Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Does it follow that Iraq is the unwitting instrument of God against
    Kuwait and against us?  Why would God do this?

Bob,

The Koran teaches that all who believe should work out their
challenges/confrontations/disbutes befor they enter the presence
of God.

The "should" is an obligatory part of a muslim's life.

calvin

    	I don't buy the concept of God wrecking vengence in this world.
    But, then, I don't accept much of the O.T. for one or another reason.
    If we are to be judged and/or punished it will be in the next world,
    not this. If "God wills" that something will be then nothing an
    individual or nation might do will change that. If my rebellion against
    one or another authority brings down or moderates that authority then
    it must be obvious that "God willed" my rebellion and authored my
    success. That, or the whole idea of "God willing" is a crock.

    re .3 (DELNI::MEYER)
    
>                                                    If my rebellion against
>    one or another authority brings down or moderates that authority then
>    it must be obvious that "God willed" my rebellion and authored my
>    success. That, or the whole idea of "God willing" is a crock.
    
    	... just to play the game, another possibility is that it's "God's
    will" to allow you to rebel without his interference, so that you can
    see for yourself whether it really solves anything.

    re: .4
    	Would you care to expand upon that ?  What did the war in Vietnam
    solve ?  What was solved by protesting that self-same war ?  What do
    you think that this war in the Gulf will solve that might not have been
    solved with a well-planned, patient and thourough diplomatic approach ? 
    	Perhaps you think this is a game. The distance between here and
    there is a wonderful buffer that allows you to think so. I just heard
    that three Iraqi missiles have hit Tel Aviv. No information yet (I'm
    still at work so you may already know) on whether they were
    conventional warheads (BOOM, it's over, done), chemical warheads (Boom,
    and the cloud starts to spread) or biological warheads (boom, and death
    begins its march from victim to victim). The Isrealis have been known
    to respond with a vengence, and they have nuclear weapons. This is a
    game ?
    	Perhaps you meant that *I* was playing a game of logic ?  There are
    many possibilities. It is certain that if God is all-powerful then I
    can accomplish nothing without God's consent and it is therefore "God's
    Will". Regardless of imputed motivations. Remember also, religious on
    both sides of this battle believe that God is on their side. There are
    Muslims and Christians on both sides of the conflict. They can't all be
    right. Both sides are obeying the just authority of their nation's
    leaders, they can't all be right. The soldiers of Iraq are not all
    responsible for the sins of Hussein any more than you or I or Sgt.Smith
    is responsible for the sins of Bush, yet a lot of people are going to
    die on both sides - they can't all be right. Any way you choose to cut
    it, it comes out unjust to someone, it turns out that someone
    misunderstood God's will, it turns out that an authority was wrong.
    	Sorry if I sound cross. I am, but not at you. Wars do this to
    me.8<(

>        "Let everyone obey the authorities that are over him, for
>        there is no authority except from God, and all authority that
>        exists is established by God.  As a consequence, the man who
>        opposes authority rebels against the ordinance of God;  those
>        who resist thus shall draw condemnation down upon themselves. 

Paul's remarks seem somewhat ironic when you consider that he was
incarcerated on occassion and eventually, according to tradition,
beheaded under the auspices of the state.  (This latter event is
not recorded in the Bible)

Jesus, John the Baptist, and most of the Apostles were, it seems,
irritants to the authorities of their times, were they not?

Peace,
Richard

    Here is my cut at this:
      
     Wars will cease when humans being refuse to take up arms and
    commit murder because their government says to.
     Let's not use God as an excuse for using murder as a tool of
    political policy.

                                                               Mike

    re .5 (DELNI::MEYER)/Dave
    
>    	Perhaps you meant that *I* was playing a game of logic ?  
    
    	That's close, but I didn't mean anything derogatory by it.  I was
    only trying to keep the spirit of my remarks light.
    
>    	                                                          There are
>    many possibilities. It is certain that if God is all-powerful then I
>    can accomplish nothing without God's consent and it is therefore "God's
>    Will".
    
    	That God is "all-powerful" doesn't necessarily mean that he runs
    the universe with an iron grip, and that everything that happens is a
    result of his personally having applied his power to make it all
    happen.  I think that the very fact that he's given us the ability to
    think with imagination, and given us free will, is evidence that it's
    his desire to see us accomplish things of our own doing, and gain
    satisfaction by the act of doing so;  it's just that we are required to
    recognize that our accomplishments won't be meaningful or of lasting
    benefit (in the long run) if we don't take his will into consideration.
    
    	To illustrate what I mean, just take the efforts that men have
    expended over the centuries waging war and developing newer and
    deadlier technologies to do so.  Do you suppose that it was "God's
    will" for men grow in knowledge to the point of exploiting the
    resources of the earth to develop flame-throwers, grenades, napalm,
    land-mines, machine-guns, canons, laser-guided missiles, tanks,
    war-ships, bombers, poisonous gas, atomic weapons, and etc.?  If we can
    reason that because "God is love" -- i.e., the embodiment of the
    principle which works good toward others for unselfish reasons -- the
    products of man's inclination to kill his fellow man aren't the result
    of "God's will," then we can conclude that, no, "God's will" isn't to
    blame for all of the problems of todays world.  Instead, more rightly,
    the blame lies in man exercising his own will without regard for God's
    will.
    
>                                              Remember also, religious on
>    both sides of this battle believe that God is on their side. There are
>    Muslims and Christians on both sides of the conflict. They can't all be
>    right.
    
    	Yes, but they *could* all be wrong.  They could all either be
    misinterpretting, or blatantly ignoring what God's will really is, and
    only using religion as a (false) justification for their actions.
    
>                                                 Any way you choose to cut
>    it, it comes out unjust to someone, it turns out that someone
>    misunderstood God's will, it turns out that an authority was wrong.
    
    	Then perhaps the answer is that *every* way that things have been
    cut so far are cut wrong, because the men in power (and the people who
    gave them that power) have all, in truth, left God's will out of the
    picture (except as a self-applied rubber stamp).
    
>    	Would you care to expand upon that ?  What did the war in Vietnam
>    solve ?  What was solved by protesting that self-same war ?  What do
>    you think that this war in the Gulf will solve that might not have been
>    solved with a well-planned, patient and thourough diplomatic approach ? 
    
    	To tell you the truth, I don't think the war in Vietnam *solved*
    anything, although I think it proved that, once again, human thinking
    and human schmemes (for governing ourselves) fail with dire
    consequences when men do things 'their way' (with weapons and cruelty)
    rather than God's way.
    
    	Lest all of the above might seem to lead nowhere, my own "Christian
    perspective" is that sometime soon (but how soon, noone knows), Jehovah
    will call the human family to account, and sort out those who are truly
    seeking to do his will from those who are seeking to pursue their own
    will, at the expense (and consequences) of ignoring his own, and
    finally fulfill the promises of Psalm 37 (which speaks of the
    deliverance of the "righteous" into a peaceful world, and the
    destruction of the "wicked" who are causing the present destruction of
    the earth and the quality of life upon it).
    
    								-mark.

    Mark,
    	I thought I understood your earlier entry but .8 leaves me quite
    confused - I think. You are definitly saying that we should act in
    accordance with God's will but seem to be doing a fast shuffle as to
    what that is in relation to the authority of the State. I don't get the
    impression that you are being intentionally cagey but I'm not sure
    where you stand. 
    	They recently erected a sign-board in front of Arlington Street
    Church. The quote on it Sunday was something like "Act as if your every
    action counted.". It made sense to me, but I've often been accused of
    tilting at windmills. Bagged a couple, too. ;-)

    re .9 (DEBNT::MEYER)/Dave
    
>    	I thought I understood your earlier entry but .8 leaves me quite
>    confused - I think.
    
    	Rats ... I hate it when that happens ... (explanations are supposed
    to clear things up, you know ;-)
    
>               I think. You are definitly saying that we should act in
>    accordance with God's will but seem to be doing a fast shuffle as to
>    what that is in relation to the authority of the State. I don't get the
>    impression that you are being intentionally cagey but I'm not sure
>    where you stand. 
    
    	I think the problem was that I wasn't addressing the basenote topic
    directly (i.e., the relationship between the Christian individual and
    the State), but rather, the relationship between an individual's
    actions and "God's will."
    
    	The view that my own religion teaches is that Christians should
    respect the authority of the State, and obey it as long as it doesn't
    conflict with what we might call "Christian law" (i.e., Bible commands
    and principles that are binding upon Christians), but that the Bible
    doesn't authorize Christians to actively oppose or participate in the
    affairs of the State, since worldly states are just that, worldly, and
    thus are doomed to "pass away" in the final judgment of the present
    system of things (cf. 1John 2:17).  Instead, Jesus admonished his
    followers to "seek first his [i.e., God's] kingdom" and not to be
    "anxious about tomorrow" and its "trouble" (Matt 6:33,34 RSV).  If
    one's whole life revolves around "seeking the kingdom" and its
    interests -- which means one is "doing God's will" full time -- literal
    opposition or rebellion against existing political schemes and regimes
    just wouldn't find a place in such a one's life.
    
    	In the first century (and even in pre-Christian times), the
    "kingdom of God" was understood to be a real, world-wide, governmental
    arrangement that Jehovah would set up (by supernatural means), which
    would be ruled by the promised Messiah.  ("Messiah", after all, means
    "anointed," and the act of anointing someone was how divine authority
    to rule was confered upon men chosen by God to rule Israel.)  Since it
    would replace all earthly sovereignties and truly solve mankinds
    problems (cf. Dan 2:44, Ps 37), human efforts to "fix" the problems of
    today's world are only stop-gap, at best, and address the symptoms of
    this world's problems, and not their cause.  (In fact, sometimes these
    "fixes" actually make things worse.)
    
    	This isn't to say that individuals are forbidden by God to work
    good toward their fellow man (as though they ought to wait for the
    Messianic kingdom to come along and make everything better); it's just
    that the Bible doesn't dictate a plan of social action that humans can
    implement now in order to solve the world's problems (as though it
    could be done without supernatural intervention and divine assistance).
    
    	We might say that it's God's will (or desire) to see everyone "be
    saved" (or avoid being destroyed in his judgment against this world,
    cf. 2Peter 3:9), but he allows everyone to make a choice as to whether
    they desire to do things his way or their own way.  Those who choose
    their own way may do just about anything they want (at the moment); but
    those who choose to do things his way -- i.e., do "God's will" -- are
    faced with a more limitted set of choices.  Those choices primarily
    promote the spiritual well-being of all on a world-wide scale.  If
    spiritual well-being leads to material (or social) gain, that's all
    well and good; but it's not God's will for those who choose his way to
    wrest those gains from this world by political action, since as time
    often shows, those gains are only temporary, and can easily be rolled
    back by a shift in sentiment by those in power.
    
    	Again, just to be clear, these are the sentiments of my own
    religion (Jehovah's Witnesses), and not necessarily those espoused by
    those in the main-stream.
    
    								-mark.

    	Ahhh, that (.10) seems much clearer. I think maybe we need to
    distinguish levels of opposition to the government and levels of
    involvement in the government, if only for a frame of reference.
    Opposition to the government can take many forms; legal and not,
    violent and not, subtle and not, among them. I doubt if Christ would
    object to an opposition which was within the law and which was based on
    his principles, though he might well object to that which was outside
    the law and against his principles. Involvement in the government might
    mean as a politician or a clerk, a consultant or an advisor. Surely
    Christ would not object to someone acting as an advisor (unpaid
    consultant).
    	Regardless of the above, you can always make a case for some
    opposition to government/involvement in government on the grounds that
    it involves a form of charity. When you advocate changing an unfair law
    or creating a supportive organization then you are just working for the
    betterment of those less fortunate than yourself. By helping others you
    are doing Christ's work. Lawful opposition to an unjust war or similar
    activity similarly could reduce the unfair suffering in the world and
    thus be Christ's work.

"The beauty of war is that it is so congruous with ordinary human nature.
Ancestral evolution has made us all potential warriors; so the most
insignificant individual, when thrown into an army in the field, is
weaned from whatever excess of tenderness towards his precious person he
may bring with him, and may easily develop into a monster of insensibility.

""'Live and let live,'" writes a clear-headed Austrian officer, "is no device
for an army.  Far better is it for an army to be too savage, too cruel,
too barbarous, than to possess too much sentimentality and human reasonableness.
If a soldier is to be good for anything as a soldier, he must be exactly
the opposite of a reasoning and thinking man.  The measure of goodness in him
is his possible use in war.  War, and even peace, require of the soldier
absolutely peculiar standards of morality.  The recruit brings with him
common moral notions, of which he must must seek immediately to get rid.
For him victory, success, must be *everything*.  The most barbaric
tendencies in men come to life again in war, and for war's uses they are
incommensurably good.""

These words are of course literally true.  The immediate aim of the
soldier's life is destruction, and nothing but destruction; and whatever
constructions wars result in are remote and non-military.  Consequently
the soldier cannot train himself to be too feelingless to all those usual
sympathies and respects, whether persons or things, that make for
conservation.  Yet the fact remains that war is a school of strenuous
life and heroism; and, being in the line of aboriginal instinct, is the
only school that as yet is universally available."

				- William James
				  1842 - 1910

re Note 151.12 by William James (guest Noter):

> ""'Live and let live,'" writes a clear-headed Austrian officer, "is no device
> for an army.  Far better is it for an army to be too savage, too cruel,
> too barbarous, than to possess too much sentimentality and human reasonableness.
> If a soldier is to be good for anything as a soldier, he must be exactly

        Interestingly enough, yesterday, while we were watching some
        of the war coverage on TV, my son (age 12) asked me why a
        menacing shark's mouth was painted on the nose of the
        tank-killer plane.

        In as neutral a way as I could do, I explained to him that
        everything is done in such a situation to help military
        personnel be as aggressive as possible.

        What I did not say (perhaps out of cowardice), was that the
        soldier is emotionally prepped to think of the enemy as an
        objective to be seized or destroyed, and not as a fellow
        human being.  In fact, the soldier himself is prepped to
        think of himself not as a human being but as a shark.

        Bob

    I saw a TV clip of U.S. soldier in Saudi Arabia commenting on the
    weapons at his disposal:  "This ought to bring a lot of death and
    destruction to old Saddam".  He said this with a proud smile.
    
    That kind of talk brings to me a shiver of revulsion.  Smiling proudly
    over causing death?
    
