Shalom,
Richard

    True, however, there are a few other factors.
    
    1. Japan's defense has been supported 100% by the US and other
       countries.  There's a big budget savings.
    
    2. Japan is Zen Buddism and Shinto...mainly belief systems focused on
        the removal of desire for physical wealth.  
    
    3. Japan implemented superior manufacturing practices and produced
    quality product in the last 20 years...unlike unionized America.
    
    4. Due to lack of space and natural resources, the Japanese don't have
    many alternatives to spend money.
    
    Result - Strong savings and strong economy!!!!
    
    But I acknowledge your point regarding the sharing of likeness between
    Israel and the US.
    
    -Jack

re Note 499.249 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     3. Japan implemented superior manufacturing practices and produced
>     quality product in the last 20 years...unlike unionized America.
  
        That's a cheap shot, Jack -- it would have been just as valid
        to say:

      3. Japan implemented superior manufacturing practices and produced
      quality product in the last 20 years...unlike Christian America.
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^

        (I have a book at home in which an economist, a maverick,
        takes a traditional economist to task after the
        traditionalist gave a long string of economic reasons for
        Japan's economic success, and then the maverick showed how
        each and every of those reasons offered *for* Japan's
        success are also considered by traditional economists as
        reasons why *backward* economies *fail* to succeed.  We
        believe what we want to believe.)

        Bob

    It was meant to be a cheap shot...but it shouldn't surprise you. 
    Surely you must know by now that I believe unions are communistic in
    nature, put a stranglehold on the economy, and take away the free
    spirit and entrepreneurship of Americans!  I believe they were useful
    in the 20's and maybe in the ensuing years...however, I believe they
    are now an inlet to promote organized crime and they rob the average
    Joe!
    
    -Jack

re Note 499.251 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Surely you must know by now that I believe unions are communistic in
>     nature, 

        Unions are about as communistic as corporations (which also,
        when they become too dominant or too arrogant, put a
        stranglehold on the economy, and take away the free spirit
        and entrepreneurship of Americans).

>     I believe they
>     are now an inlet to promote organized crime and they rob the average
>     Joe!
    
        Well, clearly, corporations do that from time to time, also.

        Bob

    Horsehockey!!!  Corporations are only as strong as its investors,
    employees, and management.  A corporation strives for a profit and
    hence employs the community.  Unions take your dues and give little in
    return.  
    
    -Jack

re Note 499.253 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Horsehockey!!!  Corporations are only as strong as its investors,
>     employees, and management.  

        Of course!  Throughout history, some have been quite powerful,
        and some quite corrupt.  

>     A corporation strives for a profit and
>     hence employs the community.  

        Tell that to the garment workers in the US!

        Yes, they do strive for profit.

        No, they employ the community only to the exit that it serves
        profit.  If it is more profitable to withdraw employment from
        a community they will do so.

>     Unions take your dues and give little in
>     return.  
    
        I'm sure some do.  I'm sure some corporations take your money
        and give little value, also.  I'm sure some take your labor
        and give little net value, as well.

        Bob

A friend of mine has been toying with this hypothetical question:

	If the government took your dog (which you'd probably object
strongly to), trained your dog to kill on command, and then, when they
were done, returned your dog to you, would you want the dog back?

Richard

if it was my dog they took i would most certainly want the dog back.
and once i have my dog back i'd probably invest an inordinate amount 
of time to retrain my dog only to end up with a very confused dog and 
a lot of resentment for the government! 


i am glad this is all hypothetical! :-)

andreas.

now richard, what "if the government took your son ..."

is this the issue your friend was wrestling with when he asked the
hypothetical question?



andreas.

    .257
    
    Why, of course.  But people are more likely to yield their young
    adult children to the will of the government than the family pet.
    Granted, no analogy is perfect.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

================================================================================
Note 369.136                   Christian Pacifism                     136 of 168
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Crossfire"                         6 lines   7-OCT-1994 12:34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	"I have often wondered why it is that a family which would make
a great protest if the government took away their automobile or even their
dog, says nothing when the government takes away their sons."