    -- Mike

re Note 151.14 by CSC32::M_VALENZA:

>     That kind of talk brings to me a shiver of revulsion.  Smiling proudly
>     over causing death?
  
        Military personnel are essentially tools in the hands of the
        national authorities.  So are diplomats.  They each have
        different specialties:  the specialty of the military is
        destruction.

        Is this inherently bad?  Well, certainly the effective use of
        "destruction" has accomplished what appear to be a lot of
        good objectives over the course of history. 

        Bob

    Perhaps, Bob, but I have a serious problem with the concept of smiling
    with pride over causing people to die.  If these people believe it is
    necessary, I can understand that, but necessity does not make it any
    less grim and tragic.

    It is comments like that soldier's that confirm in my own mind the
    comments of Howard Brinton, who argued that war and killing is not only
    tragic because of the people who die from them.  He argued that
    more serious problem may very well be in what committing these actions
    can do to the spirit of the participant.

    -- Mike

re Note 151.16 by CSC32::M_VALENZA:

>     Howard Brinton, who argued that war and killing is not only
>     tragic because of the people who die from them.  He argued that
>     more serious problem may very well be in what committing these actions
>     can do to the spirit of the participant.
  
        Mike, I certainly agree with this.

        I also worry what the "success" of a highly-automated,
        low-casualty (US casualties, that is) major war will have on
        the American people and politics, as well as its effects on
        the warriors themselves.

        Is there possibly some connection with the fact that the US
        has more people in prisons, per capita, than other advanced
        nations?  Is there possibly some connection between the drug
        thug or gang-member in the inner city who will kill at the
        slightest provocation and our willingness to turn to "total
        war" to solve problems?

        Perhaps its just that history seems to teach that war
        sometimes is necessary and sometimes results in some good.

        Of course, have we consistently tried any other approach? 
        Has anybody?  Perhaps I'm looking only at the very best of a
        bad thing and thus proclaiming that the thing is good?  (Hey,
        we could judge Saddam Hussein and even Adolf Hitler to be
        good people, if we were willing to overlook the preponderance
        of evil they caused, and only focused on the few areas of
        "good".  Yet we make that kind of judgment about "war" all
        the time!)

        The "New World Order" that is likely to emerge from the
        current conflict is likely to look pretty much like the same
        old world order.

        Bob

In most armies, the soldier are clones that they mass produce in
a regimented form. 3-5 years after the war, the reality hits home
and they become the emotionally wounded. I think at the days
before the war, the "experts" say that the emotionally wounded
are 2-1 for the numbers killed or shot up.

They are preparing to "repair" them (by reprogramming??) and send
them back to the front to start all over again. It's like
treating a murder for emotional problems before they execute
him/her.

sigh,

calvin

      I think the reason for the enthusiastic attitude towards killing
   killing other people we're hearing expressed is actually quite
   understandable. It is the only attitude that works given what 
   these people are doing. 
      What is not understandable is the attitude of a lot of people
   I talk to here at work who are expressing the same sentiments as
   those actually doing the killing. I am at a loss to understand
   the war hysteria and blood lust I find myself surrounded by on
   a daily basis of late. You know what ? I am damn glad I don't
   understand it because because I don't want to be able to tune
   into that mindset at all.
       I am truly frightened by the way the public is being played
   like a violin. We are being spoon fed a constant steam of lies,
   propaganda ( Patriotic lies ), doublespeak and doublethink. 
   An unfortunate by consequence of a "success" in this war will be
   an increased amount of censorship of the media and increased effort
   to pass of official lies as "news" as a if we didn't have enough
   of this already. 
       That anyone can give any credibility to anything coming from
   either the White House or the Pentagon given the track record
   of either in recent history absolutely amazes me. Yet reporters
   hang on every word and the public sits glued to their TV sets
   waiting for any scrap of information no matter how censored or
   distorted it is.
        These last couple of weeks it hasn't been hard at all to
   believe that 1984 was just six years ago, nope not hard at all.
   

   
                                                           Mike     
      

Re:  .19

It's true, Mike, I'm a very gullible person.  I believe what people
tell me.  A friend in the next cube has often warned me about this,
but I go on blissfully unaware.

re Note 151.19 by SA1794::SEABURYM:

>        That anyone can give any credibility to anything coming from
>    either the White House or the Pentagon given the track record
>    of either in recent history absolutely amazes me. Yet reporters
>    hang on every word and the public sits glued to their TV sets
>    waiting for any scrap of information no matter how censored or
>    distorted it is.
  
        Mike, 

        I would guess that I'm not quite as skeptical.  I am sure
        that the news that comes from the White House or the Pentagon
        is colored, slanted, and with a particular "spin" -- but so
        is news from any source.  That is why we need to maintain as
        many independent sources, not so much to maintain the one
        right one, but rather to be able to discern the reality
        behind the dark colored glass.

        Of course, in the case of this war, our only two choices for
        war news are the Allied command and Baghdad Radio!!!

        Bob

   Bob:
          Radio Bagdhad has not been on the air much lately. :-(
         The UAE shortwave broadcasts have pretty much stopped
         reporting news and have been playing lots of jazz and
         educational programming. Did you know that Radio Moscow
         now airs religious programs ? 
          You are absolutely right about people needing to seek
         out a wide variety of news sources.

                                                          
                                                      Mike
                     

    Reply to .13 and .16
    
    When David saw that the Giant defied the Army of God David said "is
    there not a cause?"   And David not only killed the Giant with a stone
    he then chopped off his head.  David was a man after God's own heart
    and he was never effected badly by war.  
    
    I say that when an ungodly man, SH, has killed thousands and had there
    wives raped, and children killed, and steals a country; IS THERE NOT
    A CAUSE!!!   By the way SH did not do this by himself.  HIS ARMY DID
    THE RAPE, KILLING, AND STEALING.  We must remember that SH may use
    the idea of religion in his talk but his actions have been of a 
    evil heart full of hate for all that is good.  
    
    By the way God is not just love.  Even in the New Testament He is
    just, holy, and perfect.  Justice is always good.
    
    
                              Marshall

    I am sorry to say that the biblical account of David and Goliath is one
    of several places in the Bible where violence is implicitly or
    explicitly endorsed.  Despite that fact, I think the Bible does have
    its good points.  :-)

    Who knows, perhaps David's later murder of Uriah could serve as some
    interesting fodder for consideration of the consequences of acclimating
    oneself to violence as a way of solving problems.  Hmmm....

    As for Saddam Hussein's troops, I wasn't aware that U.S. military
    hardware was so sophisticated that it can successfully target just the
    rapists and murderers in the opponent's army.  If this is true, then
    this would represent a major leap in defense technology.  In addition,
    perhaps the civilians who are being killed in Baghdad (as a result of
    "collateral damage") are also the targets of this new sophisticated
    weaponry and thus also deserve their fate.  On the other hand, perhaps
    the military technology doesn't need to have the capability of
    selecting out just the "evil" people on the side if every single Iraqi
    soldier and citizen is "evil" anyway--in which case killing them
    can be enjoyable as a means of carrying out divine justice.

    And while we proudly and gleefully kill those "evil" people who are our
    enemies, we can continue to claim that we love them as Christ taught us
    to do.

    -- Mike

    Reply to .6
    
    Hi,
    
    There is one text that points very directly and very clearly about what
    we should do with Government in these times.  II Peter 2:10.
    
    In the KJV this verse states clearly and directly equating walking in
    the flesh with despising government.  So if you despise government you
    are walking in the flesh.  There are a few other verses that state 
    clearly that we are to obey governments and honor those over us as
    long as they do not tell us to dis-obey God's clear commands.  
      Therefore, there is no clear command for a Christian to stay out
    of the army.  So obey.
    
    
    
    
     

    Re: .25
    
    So the commandment "You shall not kill" is conditional?

re Note 151.25 by RAVEN1::WATKINS:

>     In the KJV this verse states clearly and directly equating walking in
>     the flesh with despising government.  So if you despise government you
>     are walking in the flesh.  

        So that minority of Germans who actively opposed Adolf Hitler
        were "walking in the flesh?"  If that be so then I only hope
        that I can "walk in the flesh" all the days of my life!

        No doubt the American Revolution was one of the most evil
        events of all times!  Not only despising King George but even
        mounting a successful war against his "lawful" armies! 

        Bob

    Re.25

        Marshall:

                   I find all this outrage about what happened to
     Kuwait, well... slightly hypocritical in some respects. When Iraq
     invaded Iran and it was Iranians who were experiencing horrible
     suffering at the hands of the Iraqi's the US not only did nothing
     to stop it, it supplied him with money and weapons so they could
     continue to murder and pillage. Am I to conclude that it is OK
     to commit atrocities against Iranians, but not Kuwaiti's ?
                   The Chinese government had barely washed the blood
     of the streets of it's cities when the US sent envoys to make sure
     that we would maintain "friendly" relations with the P.R.C.
                    In Nicaragua we supplied guns, money and training
     to the Contras who had no qualms about killing women and children.
     I seem to remember we called this group of terrorists "Freedom 
     Fighters". 
                    What is going in in much of Central and South America
     is enough to turn the stomach of any decent human being. In most cases
     is is being down with US money and approval.
                    Marshall, we are not necessarily the good guys who wear
     the white hats. We support governments as corrupt, brutal and evil
     as that of Iraq. 
                    You cannot stop hatred with hatred. You cannot
     end brutality with brutality. You cannot destroy evil with evil.
     All you'll do is increase the amount of evil in the world and we
     seem to be suffering from a surplus of that to begin with.

                                                               

                                                               Mike 
                     
         

      Re.25

      Marshall:


              One more thing, you write about how we are supposed 
     to obey and honor the government over us. Isn't this backwards ?
     Doesn't the government work for us ? Isn't it supposed to be
     the servant of the people and not vice versa ?

                                                             Mike

re .23 and .26

Marshall,

As there been a higher cause in which to fight for than that mentioned in 
Matthew 26:52 "Jesus then said to him, 'Put up again thy into his place; for 
all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.'" . Jesus was
indicating that those disciples were not to resort to weapons of warefare . 
Paul backs this up in 2 Cor 10:3,4 KJV, "For though we walk in the flesh, we 
do not war after the flesh:(For the weapons of our warefare are not carnal, 
but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;). It is Jesus who 
is now glorified in the heavens, who will execute judgement on all of those 
who show defiance to the true God and His will, and not his followers here 
on earth, 2 Thes 1:6-8 and Rev 19:11-21 .

You used the example of David to show that there can be a just cause to fight .
Well, he killed Goliath with God's backing, and today it is only Jesus and
those chosen who are in heaven as well as the angels who will receive God's 
backing in waging a just carnal warefare . No mention is made of Jesus's
followers here on earth, in fact they are to suffer persecution just as Jesus 
did when he was on the earth, John 15:18-20 . But, if David were alive on 
earth now, would he lay down his sword ? . I think so, because God has chosen 
the annointed from all nations, and I believe that David would have discerned
this ( Compare 1 Samuel 24:6 ) and that the right thing to do would be to 
learn war no more, Isiah 2:2-4, and be neutral in conflicts of the nations .

Phil.   

Mike,

Your points in .28 and .29 are very well taken.

Collis

    Re .28
>                    You cannot stop hatred with hatred. You cannot
>     end brutality with brutality. You cannot destroy evil with evil.
>     All you'll do is increase the amount of evil in the world and we
>     seem to be suffering from a surplus of that to begin with.

Mike,

	Jesus said the same thing in the form of a question:  He asked,
"Can Satan cast out Satan?"

Peace,
Richard         

    Well, I am going to answer more than one in this reply.
    
    1.  Jesus did not say it was wrong to take up a sword, He said that
    those that LIVE by the sword will DIE by the sword.  This tells me
    that if you make it a HABIT to use physical force all the time you
    will die that way.  
    
    2.   Just because a policeman failed to respond to a murder does not
    mean that he should never respond to any other murder there after.
    Calling that hypocritical is just like calling any person that repents
    of a sin and then speaks out against that sin  hypocritical.  If that
    was true then every preacher that ever lived, every person that points
    out hypocritical people are themselves hypocritical.  That may be a
    nice way to keep people from pointing out sin but it is not God's way.
    
    
    3.   I would like to see someone stand by while a murding rapist breaks
    into their house and rapes their wife or daughter and kills them,
    because  that is what you would have to do if you hold that concept
    of spiritual war fare.  The verse you use is talking about our war 
    with spirits not war with men, therefore it has nothing to do with
    armies and war on this earth.  
    
    
    Well, that is how I see it.  I am not saying that war is beautiful.  I
    am saying that when it is needed do it.
    
    
                                   Marshall

    Re .33
    
    I am convinced that Christ was not speaking of a physical death
    when he said that those who live by the sword will die by the
    sword.  I am convinced that when an instrument of death is raised
    with malace against another, the spiritual death of the one who
    would use such an instrument is immanent.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
    
    Romans 12:17-21
    
    

         "God is on the side that has the most field artillery"

                                                    -Abraham Lincoln

     Re.33

      Marshall:

               I think you haven't got the analogy quite right.
      It is not like a the US is a policeman who failed to respond
      to murder but rather is one that commits murder and remains
      a policeman. It is like a sinner who continues to sin while
      chastising those who are doing the same thing they are doing.
                The US cannot play the role of world policeman
      (interesting choice of examples, by the way) with any credibility
      while using force to prevent other nations from acting in ways
      that the US acts itself. You cannot claim to be enforcing some
      type of moral behavior while simultaneously behaving immorally
      and not be a hypocrite.
                 Others in this topic have expanded this to state that
      God cannot be a moral force if God orders things that inconsistent
      with moral action and therefore they reject the claims that such
      actions are , indeed, commanded by God. 
                  I, for one, think it is perfectly likely that people
      would try to absolve themselves from responsibility for criminal
      behavior by claiming they are sanctioned by God to act so. Just as
      the winners get to write the history books, they also get to claim
      God was on their side. 
                   Actually I find it cheapens the whole concept of God
      to use God as an excuse for barbarity and stupidity. Also there is
      no incentive to stop acting like a pack of bloodthirsty animals
      as long you can place accountability for it someplace else. Rather
      convenient isn't it ? Kill those who oppose you and claim that 
      you are meting out divine justice. Sorry, not only do I not buy 
      it, but I find it revolting.
                   Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment.
      If your family got butchered and then you were told that God
      had ordered it, would you believe it ? Would you docilely accept
      it as justice ? Would I protect my family from violence ? Yes.
      Would I participate in violence because my government tells me
      God approves of it ? Never. 
                    Whenever politicians start claiming that God is on
      "our" side I get real worried. Generally it is a sign that they
      are up to no good.

                                                               Mike 

Re .35

Hi Marshall

I  would like to comment on point 3 that you made and clarify a little
about my last reply in .30 .
     
;    3.   I would like to see someone stand by while a murding rapist breaks
;    into their house and rapes their wife or daughter and kills them,
;    because  that is what you would have to do if you hold that concept
;    of spiritual war fare.  The verse you use is talking about our war 
;    with spirits not war with men, therefore it has nothing to do with
;    armies and war on this earth.

This is something I would not like to see, but I am sure that is not what 
you meant . Rape is something that is rife in all societies, be it on the
streets or in the homes, and I would hope that if one would come across 
such an incident that one would try to stop the situation by taking what
ever is the appropiate action at that time . Warfare will not solve rape, but
telling people how they can put on a new personality and benefit from Bible
principles will help those who listen . If I understand you properly are you
saying that it is a just war if the other side is condoning such actions as 
rape ? . Was this not the case in Sodom and Gomorrah ?, the point I was
trying to make (in my last reply) was similar to the question that Abraham 
asked Jehovah in Genesis 18:23 "Will you really sweep away the righteous with
the wicked?". Does not Jehovah God always allow a way for His righteous 
subjects to escape as did Lot and his daughters when bringing vengeance on a 
law defying people ?. The problem with carnal warefare this century is that 
the weapons used have not been indiscriminate of people of all nations wether 
they be called Christian or Muslim, thus showing they do not have God's 
backing. Another quality as well as justice that Jehovah has is that of 
long-suffering allowing people of all nations to come to have a close 
relationship with Him . So the emphasis for Jesus's followers today is to do 
preach the good news, so that all have a chance of listening prior to 
Jehovah's day of judgement, compare Matt 24:14, and they can then decide
for themselves wether to except the invitation, Revelation 22:17 .


As regards spiritual warfare which is mentioned in 2 Corin 10, according to
the King James Version footnote that I have it says "Against the false
apostles, who disgraced the weaknesses of his person and bodily presence,
he setteth out the spiritual might and authority, with which he is armed
against all adversary powers" . So this is not just talking about the
wicked spirit forces but also those men who were bringing in false teaching 
to the congregation at that time .
     
    
I realise that the neutral stance is not a popular one but it is following
the the advise of 2 Peter 3:9-14, especially with regards to ones own
brothers in far off lands.


Phil.

    Since everyone is picking on Marshall here, I might as well take a lick
    too.
    
    Marshall,
    	given your beliefs it would seem incumbant upon you to leave your
    current employ and join the forces of righteousness to battle the
    forces of Hussein. That, or you have failed your God and your country.
    Is there not cause ?  In YOUR JUDGEMENT, is there not cause ?  Ah, but
    then, judgement belongs to God. Not man. Not a government of men. Most
    certainly not to a government of men that lied to another government in
    order to trick that other into an action which would be cause for war.
    	So, tell us when you are leaving - or why you feel you ought to be
    exempt from reaping the results of your beliefs. Leave your address, we
    will write to you while you fight the good battle.

     Re.38:

           I don't really think it is a case of picking on Marshall
        as much as it is a matter of disagreeing with him. 
           On the other hand I have to agree with you that it is most
        curious that so many vocal supporters of the war are not putting
        their beliefs into practice and enlisting. I am sure that are
        a great many people over there who would be more that glad to
        have someone else take their place.


                                                               Mike

A DIALOGUE WITH THE GREAT SPIRIT
 
BY BRIAN WILLSON.
 
 
O Great Spirit
Thank you for guiding our superior country
the United States,
to conduct with nearly 2000 military aircraft
2000 bombing missions a day
or 85 every hour
for days on end
to crush, clobber and devastate
the country of Iraq
and the Sheikdom of Kuwait
with so few casualties of our own.
 
Thank you for endowing us with the fine resources
and technical brilliance
to arm each bomber with three million dollars in ordnance
possessing amazing accuracy and guidance.
 
Thank you for aiding us in dropping 36 million pounds of bombs
every three hours,
the most incredible bombing performance
in the history of the world.
 
Thank you for enabling us to identify President Saddam Hussein as
a Hitler-like dictator
rather than a human being
so that we can murder, maim and devastate without feeling any
pain.
In fact, we can feel satisfied and pleased
and enjoy euphoria as Wall Street did
on the morning after the bombing of Iraq was initiated.
 
Thank you for enabling us
to continually live by a double standard
whereby we can ignore and defy UN resolutions
condemning and ordering the cessation of Israels occupation
of nearly two million Palestinians while insisting that Iraq
withdraw from the Sheikdom called Kuwait
or be bombed into the Stone Age.
 
Thank you for enabling us to ignore entirely
any historical understanding of the earlier colonial
interventions into the Middle East
whereby arbitrary boundaries were created by Western powers
dividing historical cultures and lands into pieces to ensure
Western control of oil.
 
Thank you for enabling us to ignore completely
any of Iraqs allegations of long-standing border disputes,
infractions in oil well locations and oil policies and questions over
the legitimate sovereignty of Kuwait itself.
 
Thank you for enabling us
to self-righteously champion peace without justice,
when justice is the only way to peace.
 
And thank you for enabling us
to have the audacity to actively ignore UN resolutions
condemning the United States government for our bombing of Libya,
our terrorizing of Nicaragua for ten years
and our invasions of Panama and Grenada.
 
Thank you for helping us forget that our civilization was
and continues to be
built on a foundation of genocide, genocide and more genocide
of the Native Americans,
the US government violating each of nearly four hundred treaties
signed with the natives,
and help us to forget that our civilization was constructed with
slavery of black people
forcefully kidnapped from their native lands
and with subsequent exploitation and terrorizing of blacks
as well as European, Latin and Asian immigrants.
 
Thank you for enabling us to forget about our own
violent past and present
dominated by continual racist attitudes here and abroad
whereby our government over the decades has assaulted and
murdered
countless citizens in the labour, peace and justice movements.
 
Thank you for giving us the wisdom to spend one trillion dollars
in the 1980s
on high-tech "conventional" weaponry
so that we can actually use it as an alternative to the more
politically difficult
nuclear weapons.
 
Thank you for enabling us to have become so
militarily superior
that no nation or group of nations could ever match us
and that every nation is subject to being devastated by us
if they defy our national interests.
 
Thank you for guiding us to these accomplishments
while enabling us to ignore our own economic decline,
our increasing poverty and homelessness,
especially among single mothers and their children,
our own lack of quality health care for all our citizens,
our drug and crime problems;
to ignore the increasing ecological destruction of our planet
that threatens to extinguish our species
and to ignore the increased poverty of 75% of the worldYs
population,
a poverty
that breeds revolutionary fervour.
In fact, we are very appreciative that we are able to be
in deep denial
about so many realities in our own country and around the globe.
Otherwise we could not continue our way of life.
 
Thank you for having anointed us as the morally superior people
of the world,
enabling us to decide for so many others
how they should live and conduct their lives.
 
Thank you for helping us to squander and exploit
half of the world's resources
but with five per cent of the world's population
and to be deluded into believing that the oil under Arab land
in the Middle East
is really our oil
to fuel the American way of life at the expense of others.
 
Thank you for guiding us to spend $5 billion (US) last year
on weight reduction diets
while 40 000 children die every day in the world
for lack of food and nutrition.
Let us forget that those children die not for lack of food
on the planet
but for lack of ability to buy food from the sellers.
 
Thank you, Great Spirit,
for having so richly blessed us with material comforts
and for enabling us to forcefully intervene around the globe
with military, covert, economic and political devices
to assure our access to cheap resources,
cheap labour
and lucrative markets.
 
Thank you for granting us the capacity to possess
historical amnesia,
current delusions
and psychological denial
so that we won't feel conflict and knots in our stomachs
about these injustices.
 
But oh! Great Spirit
we need help to maintain our denial,
our ignorance,
our arrogance.
Please help us to maintain our double standard,
our American Way of Life (AWOL)
no matter what the cost to other human beings,
other nations,
other species,
and to the sacred and indispensable ecology of Mother Earth.
 
Please, Great Spirit, please,
I plead with you,
help us to avoid any risks,
pain,
adversity,
or major changes.
Help us to avoid taking personal responsibility for our lives
and for my life.
Please, I hope you don't call upon me to speak
the truth of my heart,
to make the kind of radical changes that some suggest
are inevitable
in our lifestyle, global attitudes and consumption patterns.
 
Please, Great Spirit,
help me to be in your good graces
without having to make any big changes.
Can't I live, think and feel
"business as usual"?
Do I have to learn about unconditional love?
I don't like a lot of people and what they do.
I don't really want to take personal responsibility for my life
and the action and policies of my government.
 
But it seems
that you are speaking to me.
Are you saying that it would be good to listen
to the inner voice
that is suggesting that my understandings and wishes are
backward?
Are you calling me to make
radical changes
in community with other kindred souls,
to take what seems like crazy stands,
to speak the truth of only what I believe in my heart to be true?
 
Are you asking me to be willing to consider the need for
continual transformation,
even to participate in nonviolent revolutionary change?
If that is the case,
please help me find others to discuss this with.
Please give me strength and clarity and vision
and the courage to stand up and express with my life
my heart-felt truth
even it it conflicts with my government
and its spokespersons
and majority opinion.
 
What if what my government is doing seems to be
utterly insane and barbaric
but the majority support it as necessary and patriotic?
Should I still stand up and take all the risks involved
involved in advocating justice for all people,
including Arabs and blacks
and hispanics and women and natives?
 
That seems so hard, so difficult
when the society seems
so entrenched in its destructive ways
and talks in double-speak.
You say you still urge me to say it
the way I see it?
To express it the way I feel it?
And to have faith that I'll have the strength to do it?
You're saying I'm not alone?
Oh!
I guess there are others.
I guess they're right here.
 
Shall we begin today?
Please help me.
I will commit to helping you.
We really need each other now for the long haul.
For radical change.
So we can survive with dignity
on the planet
with millions of other species
and billions of other humans.
 
We are all equal.
We need to evolve
from homo hostilis to homo amicus.
 
Thank you for speaking to me and encouraging me to share
this dialogue with you.

        This war is is necessary to demonstrate to all the would-be
        Hitlers of this world that the use of overwhelming force to
        settle disputes with weaker nations will not be tolerated by
        the world community.

        Bob

    Thank you for entering that Mike (.40).
    
    Namasthe,
    
    Ro
    

Article         8839
From: [email protected] (Harel Barzilai)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Letter from a CO (Conscientious Objector)
Date: 4 Feb 91 04:03:39 GMT
Sender: [email protected] (The News Manager)
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
 
[PeaceNet forward from AML (ACTIV-L) -- see bottom for more info]
------------------------------------------------------------------
/** military.draft: 30.0 **/
** Topic: CO Application from above **
** Written 10:21 pm  Jan 31, 1991 by cscheiner in cdp:military.draft **
/* Written 12:12 pm  Jan 31, 1991 by mideastdesk in cdp:mideast.forum */
------------------------------------------------------------------
 
		    WAR IS THE DEATH OF CONSCIENCE
			   By Joel P. Smith
 
I believe that war is the death of conscience.  I believe that only by
refusing to practise my moral beliefs can I then kill another human
being.
 
I know that I cannot kill.  My life, if it's to have any meaning, should
be dedicated to ending suffering in the world, not protracting it.
 
The prospect of being asked to kill in war is more threatening to me
than the prospect of dying.  My life will have no spirituality, no
foundation in principles if others have to die to support it.  It was
this belief that led me to become a vegetarian more than a year ago, and
I am still struggling with my conscience.  I've dedicated myself to
preserving the lives of animals, and yet I work in an institution that
is committed to killing people.
 
I refuse to kill because killing is imnmoral.  War is not immoral
because some authority has passed a law saying war is immoral.  It's not
immoral because any religion has a code that says it's immoral.  War is
immoral because it intentionally increases human suffering.  War
willfully, consciously maims, tortures, and starves.  War rapes the
earth, driving its victims deeper into hunger and strife.  War makes
fear and grief and misery the whole habitation of human life.
 
War doesn't end when the bombs stop falling or when the soldiers leave
the battle- field.  War leaves in its wake the hungry, the homeless, the
sick, the dying, the widows and the orphans, and their bitterness - the
seeds of another war.
 
War sacrifices life for ideals.  For all the things that we want in
life:  peace for ourselves and our children, the freedom to worship or
even not worship as we choose, enough food and shelter to give us safety
and a measure of comfort, we should not be willing to kill to get them.
Most every person and every culture in the whole history of the world
has wondered if there is some transcendental value to life.  Some have
settled on the answer and have transfigured their lives, and some reject
the answer outright and live without morality or spirituality.  But
almost everyone searches.  Few people can believe that this wonderful
life they have been given ends in death and doesn't go beyond it.
 
The search itself is one of the most important things we can do with our
lives -- if in scarching, we demonstrate the character of that higher
truth.  I believe it is impossible to reach for a higher truth with
bloody hands.  There can be no sanctity, no morality, in a life
dedicated to killing.
 
War sacrifices life for ideals.  Peace and morality make ideals sanctify
life.
 
Our nation outlaws the premeditated murder of a human being - except
when it may benefit the goverment, as in war.  The government believes
that killing for self-interest is immoral, but killing for the national
interest is an honorable pastime.  I believe the government, at the
expense of the moral sanctity of its citizens, has given itself the
express permission to suspend and institute morality at will.
 
I cannot shape my conscience to fit the shifting morals of the
government.  No government has the right to make murderers of its
citizens.  No matter the reason, killing in war can never be justified.
No ideal is more valuable than the human being who possesses it.  No
religion is more valuable than the human being who practices it.  And no
government is worth more than the life of a single human being whose
responsibility it is to serve.  None of these religion, philosophy,
government - exist without human life to create and nurture them.
 
Ideals can't have any value if we are willing to strangle our own
conscience to support them.  I can't kill to preserve liberty.  I can't
murder for justice.  I can't gun someone down to preserve freedom.
There is no liberty, or justice, or freedom in the mind of a murderer.
There's no freedom either in the conscience of a man who is willing to
sublimate his morals into violence.
 
My morals have only as much vitality as the commitment I have to making
them live not as ideals only, but as my physical self also.  My
conscience can have no life except I animate it and sanctify it through
practice.
 