					- Mildred Scott Olmsted

i think, if i was a pacifist, i might better see the analogy, richard! :-)

the reason i said i'd want my dog back is because i love my dog. i wouldn't 
want him put away. the reason i'd retrain my dog immediately, is because the 
dog would be a menace to everyone unless retrained and i of course would be 
liable. 

i doubt if i could (preemptively, so to speak) have trained my dog to refuse
to be trained to become a killing machine.

when the government takes my son (there is stil a general draft in switzerland,
so the government will most certainly take my son) my son will be sufficiently 
"trained" before that time, and will refuse to be trained as a brainless 
killing machine.

incidentally, i also did my military service and had our officers wanted to
make us soldiers into brainless killing machines they would have been laughed
at. having said that, i wouldn't know, if at the time of war, i'd ever kill.

my father also served in the army, and in his day, the mere military density 
of switzerland (every able bodied man under arms) kept hitler away from this
country. this is one of the reasons why i gladly entered military service.

so there is some argument for owning a killing machine, even if you're not
going to use it. i don't like the argument myself, as i prefer not to own a 
killing machine, but i can't deny that the argument is there.


andreas.

	All through history it has been the nations that have given the
most to the generals and the least to the people that have been the first
to fall.

					-- Harry Truman

Articulating conventional wisdom, Bart Simpson closed one episode
of the popular animated TV series on a seemingly somber note when he
lamented, "There's no such thing as a good war," but then quickly added,
"Except for the American Revolution, World War II, and the Star Wars
trilogy!"

And so it is embedded in the American consciousness that the theatrical often
becomes confused with the lethal and the horrific becomes confused with the
heroic.  We want to believe through the smoke and blood of battle that
good will ultimately triumph over evil, that democracy will prevail, that
the good guys will somehow win, and that we are clearly them.

Shalom,
Richard

    14.320
    
    Jack, do you know the date your father was, as you say, made aware of
    his fate?  August 6, 1945?  August 9, 1945?  Sometime after that?
    How old was he at the time?
    
    Richard
    

    Richard...I'm not sure exactly when he found out but I know they were
    informed of this after the bomb was loosed on Hiroshima.  My Father was
    part of an Invasion force going to Japan.  He was on a Dutch East India
    Troop Ship.  Interestingly enough, my fathers troop ship pulled into
    Pearl Harbor just a few days before the Indianapolis left Pearl harbor
    to deliver the bomb, (and get sunk by a Japanese torpedo by the
    way...turned into a sharkfest).
    
    My father was scheduled to be in the first wave to land on the beaches
    in Japan.  The casualty rate for a first wave is estimated at 90%;
    therefore, it would make sense to assume I wouldn't be here today had
    it not been for the bomb.  He was born in 1926 so I suppose that would
    make him 19 years old at the time.
    
    When the bomb had been dropped, my father was rerouted to the
    Phillipean Islands where he drove a tank through the jungles.  There
    were many snipers in those jungles who knew not that the war had ended.  
    My father had the dubious task of spraying the jungles with shells and 
    mortar.  It was all part of the ugly game of war.
    
    Nobody in their right mind likes war Richard...or ABombs for that
    matter.  I do believe however, that the dropping of the ABomb was short
    term pain for long term gain.  I believe it saved alot of Amercan and 
    Japanese lives; and I also believe it opened our eyes, at least for 50
    years, as to the ugliness of nuclear war.  Unfortunately, proliferation
    was not contained.
    
    -Jack

Note 14.319

>	                 -< hindsight is 20-20 >-

>    for what it's worth, Newsweek has a lengthy article on the decision
>    to use the atomic bomb on Japan in the current issue.

Well, I thought it at least worth the price of the magazine and bought a
copy.  The special report is more than 18 pages of related articles, photos,
and diagrams.  My first impression is that the report wasn't as indepth as
it could have been, but it was far superior to what I'd read in Newsweek
concerning the use of the bomb only a few months ago.

I hope to comment further after giving the articles a more thorough going
over.

Thanks for the tip, Darlene.

Shalom,
Richard

    Was it a classic piece of revisionist history from a Canadian?

re Note 499.268 by OUTSRC::HEISER:

>     Was it a classic piece of revisionist history from a Canadian?
  
        (Ignoring the slur on Canadians...)

        Well, it depends upon what you mean by "revisionist".  Is it
        revisionist to bring to light information that was not well
        known, or ignored, by earlier historians?

        Interestingly enough, the show accused Truman (and Stimsom, I
        think) of revisionist history through some pieces of writing
        published in the late 40's.  For example, those post-war
        documents predicted casualties as high as one million without
        the bomb.  None of the original government documents that
        have since been declassified contain estimates anywhere near
        that number.

        Revisionist history is probably practiced more often by the
        *winners* than others.  And I suspect that most often it is
        practiced by merely omitting or discounting alternatives.