The only ideals that have any vitaiity are those we won t sacrifice, no
matter what the circumstances.  The rightness in life is in giving your
conscience life, in helping to preserve the lives of other living
beings, not murdering them.
 
My beliefs will not allow me to participate in war, nor support it in
any form.  War destroys the peace it seeks to create.  War destroys
peace where it is most difficult to find -- in our own minds.  War
destroys life and I am committed to preserving it.  War puts conscience
to the sword; even supporting the military in peacetime, in preparing
others to kill, threatens the sanctity of my conscience.  I can't
practice morality if I serve in an institution that kills.  War kills.
It kills conscience and it kills people.  I won't.
 
The above statement is an excerpt from Joel P. Smith 's conscientious
objector application.  Smith is an active duty soldier assigned to the
Presidio of San Francisco Army Base.  He holds the rank of "specialist".
 
To contact Joel Smith write P. 0. Box 29153, San Francisco, California
94129.
 
For more information about conscientious objection contact the Central
Committee For Conscientious Objectors at (415) 474-3002 or 1-800-86-NO
WAR.
 
Reproduced by American Friends Service Committee, 2160 Lake Street, San
Francisco, California 94121.
 
** End of text from cdp:military.draft **
 
 
 
 
 
##################################################################
      For more information about ACTIV-L or PeaceNet's brochure,
                send inquiries to [email protected]
   ###################################################################
  #        Harel Barzilai for Activists Mailing List (AML)          #
###################################################################
To join AML, just send the message "SUB ACTIV-L <your full name>" to
the address: [email protected]; you should then receive a message
confirming that your name has been added to the list. Other addresses
to try (only) if the above fails are: "[email protected]"
or "ucscc!umcvmb.missouri.edu!LISTSERV"] List Administrator:
Rich Winkel, [email protected] / MATHRICH%UMCVMB.BITNET

Re: .43 Mike

>For all the things that we want in
>life:  peace for ourselves and our children, the freedom to worship or
>even not worship as we choose, enough food and shelter to give us safety
>and a measure of comfort, we should not be willing to kill to get them.

I think that it's my disagreement with this statement that separates me
from many people who, like me, are opposed to the present war in Iraq.
I agree that the current war is wrong, but I don't agree that *all* wars
are wrong.  I believe that some things are worth fighting for.

				-- Bob

Re:  151.43

Response to the author of the article.  (I'm not necessarily expecting
a response to this from anyone.)

  >I believe that war is the death of conscience.

The Bible disagrees.

  >I believe that only by refusing to practise my moral beliefs can I 
  >then kill another human being.

The Bible disagrees.
 
  >My life, if it's to have any meaning, should be dedicated to ending 
  >suffering in the world, not protracting it.

Are you aware of how peace is going to come about on this world?
Christ's triumphant victory through a winning war.  This is going to
produce peace.  Ironic, isn't it.  Death produces life.  War produces
peace.  Not what one might expect.


  >My life will have no spirituality, no foundation in principles if others 
  >have to die to support it.

The Founding Fathers of the United States would disagree totally with
you, I expect.  They believed just the opposite - that their lives *were*
worth the cost of freedom.

  >It was this belief that led me to become a vegetarian more than a year ago, 
  >and I am still struggling with my conscience.  I've dedicated myself to
  >preserving the lives of animals, and yet I work in an institution that
  >is committed to killing people.

Have you read how in Genesis God gave people dominion over the earth
and that animals are to serve the needs of people?  Now, we have a
responsibility both to God and ourselves to use these resources wisely.
 
  >I refuse to kill because killing is immoral.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.  No, this doesn't mean I preach
situational ethics.  :-)

  >War is immoral because it intentionally increases human suffering.

You are right in assuming that the worth of human beings is quite high.

You are wrong in assuming that there is no higher worth in the universe
than the worth of human beings.

  >War sacrifices life for ideals.

Certainly some wars do.  Not all wars do this, however.  Unless your
definition of "ideal" is so broad as to include most anything that
anyone believes.

If you knew that a short war even the course of a limited amount of time
(let's say 5 years) would decrease suffering, would this make it
acceptable?  Is the goal of life to be as happy (or to not be as
unhappy) as possible?  Is this what we should all strive for?  

  >I believe it is impossible to reach for a higher truth with bloody hands.

Jesus will come back and his hands will be quite "bloody" because of all
the death and destruction that he will cause.  I believe that Jesus is
the higher truth.

  >There can be no sanctity, no morality, in a life dedicated to killing.

How about in a life which kills which is dedicated to God?
 
  >Our nation outlaws the premeditated murder of a human being - except
  >when it may benefit the goverment, as in war.

You mean, when it is seen to benefit society, as in the death penalty.

  >The government believes that killing for self-interest is immoral, but 
  >killing for the national interest is an honorable pastime. 

Here in the U.S., the government is just people.  People believe that
killing for self-interest is immoral, but killing for the interest of
society is honorable.

I'll stop here.  The counterpoints that can be made throughout the
entire article are obvious.

Collis

    As I have mentioned before, there are places where the Bible does
    condone killing, I am sorry to say--but I still think the Bible has its
    good points.
    
    -- Mike

    	You may have been too gentle, Mike. The Bible not only occasionally
    condones "killing", a stance I can accept, but it also has condoned
    genocide - killing warriors, women, children, babies, cripples,
    lunatics, dimwits and the elderly. But, as you said, it has its good
    points as well. Let's just hope that our soldiers do not follow the
    example set forth in the bloodier sections of that book. I would not
    feel comfortable knowing that any young adult that I might pass on the
    street was capable of such, even under orders. It is bad enough that
    our bombs cause "collateral damage", but how could a soldier look in
    the mirror after gutting an infant ?  And still be human ?

    re: 45, Collis,
    
>  >My life will have no spirituality, no foundation in principles if others 
>  >have to die to support it.

>The Founding Fathers of the United States would disagree totally with
>you, I expect.  They believed just the opposite - that their lives *were*
>worth the cost of freedom.
    
    *This* "counterpoint" doesn't work, Collis!  Note that the author says
    "if OTHERS have to die" while your explanation of the Founding Fathers
    state that they believed "that THEIR lives were worth the cost of
    freedom."  
    
    There's a world of difference between being willing to
    die and being willing to kill.
    
    Nancy

Re: .48 Nancy

How many British soldiers died in the Revolutionary War?

				-- Bob

    Bob,

    British soldiers did die in the Revolutionary War.  But then, as I see
    it, that's the point.  Willingness to participate in war means being
    willing to kill the enemy (in this case, the British) as well as die at
    their hands.

    Pacifists may be quite willing to *die* for a just cause (and many have
    done just that), but they are not willing to kill for it.  The point
    that Nancy raised was that the willingness of the Founding Fathers to
    have given their lives for their cause does not serve as a counterpoint
    to pacifism.  It was their willingness to *kill* for their cause that
    served as a counterpoint.

    None of this has any bearing on whether or not war is just or necessary
    in certain circumstances.  I realize that you are not a pacifist, which
    is fine.  But I wanted to highlight the distinction that Nancy was
    making.

    -- Mike

It might be good, at this point, to bring up a few of the various
postures Christians may take concerning war.  Here are some starters:

There are 3 Christian bodies which have been deemed Historic Peace Churches.
They are: Mennonites, Friends (Quaker), and the Church of the Brethren
(Dunkards).  Broadly speaking, these groups hold that all war, and preparation
for war, is wrong.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that only one war will be right to participate in:
the war of apocalypse, the so-called Lamb's War.

Generally, Roman Catholics are willing to participate in a "just war".  The
"just war" concept originated with Thomas Aquinas (I believe).  There is
considerable disagreement among Catholics about what conditions must exist
in order to qualify as a "just war".

Almost every other denomination has issued statements in strong opposition to
war.  Many of these have been compiled into a book available through the
National Interreligious Service Board for Conscientious Objectors (NISBCO).
At the same time, very little consideration is given to such statements by
the average local church member.

Peace,
Richard

re 151.51

Hi Richard    

;Jehovah's Witnesses believe that only one war will be right to participate in:
;the war of apocalypse, the so-called Lamb's War.

Just to clarify, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Armageddon is the "war of
the great day of God the Almighty." Rev 16:14,16 . The Greek name Har magedon',
is applied specifically to "the place" [Greek, to'pon; that is,condition or
situation]" to which earth's political rulers are being gathered in opposition
to Jehovah and his kingdom by Jesus Christ . Such oppostion will be shown by
global action against Jehovah's servants on earth, the visible represenatives
of God's Kingdom .  These servants on earth, though being on Jehovah's side,
will not be required to fight, for it is God's war and He has already appointed
His son Jesus Christ , Psalms 2, and the heavenly forces ( 2 Thes 1:6-8, Rev
19:11-21) to execute His Judgement . The political rulers will be in direct
opposition to God's incoming Government led by Jesus, but these political
rulers will be crushed as Daniel 2:44 fortells .

Jehovah's witnesses keep themselves separate from world politics for they are
to be "no part of the world" John 17:16, for their hope is in God's Kingdom
that many pray for, Matt 6:10 . In the Christian notes conference there 
is a note regarding true friends, well Jehovah's witnesses realise that
Jehovah has friends in all the nations and thereby do not allow themselves
to be dragged into such conflicts as the Gulf crisis . This means that they
do not allow national barriers to come between the love they have for each
other. But, one should note that Jehovah's Witnesses still respect those
governing them and do not participate in such things as anti-war rallies,
keeping a neutral stance .


Phil.  
 

Re:  151.48
    
       >>>My life will have no spirituality, no foundation in principles 
       >>>if others have to die to support it.

     >>The Founding Fathers of the United States would disagree totally with
     >>you, I expect.  They believed just the opposite - that their lives 
     >>*were* worth the cost of freedom.
    
  >*This* "counterpoint" doesn't work, Collis!  Note that the author says
  >"if OTHERS have to die" while your explanation of the Founding Fathers
  >state that they believed "that THEIR lives were worth the cost of
  >freedom."  

Your point is well taken, Nancy.  Let me rephrase my counterpoint.

The Founding Fathers of the United States would disagree totally with
you, I expect.  They believed just the opposite - that the lives of their
countrymen *were* worth the cost of freedom.  And not only the lives
of their countrymen, but their own lives as well.
    
Collis

    	Need I point out that none of those who helped bring us this war
    (Bush and company) have put their own lives on the line ?  The VP was
    not even willing to tempt fate when he was called during his own youth.
    Ahh, but they are ever ready to put the lives of others on the line, to
    have others die for them.
    	George Washington and several others of the Founding Fathers found
    their lives in danger many times during the struggle of this nation's
    birth. A good example others choose not to follow.

      Either a grandson or some other close relitive of President Bush is in
    the reserves and he has been called up for the Gulf.  Now for all of 
    those who say Bush would not go to war if one of his own had to go,
    what do you have to say now?  I support my President, do you?
    
    
    
                               Marshall
    
    
    
    
    

    	No, Marshall, I do not. Bush could not even name several of his
    grandchildren when asked at a "press conference" given at a family
    gathering during his campaign. When asked which of them was part
    Mexican he pointed out "that little brown one over there". 
    	Bush has done absolutely nothing, either as a president or a vice
    president, that I feel warrents my support or approval. Worse, there is
    a significant body of evidence that suggests that he has engaged - in
    office - in numerous activities which are either unquestionably illegal
    or morally reprehensible - or both. It is one thing to "love" such a
    despicable person, it is much different to support them in what they
    do. Can a moral person remain such if they support the acts of an
    immoral person ?  Is that not much like being in league with the devil?

    The Bible (KJV) teaches that God commands us to honor all authority,
    why?  Because  all authority is from God.   That does not mean that 
    we have to agree with everything they do.  But we do HAVE TO honor
    the authority God has put there.  
    
    Second, even though I dis-liked most of President Carter's  policy
    when he was in office, I still try with everything in me to honor
    Mr. President Carter.  Why?  Because Jesus taught that to show love
    toward God you must keep God's commmandments.  One of those is
    to honor authority.  To call President Bush, *Bush*, without giving
    honor to him is sin.  Why?  Because to fight against God's commands is
    sin.  It is in our nature to hate God's ways.  However, if we are born
    again we have the ability to obey God.
    
    Now, having said all that, I do not agree with everything President
    Bush has done, or is doing.  Not one shred of evidence has been given
    to prove President Bush has done anything illegal.  Next, show me one
    President that is perfect morally.  There is none and you know why?
    Because all men, yes you and me, have done morally wrong things also.
    
    
    The fact that President Bush is President means that as a Christian 
    you should support him, that does not mean that you have to like or 
    approve of everything he does.
    
    
                                  Marshall

re Note 151.54 by DELNI::MEYER:

>     	Need I point out that none of those who helped bring us this war
>     (Bush and company) have put their own lives on the line ?  

        In his defense, I must point out that George Bush's life was
        very much on the line during WW II, especially when his
        fighter plane was shot down.

        Yes, this is a different war, but I think he is a little too
        old.

        Bob

    	I was aware that Bush flew a fighter in WWII, and may even have had
    contact with the enemy. This makes him a more credible leader in war
    than someone with his VP's record. But he will fight this war from the
    comfort of his highly secure home/office a couple of thousands of miles
    from danger. He has sent other men (and women) to die for his political
    cause.
    
    Marshall,
    	I find your concept of respect for authority to be unsupportable
    from my context. Moreover, I do not believe that conservative
    Christians share your view. If you do not believe me, walk up to an
    Operation Rescue picket line and tell those involved to respect and
    obey the laws of their legally constituted government and to cease and
    desist their public display of disrespect for that authority and their
    fellow man. Quote scripture at them, if you want. I believe they will
    ignore your imprecations.

    ALL authority is from God.  There is no authority in earth that God
    did not put into place.  Even authority that is hard against Him.
    Why does God do that?  Because in Exodus and in Romans it clearly 
    teaches that God puts evil men in authority so that He can show
    His (GOD) power and might over them.  That is the whole story of
    the Exodus.  That is not just an OT teaching it is taught in 
    the NT also.  And yes all men sin.  I am not wrong because I just
    state what the Bible says.  I will bring the verses here on 2-8-91.
    
    
    
                                 Marshall

      Reply to .60
    
    There is a point at which you do dis-obey.  That is when you are
    commanded to break a commandment of God.  This is seen in Acts when
    Peter was told by the government to stop preaching.  However, even
    there Peter did not show out and out disrespect.  Peter simply said
    who do I obey God or man.  
    