        The major conclusion of the program seemed to be that we
        dropped the bomb as soon as we could to keep the Russians out
        of the war with Japan.  Invasion casualties were at most a
        secondary -- and remote -- consideration.

        Bob

CBS News on Monday, July 31, broadcast the arguments for and against the
use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

Confirming ABC's report of July 27, recently declassified papers reveal
that Truman had more than the two options traditionally used to provide
the rationale for dropping the bomb: the planned invasion or the bomb.

Richard

    More people died in the bombing of Tokyo than Hiroshima.  This of
    course isn't discussed that much.
    
    I didn't see the documentary but I do know that Trumans words were that
    what he did was justified and if he had to do it over, he would do it
    again.
    
    Considering it did effectively put a halt to the war, and considering
    the Japanese were also trying to create the bomb...and the Germans of
    course, I am inclined to believe that the United States acted
    appropriately.
    
    -Jack

Jack, neither the Germans nor the Japanese had the industrial capacity to 
produce a working bomb.  There was a very real fear that they (esp. the
Germans) could, but it proved to be baseless.

/Mike

    Which goes to show that perception overrides reality.  I can understand
    the fear, uncertainty and doubt in a volatile time of history such as
    this.  
    
    -Jack

Hosted by Dan Rather and retired General H. Norman Schwartzkopf, the 2 hour
CBS Special Report "Victory in the Pacific" aired last night, August 3.
As might be expected in light of the foregoing, the report presented the
use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by U.S. military forces
primarily from the traditional point of view.

Shalom,
Richard

    In other words, why wasn't it dropped on Berlin?
    
    -Jack

    Ummm - maybe because Germany surrendered before we had a working
    bomb?
    
    /Greg
    
    

    That would make sense.  There is alot of talk though saying if there
    was a bomb the US still wouldn't drop the bomb on Germany because they
    are "like us".  Consider the fact we imprisoned innocent Japanese
    Americans as an example.
    
    -Jack

    Well unless I have my dates really mixed up, there definately 
    wasn't a bomb.  Germany surrendered on May 8th.  The US exploded
    the first Atomic bomb at the Trinity test site in New Mexico 
    in either June or July.
    
    I agree that racist attitudes probably contributed towards
    the decision to use the weapon on Japan.
    
    /Greg
    

    .278
    
    Absolutely correct.  The Trinity test was July 16, 1945.
    
    There was a racist element to trying out the atomic bomb on the
    Japanese.  In the European theater, the U.S. was said to be fighting
    Hitler or the Nazis.  In the Pacific theater, we were killing Japs.
    
    The bombing of places like Dresden and Tokyo certainly contributed to
    the acceptability of murdering civilians, paving the way for Hiroshima
    and Nagasaki.
    
    Richard
    

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 14.322               Celebrations and Observances                322 of 322
MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal"           1 line   4-AUG-1995 13:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Richard, in your opinion, how many lives do you believe were saved?

    .280 (14.322)
    
    Zero.
    
    Richard
    

    Well, I respectfully state that your opinion is flawed.  The war would
    have continued at least another nine months with bloody battles and
    tens of thousands of American lives lost.
    
    Considering the Japanese didn't acquiesce after the first bomb was
    dropped, I am hard pressed to believe the Japanese would have
    surrendered any time soon.
    
    -Jack

re Note 499.282 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Considering the Japanese didn't acquiesce after the first bomb was
>     dropped, I am hard pressed to believe the Japanese would have
>     surrendered any time soon.
  
        Events were happening at a quickening pace during the summer
        of 1945.  Japan had recently lost the last of its major
        outposts.  Russia was about to enter the war against them. 
        Their society and even their war machine were beginning to
        fall apart.

        Surrender was either going to come soon or would only come
        after an invasion.  No invasion would have occurred before
        November.  The atomic bombing was rushed.  More
        significantly, the second bombing was rushed.  Communication
        was so disorganized that the Japanese high command hardly had
        time to understand what had happened in Hiroshima by the time
        the second bomb was dropped.

        To me, the second bomb was far more questionable.  I think
        that by that point in the war the destruction of cities and
        their civilian populations was so accepted that nobody who
        had participated in previous decisions to destroy cities
        would be likely to question the morality of destroying one
        more, especially since the additional cost to us would be so
        low.

        War is the ultimate example of the ends justifying any means. 
        Total war destroys at least a part of the moral sense of
        participants, even of those whose moral sense drove them to
        war in the first place.

        Bob

    Well, I agree that the bombing of Nagasaki....well let's just say that
    I have a problem with that one.
    
    I'm only parroting what I've heard from people who were there...and
    soldiers who were involved at that time.  They all seem to be saying
    the Hiroshima bombing was a prudent move on the part of Truman to end
    the war.
    
    -Jack

    .282
    
    I respectfully submit that your opinion is not only flawed, but not in
    keeping with the teachings of Jesus.
    
    Incidentally, the order to drop the second bomb did not come from the
    Commander-in-Chief.
    
    Richard
    

 ZZ   I respectfully submit that your opinion is not only flawed, but not
 ZZ   in keeping with the teachings of Jesus.
    
    My opinion on the possible outcome may or may not be flawed.  As I
    stated, I am parroting what credible historians have stated.  I would
    rather that the A Bomb had not been dropped at all Richard.  My only
    concern is that if it had not dropped when it did, then I firmly
    believe the Atomic age would have dawned someplace else and we may very
    well disliked the outcome alot more than we did here.
    
    What I do fault Truman for is that he could have had a Japanese
    delegation come to a bomb drop in the United States...kind of a show of
    strength.  I would have had little doubt the emporer would concede but
    perhaps it could have stopped what happened.
    
    Bottom line Richard is the Nagasaki incident has not been repeated 
    since and nothing has fallen on our house...and I think there's
    something to be said for this.
    
    -Jack

    Christian pacifism is not the clear teaching of Jesus or the Scriptures.  
    
    jeff

    499.287
    
    I did not say it was.
    
    Richard
    

The following is reprinted from Sign of the Times (with permission):

Police arrested at least 20 protesters at the National Air and Space Museum
June 28 during the opening of the Smithsonian Institute's controversial
exhibit featuring the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the first atomic
bomb.  The peace workers were charged with making a public nuisance.  The
original exhibit, what was to have addressed the ethics of atomic weapons,
the effects on the victims, and the peace movement, was scrapped in
response to pressure from Congress and the American Legion, prompting
50 historians to accuse the Smithsonian of a "transparent attempt at
historical cleansing."

    isn't today (9th) the 50th anniversary of one of the things we dropped?
    
    d.

    .290
    
    Fifty years ago on August 9, at 11:02 AM a plutonium bomb was dropped
    over the city of Nagasaki in Japan.
    
    A third bomb was in the works, but Truman cancelled plans to drop it.
    Possibly thoughts of non-combatants, the elderly, and women and children
    murdered were bothering his conscience.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Truman stated, "I did the right thing...I believe in what I did and if
    I had to do it over, I would do it again."
    
    I have no doubt that Truman dealt with conscience...particularly at a
    tumultuous time as that.  I don't envy him but I do believe he took on
    a leadership decision and ultimately did the necessary thing.
    
    -Jack

    .292
    
    Yes, Truman said that.  Other times, Truman expressed less confidence
    and bravado.
    
    And what it was not a necessary thing, my friend.  Believe what you
    will.
    
    Richard
    

    All's I know Richard is that it saved my fathers life.  Surely you can
    understand that to me, it was necessary!  
    
    -Jack

    It was probably one of those decisions that he made and needed to let
    go of, never really knowing whether he did the right thing!

    .294
    
    My father probably shares much of your paradigm.  And I believe my
    father is sincere as you do yours.  But we don't agree.
    
    The evidence uncovered in recent years reveals that it was almost
    over in June of 1945 and that Truman knew it.  Many, like you, still
    believe there were only two options.
    
    Incidentally, one of the scientists who developed the bomb wanted to
    demonstrate it to the Japanese as you suggested.  He never made it past
    Secretary of State James Byrnes in pleading the case for it.  Now he
    calls himself a mass murderer.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Actually my father rarely talks about it...but he was in the Pacific at
    that time and certainly had a personal interest in the decisions made
    at that time...considering he faced assured destruction along with his
    peers.
    
    Jungle warfare was alive and well in the Philippeans where he was
    rerouted.  The war had just been declared a victory and yet there was
    old dad driving a tank in the jungle and getting shot at by snipers
    continually.
    
    -Jack

    	Richard --  I think you rely too much on carefully selected 
    	evidence.  
    
    	But as you have already said, we are all entitled to our 
    	opinions.

    Jack -- I still think you rely too much on old war stories as evidence.
    
    As I've said before, believe as you will.  You will anyway.
    