    As for op rescue, I do not hold to what they are doing.  They are
    not being commanded to have abortions.  They should try to over
    turn the law by legal means given to us by the government.  
    
    I do not hold to any group of people that do not hold to what the
    Bible teaches.  What I have been saying is taught by my church.
    
    
                                 Marshall 

    Well, I am afraid I disagree that God had anything to do with putting
    people like Hitler or Pol Pot in place.  I don't happen to think that
    God is so cynically uncaring about human suffering that He/She would
    put people like those in power, people who brought on horrible
    atrocities that included torture and genocide, just so that God could
    score some theological points with those lucky enough to escape the
    carnage.

    -- Mike

    Re. 151.52
    
    Yes.  Thanks for the elaboration.
    
    I welcome the elaboration of others, as well.  151.51 was meant to
    provide merely a glimpse of some of the various perspectives Christians
    might hold concerning war.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Hi Richard,


I would like to thank you for note 151.51, after 50 replies one can soon forget
what each group is saying . I think it is wise to sit back sometimes and think
about what is being said and thereby learn more fully what is each groups 
perspective .

Phil.

re Note 151.62 by RAVEN1::WATKINS:

>     As for op rescue, I do not hold to what they are doing.  They are
>     not being commanded to have abortions.  They should try to over
>     turn the law by legal means given to us by the government.  
  
        I gotta give you credit, Marshall, you are very consistent on
        this point.

        Bob

Re:  151.59


     >>The Bible (KJV) teaches that God commands us to honor all authority,
     >>why?  Because  all authority is from God.   That does not mean that 
     >>we have to agree with everything they do.  But we do HAVE TO honor
     >>the authority God has put there.  

  >Wrong, Marshall. Men voted Bush there. If you are basing your
  >authority that we must honour caesar, Jesus said to give to
  >caesar what is due caesar; to God what is due God.

This is what Marshall is referring to:

  Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is
  no authority except that which God has established.  The authorities
  that exist have been established by God.

  Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against
  what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on
  themselves.  (Romans 13:1-2 NIV)

Collis

re Note 151.67 by XLIB::JACKSON:

>   Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is
>   no authority except that which God has established.  The authorities
>   that exist have been established by God.
> 
>   Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against
>   what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on
>   themselves.  (Romans 13:1-2 NIV)
  
        Of course, this is a case where the "clear teaching of
        Scripture" really isn't so clear in the light of historical
        developments.

        Our democratic government is predicated on a statement that
        its power comes from "the consent of the governed", not
        (directly) from God.  Now these two can be reconciled by
        realizing, in effect, that the population is the governmental
        authority, and the establishments of government are just its
        agent.  The two views become reconciled when one substitutes
        "the authority of the people" in the quotation "The authority
        of the peoples that exist have been established by God."

        So was Paul referring to the ultimate governmental authority,
        which rested in the Emperor for Rome but in the "people" for
        the U.S., or was he restricting it to the governmental
        establishment, whether or not that establishment is
        answerable to the people?

        If the former, then rebellion against the Emperor in Rome was
        a violation of Romans 13:2, whereas rebellion against the
        President is not necessarily a violation of Romans 13:2.

        If the latter, then democratic government itself may be a
        violation of Romans 13:2.

        Bob

Re:  151.68

  >Our democratic government is predicated on a statement that
  >its power comes from "the consent of the governed", not
  >(directly) from God.

When the statements or beliefs of people are contradicted by the
God's revelation in the Bible, the statements or beliefs of people
are wrong.  Hope this clears that up.  :-)

  >The two views become reconciled when one substitutes "the authority 
  >of the people" in the quotation "The authority of the peoples that 
  >exist have been established by God."

Personally, I believe this is taking too much liberty with the text.
Paul (as far as I can tell) was speaking of government in general in
this passage, not only of democratic government.  Therefore, God has
bestowed authority in government itself.

  >If the latter, then democratic government itself may be a violation of 
  >Romans 13:2.

I don't follow your reasoning on how democracy as a form of government
violates Romans 13:2.  Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying.
Would you explain further?

Thanks,

Collis

    re: .61, .62
    
    Marshall,
    	I did not offer the example of Operation Rescue because I thought
    you were strongly in agreement with them but as an indication that many
    conservative Christians do not agree with your stance. I did note that
    Collis, who seems more in tune with that group than others in this
    conference, did not defend them.
    	If all authority is from God then it would seem presumptuous of you
    to even attempt to change such laws as do not suit your God-given moral
    and ethical codes. Or is that carrying a strict interpretation too far?
    	
    	A point aside: if you hope to gain my understanding or agreement,
    do not repeat arguments that I tell you I disagree with. Rephrasing an
    argument that I do not understand might be helpful, but doing the same
    to one I do not agree with is counterproductive. Quoting scripture at
    me has not proven useful, either. I do not hold the Bible - any version
    of it - to be inerrant or even totally laudable and have made no secret
    of this. I do not automatically discredit biblical quotes, I simply do
    not hold them in authority. Should you wish to gain my agreement then
    find a second (third, fourth) argument with a different rational. Or we
    can agree to disagree.

re Note 151.69 by XLIB::JACKSON:

>   >Our democratic government is predicated on a statement that
>   >its power comes from "the consent of the governed", not
>   >(directly) from God.
> 
> When the statements or beliefs of people are contradicted by the
> God's revelation in the Bible, the statements or beliefs of people
> are wrong.  Hope this clears that up.  :-)

        There is a contradiction only given one of several possible
        interpretations of Paul's writing -- not under all reasonable
        interpretations.  Nothing cleared up yet!


> Therefore, God has
> bestowed authority in government itself.

        That begs the question, what is "government itself"?  Is it
        limited to a definition that Paul might have used (I assume
        that he had no personal experience of democratic government
        -- certainly not at the "national" level)?  Or is Scripture
        more "timeless" than that, so that we are most likely to be
        correct in our interpretation by using our understanding of
        the concepts?


>   >If the latter, then democratic government itself may be a violation of 
>   >Romans 13:2.
> 
> I don't follow your reasoning on how democracy as a form of government
> violates Romans 13:2.  Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying.
> Would you explain further?
  
        If the "authority vested by God" rests in George Bush and not
        in the electorate, then the electorate is guilty of
        rebelling against God not to retain him in office (and
        support him with an agreeable congress).

        If the electorate is the seat of god-given authority, then
        there is no violation of Romans 13:2 when a member of that
        electorate insults "Bush", or suggests that he should be
        removed from office.

        Note that the founding fathers agreed with this analysis --
        that God gives the authority, but that the authority is given
        to the people who form the mechanisms of government as its
        agent.

        I don't think that Romans 13:2 contradicts that analysis
        unless you can show that God -- not just Paul -- had a
        contradictory interpretation of what "government" means.
        Can you show that?

        Bob

    The reason I am writing here is not just to convert a particular
    person, but is to show my side to this issue to all that may read
    this note.
    
    I will now give my view of this topic, with Bible verse, and the reason
    I give Bible verses is that for me it is the only true authority any
    where.  Now if you do not hold to that then it is your problem.  I
    have done what I can to show what I believe.
    
    Exodus 9:16 is where it states that God raised up and put into power
    the king of Egypt.  And that the only reason God put him in power
    is to show His (God) own power over him.  Yes, alot of Hebrews died
    and suffered for hundreds of years under this so that God could show
    His power.  
    
    Romans 9:17,18  again shows us that not only is Exodus 9 true, it is
    a bases for the New Testament Doctrine of predestination.
    
    Therefore, God does raise up and brings down governments according to
    His own will Romans 9:18.
    
    Now, in I Peter 2:17 tells us to honor the king.  
    Titus 3:1 tells us to obey the magistrates.
    Hebrews 13:17 tells us to obey them that have RULE over you.  Doesn't
    the President have rule over us?  The answer is YES.
    
    Acts 5:29 tells us when and how to dis-obey man's authority when
    it goes against God's authority.
    
    Now the question is, do you hold to the Bible as God's perfect word
    or not.  If not then I can see why you do not believe what I just
    showed you.  If you do believe God's word to be perfect, then what
    are you going to do?  
    
    
                              Marshall
    

    Marshall,
    	I do not believe the Bible to be God's word. Simple. You do. I have
    no problem with that. 
    	Now, let's go back and look at those verses you paraphrased. You
    said "obey the magistrates" and "obey those who have rule over you" and
    I don't have a lot of problem with that, in general. I'm 45 and never
    even been accused of a crime, much less convicted, so there is a lot of
    precedent indicating that I've been law abiding. You also said "honor
    your king", except that we don't have a king so that is irrelevent to
    us in our situation. Right ?  Bush, his preferences to the contrary, is
    an elected public servant rather than a king. He may act as though he
    is above the law (evidence suggests he was dealing with Iran during
    President Carter's term)(evidence suggests that he was aware of, if not
    instrumental in, the shipping of arms to the Contras through
    oath-breaker Oliver North)(evidence suggests that he was aware of, if
    not instrumental in, setting up M.Noriega as a drug lord)(evidence
    suggests that ... the shipping of cocain from Nicaragua in return, and
    in partial payment, for the arms shipped illegally to the Contras) but
    he is not.
    	Perhaps you are not trying to "convert" me. I don't know what else
    you might want to call it. Or was the emphisis on "a particular
    person" ?  Either way, your debating tactics are not likely to be
    effective in convincing others to your view of the truth. If this is OK
    by you, fine. Given that I don't agree with much of what you've said it
    makes little sense for me to attempt to aid you further in the
    presentation of your views.
    	Oh, and if you would like to view some of the evidence which
    suggests that Bush is less than an admirable character, contact the
    Christic Institute.

    My last reply on this topic is to clear up a point.
    
    Peter was not under a king and the people Peter wrote to were not under
    a king.  They were under the Roman empire.  Which by the way was a
    republic much like ours today.  Also I am sure both Peter and Paul
    knew about democracy.  Do not forget that Greece had a demorcracy
    before Rome was ever a republic.  Even after Rome had been in its
    hay day the Greek language was still used in most countries.  That
    is why the New Testament was written in Greek.  
    
    
    So knowing the above I must believe that the word king did not mean
    an actual king, but instead the understanding must be that of ruler
    which we find used else where in the Bible.
    
    The President does have authority.  He rules the Army, Navy, Air Force,
    and Marines.  He has authority to veto all legisation.  He can let
    anyone he wants to out of jail or off death row.  It is called a
    Presidental Pardon.  By law the President cannot be placed in jail
    but he can be impeached.  Our President has excutive power, and 
    the House has legisative power.  The only power the people have is
    to vote.  That is a republic.  Even in Rome they had the vote for
    citizens in the time of the empire.  In Rome the Ceaser was only in
    authority over the army and navy.  Rome had a senate.  However, long
    after Jesus Christ time on earth.  A Ceaser used the army to shut down
    the senate.  So it is not as you try to make it.
    
    
                                     Marshall
    

Note 151.72

>    The reason I am writing here is not just to convert a particular
>    person, but is to show my side to this issue to all that may read
>    this note.

Marshall,

	I am grateful to have you share your perspective with us here.

	I doubt that any two of us here possess identical perspectives
concerning the Bible.  This statement is also true, of course, among more
conservative Christians.  The differences are just less obvious.

	Personally, I believe that war and preparation for war are
diametrically opposed to the teachings and Spirit of Christ Jesus.

Peace,
Richard

    Re 151.67
    
    You've cited the same verses as used in the basenote, 151.0.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

>  Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is
>  no authority except that which God has established.  The authorities
>  that exist have been established by God.

>  Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against
>  what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on
>  themselves.  (Romans 13:1-2 NIV)

	Interesting to note that Jesus, John the Baptist, Paul, Peter,
most of the Apostles, Martin Luther King, Jr., Archbishop Oscar Romero,
Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, Fr. Daniel Berrigan, and countless others, have
all found themselves at odds with those in positions of authority.

	By any chance, is anyone here familiar with Franz Jeagerstetter?

Peace,
Richard

re Note 151.74 by RAVEN1::WATKINS:

>     Peter was not under a king and the people Peter wrote to were not under
>     a king.  They were under the Roman empire.  Which by the way was a
>     republic much like ours today.  Also I am sure both Peter and Paul
>     knew about democracy.  Do not forget that Greece had a demorcracy
>     before Rome was ever a republic.  

        At the time of Christ, Rome had long since passed from being
        an effective republic to imperial rule.  Democracy in Greece
        had faded centuries before that.  Neither society ever had
        anything approaching universal suffrage -- they were closer
        to the South African model where it was a "democracy" for the
        few.

        Bob

    re .74
    
    Marshall,
    	a statement and a question. The statement is that no one here has
    denied that the President has authority, only that such authority might
    be (being?) misused. The question/request for clarification is "you
    seem to be suggesting that the President is above the law, is this what
    you mean to suggest or state ?"

Re:  151.71

  >There is a contradiction only given one of several possible
  >interpretations of Paul's writing -- not under all reasonable
  >interpretations.  Nothing cleared up yet!

Oh well.  :-)

  >That begs the question, what is "government itself"?  

Government in a democracy has both components that you talk about:
the people who vote (or perhaps the people who are eligible to vote)
as well as the elected and appointed officials.  

Obeying the government ultimately means obeying the directives of
government which are most commonly expressed as laws.  Therefore, it
is our responsibility to obey the laws of our government.  You are
right in believing that, at times, this responsibility is superceded
by other responsibilities (to God, family or church, for example) as
is indicated in Scripture.  For the vast majority of cases, however,
we are to obey "government" (i.e. the laws of the government).

  >If the electorate is the seat of god-given authority, then
  >there is no violation of Romans 13:2 when a member of that
  >electorate insults "Bush", or suggests that he should be
  >removed from office.

I believe the Bible refers to us as properly being respectors of all
men, so I don't think that hurling insults either at George Bush or
Saddam Hussein is proper.

Advocatin the removal of someone from office is not disobeying government
in a democratic society since there is no law against that.  In fact, the
opposite is true: people are encouraged to be involved and seek to improve
government even (especially?) when it means replacing someone in office.

Collis

    I couldn't find a topic entitled Peace so I thought this might be a
    good place to enter the following.  I attended a weekend getaway with
    my 12 year old daughter this weekend sponsored by my church
    (Episcopal).  The theme of the retreat was Shalom (this had been
    decided last Spring but with the current state of the world was very
    appropos).  It was a busy program that involved much soul searching.
    The rector gave us the following to reflect upon throughout the
    retreat:
    
			SHALOM AS A VISION

"God's concern, or God's goal for this world -- the goal that comes 
through over and over again in the Old Testament -- is found under a 
single word.  In Hebrew the world is SHALOM.  It's a visionary word.  
The world of what God intends.  it's a world of equity and justice.  A 
world of freedom and unity, a world of order and wholeness, a world of 
well-being and peace.  Shalom is the realization of all those things.  
It's for that reason that God created the world; it is what God 
intends the world to be.  In the New Testament, Shalom is talked about 
in terms and images such as the kingdom of God, God's rule, the place 
where God rules, where peace and justice, well-being of all people, 
and unity and equality are realized in the political, social, 
economic world" (1)  Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the 
fulfillment of Shalom and that he calls us to do justice, make peace, 
serve others, care for the earth, and share the joy of his gift to the 
world.

(1)John Westerhoff, "Shalom," in Teaching toward a Faithful Vision: 
Leader's Guide (Nashville: Discipleship Resources, 1977) p. 52

Taken from Christian Parenting for Peace and Justice, James and 
Kathleen McGinnis, Discipleship Resources, Nashville.


    

Not sure if the following has been mentioned if not I think it is worth thinking
about . Jesus said " Pay back Caesar's things to Caesar, but God's things to
God." Mark 12:17 . The true followers of Christ belong to God, II Timothy 2:19,
so by laying down ones life for the State, is one giving to Caesar what really
belongs to God?.

Phil.  

      Two points on Phil's conclusion.  
    
    1. Jesus also taught that to lay one's life down for a friend is the
    greatest love.  So it does not follow that your life is not something
    you cannot give up.  We must hold to all scripture and not just pick
    and chose, if we believe the bible is the word of God.
    
    2.  Second, a man or woman being in the military does not mean that
    their life will be layed down.
    
    As another thought on this.  If laying your life down for the state is
    wrong then all law enforcement officers, EMS, firemen, and others
    should walk off their jobs.  There would be no one to guard those
    that go to jail.  No, God ordained government to keep order, and keeping
    order in a world of sin means some may have to lay down their life.
    
    
                                  Marshall

>    1. Jesus also taught that to lay one's life down for a friend is the
>    greatest love.

	I agree, this is the greatest love.  I am not against laying down
my life out of sacrificial love.  I am against the idea of killing people
on the way out, however.

	As General George Patton said to his troops, "It is not your job
to lay down your life for your country.  It is your job to get the other
guy to lay down his life for his!"

Peace,
Richard

    re:.84
    	A nicely sanitized paraphrase. Patton was a bit more colorful in
    his eloquence.
    
    re:.83
    	Police, EMTs and firemen are not called to lay their lives down for
    their country. They occasionally die in the line of duty, but that
    isn't what they are there for. They are there, in theory, to help
    others - and, for police, to protect others from harm. The job of a
    soldier is primarily as Patton expressed it - he left off "or die
    trying". 

    Reply .85
    
    Patton also said "Your duty to your country is not to die, but to help
    the other poor $#@%&*# die for his country."  I was a soldier in the 
    infantry for four years.  I went to Basic training, Advanced Infantry
    training, and NCO school.  I served with the Big Red One.  Never once
    was I trained to die for my country.  I was trained to kill for my 
    country in order to protect your rights and mine.  I asure you that
    the object of every man and woman in the military is to have victory
    and be alive.  That soldier like the policeman, EMT, or the fireman
    does not have for a goal death.  All three have the goal of
    accomplishing the mission (ie job) they are payed to do.  In doing
    that job all of those people may loose their lives.  All of them 
    know that they could die (Police, EMT, firemen, soldier).  For 
    all of them are laying their life down for their governments
    be it county, state, of federal.
    
    
                               Marshall

>    1. Jesus also taught that to lay one's life down for a friend is the
>    greatest love.  So it does not follow that your life is not something
>    you cannot give up.  We must hold to all scripture and not just pick
>    and chose, if we believe the bible is the word of God.

Are we in agreement that Jesus lived what he taught?  According to Scripture,
Jesus made this statement not long before going to the cross to die a
humiliating and excruciatingly painful death.  Was this not a living example
of sacrificial love?  Of laying one's life down for the sake of others?
Where is recorded that Jesus killed or even prepared to kill anyone?

Let me be clear.  I was not endorsing what Patton said.  I was contrasting
it against Christ's teaching.

Peace,
Richard

Re.85

   Marshall:

             I rather suspect that you were trained to die by the
  Army. They just neglected to inform you of this fact. People in
  the military are trained to obey orders without question. Quite
  a bit of time and effort is put into getting people to the beyond
  thinking stage of training. This is done because it is sometimes
  necessary order people to go get killed. Something that most people
  are loath to do most of the time.
              In the Coast Guard there is a saying, "You always have
  to go out, but you don't always have to come back." I always thought
  this was a pretty good summation of what was expected of us. We were
  expected to do our duty or die in the attempt. 
               Quite a few times during different types of training it was
  made quite clear to us that we could get killed doing what we were
  being trained for and in many circumstances we were expected to get
  killed so other people wouldn't. Perhaps they were just being more
  honest with us than the Army is with it's members.
              People in the military are not there to defend freedom, the
  flag, Mom or apple pie. They are simply part of the equipment needed to
  accomplish whatever mission that whoever controls the military has ordered
  to be carried out. That some of the equipment will get "destroyed" in
  order to accomplish the mission is to be expected.
               If the objective is to "come back alive" then no one would
  ever "go out" in the first place. If people were not willing to kill and
  be killed governments everywhere would find that war was impossible
  because no one would show up to fight. ( What a lovely thought !) 


                                                             Mike 

re .83

	Hi Marshall,

	May I comment on your last reply .
    
;    1. Jesus also taught that to lay one's life down for a friend is the
;    greatest love.  So it does not follow that your life is not something
;    you cannot give up.  We must hold to all scripture and not just pick
;    and chose, if we believe the bible is the word of God.

	In my earlier reply I mentioned that Jehovah has friends in all nations
	(compare 1 Peter 5:9), so Jehovah's Witnesses are quite prepared to
	lay down their lives rather than be pitted against their brother (or
	friend) in distant lands . A good example of this, is the German
	Jehovah's Witnesses that lost their lives during the World War II .
	Rather than be swept into a war against their brothers in distant
	lands, they did not compromise on the principled love they had for
	the whole worldwide brotherhood, and because of this (as well as their
	neutral stance as regards politics) many lost their lives in
	concentration camps . Unlike the Jewish people, all they had to do was
	sign a piece of paper, to denounce their faith, to be set free . What
	do you think would have happened if the German clergy had made the
	same stance as the Jehovah's Witnesses ?.

	Phil.

	P.S. I'll try and respond on your point 2 that you made regarding the
	Police and Firemen, but this will not be until Thursday for I am out
	tomorrow .
    

    re .86
    
    Marshall,
    	if you had taken the care to read the reference I pointed to, you
    would have known that I was refering to that Patton quote.   

    Hi Marshall

    I must apologise for not replying sooner about the point 2 you made in reply
    151.83 . I have to admit that the Emergency services is not something that I
    know much about, apart from the grand job they do and how to contact them  
    through the telephone number 999 . Another reason for taking so long, was 
    that I wanted to speak to a friend who as well as being a fireman he is 
    also a Jehovah's Witness . To paraphrase what he said, was that he was not 
    expected to lay down his life for the state, safety came first for him and 
    his men, he would under certain situations be prepared to lay down his 
    life. But, this would be for the individual(s) being rescued and not the 
    state, and would be a conscientious decision all firemen face . 

    I myself cannot remark about Policemen for it is not something that I have
    looked into or given it too much thought about . I agree in some cases
    the law inforcement agencies may be required to lay down their lives for 
    the state . But should a christian question wether he can take up a career 
    as a Policeman especially in the light of carrying firearms . I do not know
    what EMT stands for does it mean emergency medical team? . 

    In .86 you gave some of your experience as a soldier and how you was not
    trained to die for your country, no doubt this is true of most soldiers 
    through out the world . But, I know that in many countries when the crunch 
    comes, you are expected to do what ever is necessary eventhough this might 
    mean your laying down your life for your country . For example here in 
    Britain we learn in our history books that Nelson got the flags on Victory 
    hoisted to say "England expects everyman will do his duty" (well that is 
    how I remember it, no doubt if I have got it wrong someone will put me 
    right) , his duty could mean his laying down his life for his country .

    I would like to say that all Jehovah's Witnesses in countries like the 
    United States and Great Britain are grateful to the authorities for the 
    freedom that they have, especially allowing them to fulfill the commision 
    given to them by their leader Jesus, Matthew 24:14 and 28:19,20 . But they 
    are not willing to drop their principles or standards to keep this freedom,
    such as being pitted against their brother in distant lands .

    Phil.
    
    

    Phil,
    	EMT stands for Emergency Medical Technician. EMTs are trained to
    deal with trauma and to be able to communicate effectively with
    doctors, to be their eyes and hands. This way a doctor in an emergency
    room will know what type of problem is incoming and that the problem
    may have been partially dealt with. They save lives. They also get to
    go places where dangerous things are happening - what a thrill.:-(
    	The point about "not trained to lay down their lives for their
    country" was not that soldiers are not expected to die, if that's what
    it takes, for their country. A soldier is trained to KILL (or wound or
    capture) for his country, dieing is just one of the things that happens
    to a soldier who doesn't manage to kill well enough to convince the
    enemy to stop fighting. It's the price of failure.

/** gn.peacemedia: 83.0 **/
** Topic: Interview with Daniel Berrigan **
** Written  5:48 pm  Mar  1, 1991 by gn:peacemedia in cdp:gn.peacemedia **
Keeping the Faith:
an interview with Daniel Berrigan
 
Jesuit priest, poet, playwright, professor, frequent prisoner and companion
to the dying: Dan Berrigan is all these and more. His first prison term was
for burning draft records at Catonsville, Maryland, in 1968. A more recent
period in prison was the consequence of helping to damage missile parts at
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, in 1980. Among his many books is an
autobiography, "To Dwell in Peace," published in 1987. More recently Orbis
published "Daniel Berrigan: Poetry, Drama & Prose," an anthology.
 
"Your name is synonymous with protest and dissent during the Vietnam era. Do
you find that people still want to talk about Vietnam and its lessons? Or
have we forgotten?"
 
I am afraid that the memory of the war is lost and that we continue to
suffer from instant amnesia. There is no memory of what we have done, both
on the domestic and international levels. In this country, we are born with
a gun in our hands.
 
"As you look back on your response to the Vietnam war, what are the things
that endure, what remains most important to you?"
 
My friendship with [Thomas] Merton and the Vietnamese Buddhists -- that is
beyond price. Also, we learned about the courts, about jail, crime, and
punishment. We also gained a certain savvy [wisdom] about the whole justice
system. We found out that the people who protest or dissent or object to the
system of violence become criminalized, while the criminals are vindicated.
We learned that there is no justice for peacemakers.
 
"Do you have any regrets?"
 
I hate to even speak of this, but yes, I regret being a little late and slow
in responding to the war. The reason is that my training was retarded; it
was difficult for anyone, especially young Jesuits, as isolated as we were.
There is a great advantage for young people today; there's a hell of a lot
of help out there that we didn't have.
 
"How is the Vietnam war present today; what are its effects or aftermath?
What does it still mean for the United States?"
 
First, it is present in its very powerful symbolism. The war remains
"radically incomplete," especially when you include all the pain and
destruction we did to not only the Vietnamese, but also the Cambodians and
Laotians. Also, there is the question of the Vietnam vets, many of whom are
in serious trouble. When I was in prison briefly in 1980 after the King of
Prussia action, a state prison in Pennsylvania, I discovered one-third of
the inmates were Vietnam veterans.  This bothered and intrigued me. I found
out later from Amnesty International that for that age group it is the
national average. This remains a terrible part of the trauma of that war --
it's like a bloodstain on the national fabric.
 
"In the past five years there has been a spate of movies about Vietnam plus
many events honoring Vietnam vets -- parades and public speeches. Those who
opposed the war often have ambivalent feelings about these so-called
"healing" experiences, especially since their tone is so nonpolitical and
non-critical of the war itself. What can those in the peace movement do to
be reconciled with, to help or heal these vets while at the same time
maintaining the fervor of opposition to the war itself?"
 
This is a difficult question. I know Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese Buddhist
monk still in exile in France. Probably he will never be able to go home. He
was recently in the US to lead a retreat for Vietnam vets. This is an
extraordinary thing -- a Buddhist who was persecuted because of US presence
in his country leading vets in prayer and praying with them.  This is the
kind of thing we need to do. Out of experiences like this come the answers
about healing.
 
"Do you think there is any other unfinished business left from Vietnam?"
 
The Gulf. We are doing it again. We've already done it in Grenada and
Panama. This is a continuum of violence, alienation, and fear: the whole
world will be organized to look like us or we will bring it down. We want
there to be only one kind of human being, one kind of society; either that,
or it must be on the supply line to here.
 
"What are the things we should teach our children about Vietnam?"
 
We teach them what we live.
 
"You mean the violent culture?"
 
Yes, and the violent Church, and educational system, and so on. We need to
live in an alternative way so as to teach them peace.
 
"Many on the Right are summing-up the so-called lessons of Vietnam by saying
that division in an hour of crisis will bring defeat; in effect, that
questioning the government is not only unproductive but unpatriotic. How
would you respond to this?"
 
Well, I'm looking for a Biblical mandate to be patriotic, and I don't find
one. Jesus touched on it only very lightly.  Frankly, it doesn't compel me.
 
"What effect has the Vietnam war, or the war as it is remembered, had on the
present peace and anti-nuclear movement?"
 
Vietnam was our -- hesitate to say boot camp [military training camp] -- it
was our peace camp. We learned a lot in the courts, jails, communities,
families; even the Jesuits learned a little. It was a very bitter but
important school.
 
"In your autobiography you talk of the students at Cornell in the late 60s
as having very little experience of `a sacramental moment...of a tradition,
mystery, prayer, sacrament, Bible, they were the unborn.' Do you see any
parallels today, and if so, what is to be done about this?"
 
Whew! These are difficult questions that one could really spend a lot of
time preparing answers for; but I'll try... I am not obligated to be heard,
but offer what I can to the community in struggle. I don't want to set
myself up as a sacramental moment in anyone's life. What is a sacrament?
When I was in New Orleans, teaching some classes there all the students,
especially the women, responded to what was going on in the class. There was
a real awakening that went on that was very hopeful. We had a housing rally;
people were arrested.  The class was called: "Faith and Nonviolence." After
the arrests people went into jail and court for the first time.  That sets a
lot in motion. We asked why we do these things?  What does it all mean? Then
there was a wonderful response to the murders in Salvador. Does a community
come out of it? Thus all of what went on in that class deserved to be called
religious.
 
"Also in your autobiography speaking of the jurors at the Catonsville trial
you say: `They bore out an earlier insight.  There were no civilians in
modern war, there were only those suffering one or another degree of the
infection of violence.' Do you feel this is still true today; and if so, do
you think there is any way to convert the masses to nonviolence, to a
turning away from the bellicosity and machismo that seems to so infect
political discourse today?"
 
Life brings one down to size. I can't imagine the burden of having to
convert anyone especially the masses. That's too huge an undertaking. What
are the masses anyway? We have to do what we can in the context of our small
lives.
 
"In the same section of your autobiography you talk about the realization
you had that, in a life dedicated to nonviolence, one could not depend a lot
on results. Is this what you mean?"
 
Yes. The gospel says: Live as though this were true. And let it go.
 
"Is there anything else you would like to say to our readers?"
 
Hang in there. Carry it on. It's all worth it.
 
[Peace Media Service] (end)
 
** End of text from cdp:gn.peacemedia **

Dave,

Thank you for explaining Emergency Medical Technician, I think the nearest
thing we have to them here in the UK is the Ambulance men/women .

In the light of Soldiers being trained to kill, I would like to know the 
different views regarding Isaiah 2:1-4 . So that you know were I am coming
from please let me explain a little my own understanding . In verse 2 it says 
"It shall come to pass in the last days"  that people will stream to true 
worship of Jehovah God and he will instruct them in His ways (verse 2-3). Part 
of His ways would be that "neither shall they will learn war any more ", 
verse 4 . So from my perspective I do not see how a person wanting to live by 
Jehovah's standards can be a soldier today, seeing that soldiers are trained to 
kill and this would conflict with learning war no more . Perhaps, those who have a 
different perspective of these verses could share it .

Phil.

    	Sorry, Phil. I chose to serve my country as a "support troop". I
    was unwilling to take up arms and kill to support my country's
    diplomatic commitment to a series of dictators. Kind of a shame, in a
    way, since I four times - each of four years served - qualified as an
    expert marksman with an M16. But then, paper targets don't bleed or
    scream as they get torn apart ... I can't tell you how a soldier who
    claims to be a Christian can justify killing. 
    	EMTs are a couple of steps above Ambulance Drivers and Attendents,
    they have much more thourough medical training. Then again, I don't
    know what kind of training YOUR attendents have - might be the
    equivalent.

Dave,

;    	Sorry, Phil. I chose to serve my country as a "support troop". I
;    was unwilling to take up arms and kill to support my country's
;    diplomatic commitment to a series of dictators. Kind of a shame, in a
;    way, since I four times - each of four years served - qualified as an
;    expert marksman with an M16. But then, paper targets don't bleed or
;    scream as they get torn apart ... I can't tell you how a soldier who
;    claims to be a Christian can justify killing.

It is obvious that you have given this much thought . Was it easy to make the
stand that you did ? I would imagine this must have been quite difficult
keeping to your principles . I also respect your views regarding serving
your country . In contrast Jehovah's Witnesses, are to be no part of the world
with no political involvment immating Jesus's example of being totally neutral
in worldly things, but see themselves as subjects of a heavenly government led 
by Jesus Christ . Though this kingdom is yet to fully turn it's attention to
the earth it is prophesied about in Isaiah 9:6 RSV "For to us a child is
born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder," .
As prospective subjects of this government they follow its direction such as 
ensuring that the preaching work (Matt 24:14) is carried out . This also means 
that they see other brothers in other lands as being part of the same nation 
as it were . I am sure that if they were called to fight for this nation that
they would , but they see that Jehovah has already appointed someone to carry 
this out , compare Psalms 2 .

Isaiah 9:7 KJV goes on to say "Of the increase of his government and peace
there shall be no end," , these subjects would have to have learnt war no
more for peace to have no end . Today, there is talk of great arms reductions
but the problem is that the technology is there to remake them . It will only
be when peoples attitudes change that war will cease and this will only come
about through God's kingdom . The reason for the need of God's kingdom is
found in Jeremiah 17:9 KJV talking about the heart of mortal man it says "The
heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?".

I hope this helps a little in explaining why Jehovah's Witnesses see the need 
too learn war no more .   
 
 
;    	EMTs are a couple of steps above Ambulance Drivers and Attendents,
;    they have much more thourough medical training. Then again, I don't
;    know what kind of training YOUR attendents have - might be the
;    equivalent.

There are I believe different grades of Ambulance Drivers/Attendents, those
with the  highest grade would be the nearest to an EMT .

Phil.

    Phil,
    	I had no problem reconciling two beliefs which might have been
    contradictory. But I was lucky. I was never asked to take up arms
    against another or put in a war environment. Had either happened then
    there might have been problems.
    	I didn't actually give what I was doing much thought at the time, I
    just reached a conclusion and managed to get through. Reading that I've
    done since has helped me sort out the logic and beliefs that must have
    underlay my decision.

	It has been my observation that a significant portion of young
men and women join today's military do so without visions of martial
glory.  For many, the choice is neither for a job, nor an adventure.

	Many lower income enlistees simply wanted an education they could
not otherwise afford.  I suspect few thought that when they signed that
piece of paper they'd someday actually be engaging in combat; that they'd
be required to kill people; that they'd be jeopardizing their own lives.
It was a gamble made during a time in life filled with uncertainties.

	Some don't realize that they are not killer material until after
they've signed up and been in awhile.  Such is the case of Sergeant George
Morse and several others who have opted to claim Conscientious Objector status.

Peace,
Richard

RE EMT's versus ambulance attendants or drivers. I was a trained
EMT back in the early 70's in Utah. The difference in EMT
training was the authorization to start IV's, administer "shock
of life", and perform triage (all with constant communications
with hospital based emergency room doctors). I was trained with
our local ambulance brigade since they serve in remote areas of
Utah that is 45 minutes to hours away from local hospitals.

Current rural EMTs even have geo-global boxes that thell them
exactly where they are and satellite communicators that allow
them to talk to doctors in the high mountains.

calvin

War and Peace (1865-1869)

"But what is war?  What is needed for success in warfare?  What are the
habits of the military?  The aim of war is murder; the methods of war are
spying, treachery, and their encouragement, the ruin of a country's
inhabitants, robbing them or stealing to provision the army, and fraud
and falsehood termed military craft.  The habits of the military are the
absence of freedom, that is, discipline, idleness, ignorance, cruelty,
debauchery, and drunkeness.  And in spite of all this, it is the highest
class, respected by everyone...and he who kills the most people receives
the highest awards."
					- Leo Tolstoy
					Pt. X, ch. xxv [Prince
					Andrey speaking]

    From "Visions of a Warless World", by Walden Bello (page 9):

        The early Christian church was avowedly and militantly pacifist. 
        Thus Tertullian saw a wider significance to Jesus' admonition to
        Peter: "Christ in disarming Peter ungirt every soldier." 
        Lactantius seconded this: "God in prohibiting killing
        discountenances not only brigandage, which is contrary to human
        laws, but also that which men regard as legal.  Participation in
        warfare therefore will not be legitimate to a just man..."  Perhaps
        emblematic of the attitude toward war of the early Christian church
        was Maximilianus' reply to Dior, the proconsul of Africa, on why he
        refused to serve in the military: "I cannot serve as a soldier; I
        cannot do evil; I am a Christian."  For this he was put to death,
        as were many other young Christian conscientious objectors.

        With the establishment of Christianity as the state religion of the
        Roman Empire after the conversion of Constantine in 312 A.D.,
        Christianity became tightly enmeshed with temporal power.  The
        writings of the Church Fathers reflected this trend:

            The theologians recognized that the empire had pacified the
            world, established universal communication, and made possible
            the proclamation of the gospel to all nations.  Christianity,
            they claimed, had coincidentally tamed belligerent peoples by
            overcoming demons which incited them to war.  The Roman peace
            and the Christian peace thus supported each other, and the
            prophecy that swords should be beaten into plowshares had
            received fulfillment in the Pax Romana. (Rolan Bainton,
            _Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace_, page 38)

        By the fifth century, the pacifism of the early subversive church
        had been thoroughly subverted by the institutionalization of
        Christianity as the state religion.  Christians now served in
        armies of the Empire and filled offices of civil government.  The
        new spirit was reflected in one of the canons emerging from the
        synod of Arles in the fourth century, which stipulated that "those
        who lay down their arms in time of peace [would] be excluded from
        communion," that is, excommunicated.

    -- Mike

They stood - the prophet called the Lord and the colonel called brigade
commander - in the hot sands of the Middle East, two mighty men, one
2,000 years ago, the other today.  Both followed their calling; each had
a vital mission to carry out; both vigorously sought to save the world;
each stood and spoke with deep feeling and amazed and inspired the men
and women around them:

Commander:  "My goal is for this to be the killer brigade.  Killers survive."

Lord:  "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be call sons of God."

Commander:  "There are killers, and there are others.  And what each of you
needs to do is be the former and not the latter.  Our goal is to make the
Iraqi army our fodder."

Lord:  "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,...To him who
strikes you on the cheek, offer the other..."

Commander:  "Some of these guys [Iraqi soldiers] are not going to get a proper
burial.  Some of these are going to be laid to rest right there in the holes
they've been sitting in.  They are just going to be covered up as we go by.
Now that's a sad thing, but I don't want you to be sad about it, because they
are the same trigger-pullers who are trying to kill you.  And if any of you
have any problem with that, you're in the wrong business."

Lord:  "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and
hate your enemy.'  But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those
who persecute you, so that you may be son of your Father who is in heaven..."

Commander:  "It is going to be anything but timid.  It is going to be
exceedingly violent.  But it must be disciplined and controlled [violence]."

Lord:  "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you; not as the world gives
do I give to you.  Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid."

Commander:  "I don't know how many people there are in the world, but the vast
majority of them are born and live and die without having the opportunity to
do something that will shape the world of the future."

Lord:  "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the
works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to
the Father...This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have
loved you.

Quotations from the Bible RSV and from a news article by Douglas Feld,
The Washington Post, February 21, 1991.

re Note 151.102 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

        Truly, the Lord Jesus of the Scriptures is so far from the
        Lord followed by the majority of professing Christians in
        America that it is a wonder of God's mercy over God's justice
        that anyone would be saved!

        Lord, have mercy on me, and my country, we are sinners!

        Bob

The military's high-powered sales techniques spell disillusionment
for many recruits.

-- Recruiters sometimes falsify test scores and overlook other disqualifying
information in order to meet their quotas.  When fraudulent enlistment is
discovered, the soldier is often blamed.

-- Despite advertisement to the contrary, skills learned in the military are
seldom applicable in the civilian world.  Unemployment is 35% higher among
young vets than among non-vets of the same age-group.

-- College benefits come with strings attached.  Many GI's can't cash in on
them because they can't make the necessary monthly payments.

-- 30% of enlisted personnel are people of color, but only 11% are officers.

-- According to a 1990 survey, 64% of women in the military have been sexually
harassed, almost twice the rate of civilian society.

copied with permission
Christian Peacemakers Team/SYNAPSES

Peace,
Richard

    Are you saying that we shouldn't have a military organization because
    it doesn't come wart free?
    
    Mike

    .105
    
    	Speaking from my own Christian perspective, I wouldn't favor having
    a military organization even if it was wart free.
    
    	You know, it's not impossible.  We're just not emotionally ready
    for it yet.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    I agree that it would be nice if we didn't need to have a military, but
    until the human race goes through some massive changes in the way
    individual people think and behave, it just isn't possible.  That is,
    assuming we wish to protect ourselves from those who would like to
    gain power over us.
    
    Mike 

I'm reminded of the story of a debate between a pacifist and a militarist.
To make a lengthy story short, after both had presented skillful oratories
which contained many convincing arguments, the pacifist asked his opponent,
"If all the world would lay down its arms, *then* would you have us lay down
our arms?"

"Yes, I would," came the response.

"Then, the real difference between us," said the pacifist, "is that you would
do last what I would do first."

Peace,
Richard

    Sounds good to me.  Trouble is, do you really want to trust the other
    guy to lay down his arms next?

    Such weakness (vulnerability) confounds the strong (invulnerable),
    doesn't it?
    
    It calls for a real leap of faith.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Indeed it does.  

    
    Heard that Yeltsin is going to turn nuclear weapons away from US
    cities.  The interview w/Barbara Walters is to appear on 20/20 this 
    Friday evening (EST) at 10pm.
    
    Cindy

    RE: .110 It requires a faith in men. Until God repeals free will
    or all men know Christ I am not ready to put that much faith in
    mankind.
    
    			Alfred

re: Note 151.112 by Cindy "let there be music" 

>                         -< a step in a direction... >-

>    Heard that Yeltsin is going to turn nuclear weapons away from US
>    cities.  

Does that mean they will be turned *towards* some other target?

Asked not entirely tongue in cheek,

Peace,

Jim

    .113
    
    I don't know about that.  I believe it requires faith in God, rather
    than faith in military might.  You know the verse from Zachariah?  "Not
    by might, not by power, but by my Spirit!" says the Lord.
    
    Peace,
    Richard 

             
    Re.114
    
    Hi Jim,
    
    Not sure....it was only a quick press brief.
    
    It was successful advertising though...I'll certainly be watching on
    Friday nite! (;^)
    
    Cindy
    
    
    
    PS. After all these years, I just-this-minute realized the connection 
        with your name and a certain tv show...(;^)  Some of us are slower 
        than others...

    Well, the Lord can say that because He's the Lord.  The rest of us have
    to deal with bullies as best we can.  IMO, history has proven that in
    international affairs, turning the other cheek, ie appeasing
    international bullies, does nothing but get innocent people killed. 
    And surely there is room for justice in international affairs, even
    though that justice sometimes requires a strong arm in order for it to
    be applied.
    
    Mike

Note 151.117

>    Well, the Lord can say that because He's the Lord.  The rest of us have
>    to deal with bullies as best we can.  IMO, history has proven that in
>    international affairs, turning the other cheek, ie appeasing
>    international bullies, does nothing but get innocent people killed. 

Mike,

	It's beginning to sound to me like you're rejecting at least some
of the teachings of Jesus ("turn the other cheek").  I'll respect that, of
course, if it's true.  Is it?

Peace,
Richard

    In the case of international affairs, a country turns its cheek to
    rogue nations at its own peril.

    Anyway, if your question was intended to elicit my status as a
    Christian, I am not.  I don't know if that makes any difference to you
    in terms of my being able to participate in this conference.  I hope
    not.  

    As to the specifics, turning one's cheek is sometimes a reasonable
    response to aggression, but sometimes it is not.  There are times when
    people need to stand up and confront evil, lest innocent people become
    sacrificed.  It is one thing to sacrifice one's self to an ideal, it is
    quite another to sacrifice others to that ideal.  
    
    Mike

re Note 151.119 by SOLVIT::MSMITH:

>     As to the specifics, turning one's cheek is sometimes a reasonable
>     response to aggression, but sometimes it is not.  There are times when
>     people need to stand up and confront evil, lest innocent people become
>     sacrificed.  It is one thing to sacrifice one's self to an ideal, it is
>     quite another to sacrifice others to that ideal.  

        I agree -- the difficult situation isn't "self-defense", but
        rather is "other defense".

        Bob

    Re: .119
    
>    Anyway, if your question was intended to elicit my status as a
>    Christian, I am not.  I don't know if that makes any difference to you
>    in terms of my being able to participate in this conference.  I hope
>    not.

Not at all.  Your participation in C-P is as welcome as the flowers in May!
    
Peace,
Richard

    RE: .119 & .120 Agreed. I believe that it is a noble and worthy
    thing to die for ones beliefs I'm not so sure it's so noble for
    allow others, through inaction, to die for your belief. And if
    the choice is between letting the innocent woman and children die
    or to let solders fighting of their own free will to die why is
    it more holy to let the innocent die? The logic of this is lost
    to me.
    
    			Alfred

Re:  151.118

  >It's beginning to sound to me like you're rejecting at least some
  >of the teachings of Jesus ("turn the other cheek").

Jesus did not address this teaching to governments, but to
individuals.  Or perhaps you believe differently?

Collis

Note 151.123

>Jesus did not address this teaching to governments, but to
>individuals.  Or perhaps you believe differently?

Collis,

	Most definately.  Jesus did not make any such delineation,
just as Jesus made no ceremonial or moral delineations about the Law.
Such is merely another form of what Fundamentalists call "picking and
choosing."

Peace,
Richard

Ah, Richard,

How you can continue to make this claim without being able to
clearly refute the very contradictory roles in *many*
areas that have been defined in both the Old and the New
Testament is beyond me.  If you would like, I will enter 4 or
5 areas where the individual is given one directive and a group
(either government, family or church) is given a very different
directive and you can explain to me how God is *not* differentiating
between the two with different expectations.

This has been (and continues to be) an understanding of the
Bible from the time it was written.  This understanding (which
is simply an acceptance of the clear meaning of the text) transcends
church differences and is so widely accepted, it is not an issue
(except in here, I guess).  All Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox
denominations that I am aware of (as well as many cults) accept
that God has different roles (and rules) for different groups -
and particularly for individuals as opposed to institutions.

Collis

P.S.  With respect to Jesus' teachings, almost all of them were
directed to individuals.  (Easy enough to check out - just look at
the context).  If you are arguing from silence that Jesus always
said "do a, b and c" when talking to individuals and never discussed
the subject with reference to groups, this argument is logically
unsound (as most arguments from silence are).  Let's not deal with
simply a selected portion of Scripture; let's deal with *all* of
Scripture and see *all* of what God has commanded.

    Re: .125
    
    Clearly, what you are reciting is para-Biblical doctrine.
    
    When it suits you, you use a passage or two (or 4 or 5).  So do I!
    When it suits you, you say to take the Bible as a unit.  So do I!
    
    You believe you have the greater understanding of God's will and that I
    do not.  I believe I have the greater understanding of God's will and
    that you do not.
    
    What you believe seems reasonable and right to you.  What I believe
    seems reasonable and right to me.
    
    What you believe is in accordance with your understanding of Scripture.
    What I believe is in accordance with my understanding of Scripture.
    
    Your doctrine tends to reinforce the status quo within society.  My
    doctrine tends toward social revolution.
    
    Of course, you have been seminary trained and I have not.  But, neither
    did the disciples attend seminary.  I hope you'll not hold this against
    us.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Note 151.119

>    In the case of international affairs, a country turns its cheek to
>    rogue nations at its own peril.

I would like to point out that there exists such a country.  Surrounded
by potentially hostile neighbors, Costa Rica continues to flourish without
a military (Costa Rica does have something akin to our National Guard for
responding to natural disasters and so forth).

Costa Ricans have vowed to wipe out poverty in their country by the
year 2000.  And a far more Godly undertaking it is than the the ability
to wreak enormous destruction.

Peace,
Richard

    Might I point out that Kuwait was similarly inclined.......
    
    Otto

Re:  151.126
    
  >Clearly, what you are reciting is para-Biblical doctrine.
    
  >When it suits you, you use a passage or two (or 4 or 5).  So do I!
  >When it suits you, you say to take the Bible as a unit.  So do I!

Actually, Richard, I take a passage or two and I take the Bible as
a unit whether it suits me or not.  You don't see now in 1992 the
struggles I had with this in 1984.  However, I *refused* to distort
the meaning of the Bible because of my personal beliefs and when I
understood the Bible as contradicting what I believed, I struggled.
Ultimately, I have always submitted to the truth from the Bible.
Why?  Because I am convinced that, just as it claims literally
hundreds of times and in many, many way that it really is God's truth
given to all of us for our growth, understanding, comfort, knowledge,
etc.

It sounds to me from your response that either/both:

  1)  You are not really interested in exploring the depths of this
      topic, just in stating your views.
  2)  You are unable to justify your views from the Bible.

I understand that you would much prefer to shape this discussion in
the form of "my opinion/your opinion".  However, as much as we do have
opinions, I have refused (and will continue to refuse) to base the
discussion on opinions, but rather look back to what the Bible says.
Since you place some worth in Scripture, there is clearly a common
ground for discussion if you are willing.

Collis

P.S.
  I notice that you did/could not refute a single argument that I
gave in my initial response, but prefered instead to change the topic
from the facts.  

    re: .127  (Richard)
    
>   > In the case of international affairs, a country turns its cheek to
>   > rogue nations at its own peril.

    >I would like to point out that there exists such a country.  Surrounded
   > by potentially hostile neighbors, Costa Rica continues to flourish
   > without a military (Costa Rica does have something akin to our National
   > Guard for responding to natural disasters and so forth).

    Well, the government of Costa Rica is betting that they don't have
    anything that their neighbors want.  Fact is, it seems that the history
    of Latin America shows remarkably few examples of one country invading
    another, being mostly kept busy with their internal problems and trying
    to deal with us Norte Americanos.  The national military organizations
    in the rest of the Latin American countries seem to spend most of their
    time fighting with their own citizens, than they do in fighting with
    other countries.  So, it seems that the Costa Rican bet is a reasonable
    one, for the time being at least.  But the Costa Rican experience is a
    fairly unique one, and doesn't seem to lend itself to the USA, at
    least not yet.
    
    >Costa Ricans have vowed to wipe out poverty in their country by the
    >year 2000.  And a far more Godly undertaking it is than the the ability
    >to wreak enormous destruction.
    
    A truly noble undertaking.  I wish them success.
    
    Mike

    Collis,
    
    	I shall address your issues in another topic, though I sincerely
    doubt that you are genuine in your desire to understand any other than
    the conservative views you now embrace.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

  >...I sincerely doubt that you are genuine in your desire to understand
  >any other than the conservative views you now embrace.

I believe I already understand the view.  It is the reconciliation
of the view with Scripture that I question.  It makes perfect sense
to me why people would elevate love (and the "wordly" ramifications
of love) to the status of God, which is what I view many of the more
liberal views as doing.  It has an appeal to me, too.  I have found
this, however, to be Scripturally unsound.  Others seem to have either
found the basis for this belief in Scripture or have reconciled this
belief with Scripture.  I still find it to be a mass of contradiction.
It leads (as previous discussions with Mike Valenza, in particular,
have pointed out) to denying what Scripture says.  Perhaps there is
more to be learned here.

Collis

Note 151.130

>    Well, the government of Costa Rica is betting that they don't have
>    anything that their neighbors want.

A commonly held and erroneous perception.

Peace,
Richard

PS  Costa Rica has banned Oliver North from ever treading on that nation's
    soil.

    re: .129
    
    Reminder:  Unlike the GOLF::CHRISTIAN notes conference, this conference
    does *not* rely on "what the Bible says" as the sole authority for
    discussion or belief!  While you are certainly welcome to refer to
    the Bible as *your* sole authority, it seems out of place *here* for you
    to castigate other Christians who do not agree with you on this.
    
    I would also personally appreciate keeping discussions on a level
    of respecting the "different Christian perspectives" presented here.
    This is only a request -- a personal request -- but since I have
    recently *felt* quite beaten down by some authoritarian edicts
    (my subjective judgment) elsewhere, I don't want to see people
    here subjected to that same kind of attitude.
    
    Please continue to share *your* perspective, but don't "demand"
    that others either (1) share it or (2) discuss it from your assumptions
    about Biblical authority if they don't share those assumptions.
    
    I believe that what I am requesting is a matter of respect
    and manners to and in no way requires you to compromise your own
    conviction that you are right.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy
    
    

    re: .133 (Richard)

>>    Well, the government of Costa Rica is betting that they don't have
>>    anything that their neighbors want.

>A commonly held and erroneous perception.

    Well, I'm willing to be educated, if you are willing to briefly explain
    the basis on which Costa Rica has decided to eschew the formation and
    maintenance of a standing military force. 
    
    Mike

re Note 151.122 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>     RE: .119 & .120 Agreed. I believe that it is a noble and worthy
>     thing to die for ones beliefs I'm not so sure it's so noble for
>     allow others, through inaction, to die for your belief. 

        Again, agreed.

        However, one must realize that "allowing others to die for
        our beliefs" happens not only in the case of military
        inaction, but also often (MORE often) happens in the case
        where we take military action.

        Additionally, others may "die for our beliefs" as an outcome
        of our non-military action (or inaction) as well.  Suppose
        that our belief in "free enterprise" causes us to fail to
        provide a sturdy-enough "safety net" for the poor, some of
        whom die from the results of malnutrition or poor medical
        care.

        Bob

Note 151.135

Mike, there was an excellent educational program on Costa Rica put together
by the National Geographic Society a few years ago which has aired more
than once on PBS.

Costa Rica disbanned its regular military in the 1940's.  I believe the
decision was based largely on past abuses, such as using the military
against its own citizens.  Of this, I'm not positive.

This Central American country is located in close proximity to such wartorn
nations as El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatamala and Honduras.

Though Costa Rica is not embroiled in the conflict, Costa Rica's President,
a recipient of the Nobel Prize for Peace, is a man deeply committed to the
effort of bringing peace to the region.

Costa Rica is not a "banana republic" or some desolate wasteland that nobody
would want anyway.  On the contrary, it is a thriving modern democracy.

Peace,
Richard

    Thank you Richard.  I must have missed that particular show.
    
    As I said before, Costa Rica, for all its noble motives, and they are
    noble, is betting that none of its neighbors will cast covetous eyes in
    its direction, and try to invade.  I also indicated that this is a
    fairly unique set of circumstances, based on the bulk of latin American
    history, there have been relatively few military invasions.  There has
    been quite a bit of imported military support for revolutionary
    factions in the region from all sides of the political spectrum.
    
    Would that this experiment could be exported to the rest of the world. 
    Alas, I fear that won't be possible, especially in this age of radical
    fanaticism.                        
    
    Mike

I expect that the U.S. might have something to say should someone
invade Costa Rica.  Of course, this indirect military might
wouldn't give anyone second thoughts, would it?  :-)

Collis

    Indeed, you are correct, Collis.  We would have a great deal to say and
    do.
    
    Mike

	Tens of thousands of children are recruited into armed forces by
nations around the world according to a new report by the Quaker United
Nations Office in Geneva.  Some of these children are as young as 7 years
old.  Many children have been maimed or killed as a direct result of
participating in armed conflict.  Others suffer from psychological trauma,
and large numbers of children are captured and detained in prisoner-of-war
camps.

	Some children join the armed forces voluntarily, perhaps inspired
by the idea of liberating their country or visions of martial glory.  Others
join to satisfy such basic needs as food, clothing and shelter.  But many
are forcibly recruited.

	Copies of the report are available from QUNO, 777 United Nations
Plaza, New York, NY 10017.  The report was compiled by Martin Macpherson
of Quaker Peace and Service, London, and issued in January 1992.

Peace,
Richard

    
    	"I went to school in the 1950's, and it was drilled into us from
    grammar school on. 'Ain't' is bad, 'aren't' is good.  Communisim's bad. 
    Democracy's good....In all my years in the army, I was never taught that
    Communists were human beings.  We weren't in My Lai to kill human
    beings.  We were there to kill ideology carried by-- I don't know --
    pawns, blobs, pieces of flesh.  I was there to destroy Communism.  We
    never conceived of old people, men, women, children, babies."
    
    		-- Lt. William Calley
                                                         

	The Pentagon has announced that Lowery Air Force Base on Denver's
West Side is to be turned into a civilian support facility for financial
recordkeeping of the armed forces.  Lowery was the site of a worship service
in the fall of 1991 where one hundred and fifty persons gathered to collect
groceries for the homeless, a symbolic and public statement designed to
show that people are hungry because of the war machine.

	Following the worship service, four participants tool infant formula
into the base and requested the base commander to have the formula delivered
to hungry Iraqi children.  After the four messengers were arrested and
released.  The infant formula was returned to the messengers by base security
personnel and were later delivered to the Women's Union in Iraq.

	Now, more than 18 months later children in Iraq continue to suffer
malnutrition due to sanctions.  An estimated 100,000 victims are expected
this year.  The closing of Lowery may be a parable of the New World Order.
Fewer active duty soldiers, more high tech weaponry, and economic pressures
like sanctions that wreak havoc on civilians but don't touch key power
brokers.

reprinted with permission
Signs of the Times, May 1992

Richard