    Richard
    

  ZZZ     As I've said before, believe as you will.  You will anyway.
    
    This statement presupposes that I would never change my mind...which I
    believe I have proven not to be the case.  I do not rely on old war
    stories Richard.  I rely on historians, documentaries from credible
    sources, periodicals, and yes history books.  I listen to officers who
    were there and people who experienced first hand and knew the scope of
    the situation before you and I were born. (Compliment...I'm assuming
    you're younger).
    
    Considering the firebombing of Tokyo and the fact that it would have
    continued...even for a few months; the fact is more people died in Tokyo
    than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  This is conjecture but it would have made
    very little difference.  However, the bomb put an abrupt end to the war
    and saved many American lives.  In all candor, this is all that was
    important to me considering our boys had to go over there and Japan was
    the aggressor in that War.
    
    -Jack

    .301
    
    You're right.  I don't think your mind can be changed on this, no
    matter the volume of evidence and moral considerations to the contrary.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    
    I am wondering...does anybody know offhand what the background
    radiation levels are in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that are still
    lingering as a result of the bombs dropped 50 years ago?
    
    And are people still indirectly suffering and dying as a result?
    
    Cindy

    .303
    
    Cindy,
    
    	I do not know the answers to your questions.  I have heard that
    recent studies indicate that anomalies in the offspring of Hiroshima
    survivors are not much higher than in other populations.
    
    	At both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there are now peace parks near
    the epicenters of the blasts.  The epicenter in each case was not
    a military installation, but the heart of the city.  The peace parks
    are something of a present-day tourist attraction.
    
    Richard
    

    
    Thanks, Richard!  
    
    Cindy

	"At one time, wars were fought between armies; but in the wars
of the last decade far more children than soldiers have been killed and
disabled.  Over that period, approximately two million children have
died in wars, between four and five million have been physically
disabled, more than five million have been forced into refugee camps,
and more than twelve million have been left homeless."

				-- THE STATE OF THE WORLD'S CHILDREN 1995

Note 1333.67

>    Glen, if a soldier in battle died in your place...valiantly and without
>    reservation, and you later chose to scoff or disregard the death of
>    said soldier, what outlook do you suppose that soldier would have of
>    you were he able to come back to life and meet you?

The purpose of war is not to sacrifice one's life, but to make the poor
bastard on the other side sacrifice *his* life (paraphrasing General
George S. Patton).    
  
Richard
  

 Z   The purpose of war is not to sacrifice one's life, but to make the poor
 Z   bastard on the other side sacrifice *his* life (paraphrasing General
 Z   George S. Patton).  
    
    Interesting and accurate perspective.  I was thinking more on the lines
    of no greater is the one who gives his life for his brother.
    
    Let's say Glen you are in a concentration camp and somebody voluntarily
    dies for you...let's use that scenario.
    
    -Jack

	Jack... where r u goin with this?

>    Let's say Glen you are in a concentration camp and somebody voluntarily
>    dies for you...let's use that scenario.

    I don't think anyone here is saying that what Jesus did didn't
    matter or that it didn't hold significance.

    It's just that simply because He died doesn't mean the rest of
    us have to swallow your interpretation of what we should do 
    about it.  This isn't rejecting Him.  It's rejecting your
    opinions.  If that's a problem for you, deal with it.

    Tom

	Tom, nicely put.

    Tom:
    
    I realize your decisions are your decisions...and I can't make you
    believe anymore than I can force you to like chocolate ice cream.
    
    I'm simply telling you there are matters of faith that are not opened
    to interpretation.
    
    Glen, I'm not really going anyplace on this with you.  I'm just trying
    to get you to think critically for a change.
    
    -Jack

    I'm sorry, Jack.  But am I the only one to see the irony of this
    statement:

>    Glen, I'm not really going anyplace on this with you.  I'm just trying
>    to get you to think critically for a change.

    being preceeded by this statement?

>    I'm simply telling you there are matters of faith that are not opened
>    to interpretation.
    
    Tom

| <<< Note 499.312 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>


| Glen, I'm not really going anyplace on this with you.  I'm just trying
| to get you to think critically for a change.

	Jack, quite often when I read your notes I think critically! :-)

re Note 499.313 by THOLIN::TBAKER:

        You're not the only one, Tom.

        Bob

    
    If only you would pray earnestly enough and let the Holy Spirit guide
    you, you would see things my way... :^)

    Eric

    That's right!!! :-)

    Umm...Could we continue under another topic?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard