From kragen@dnaco.net Thu Jul 9 10:17:57 1998 Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 10:17:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Kragen To: systalk@ml.org Subject: Re: [ST] [offtopic][ST] Religion (again) In-Reply-To: <35A25749.4201@usa.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Keywords: X-UID: 380 Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, Joshua E. Rodd wrote: > Kragen wrote: > > On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Joshua E. Rodd wrote: > > > Some of the ones of Reformed > > > persuasion (which tends to have a "macho" element to it and "they > > > won't get my kids when they come") are investing in firearms. > > I think Jesus spends a paragraph or two talking, in quite explicit > > terms, about how to deal with violence in the Sermon on the Mount. He > > does not recommend buying firearms. > > Jesus sure did preach against violence. When one of his disciples used a > sword to cut of one His enemy's ears, Jesus commanded him to put back > the sword. He then replaced the man's ear. (Oddly enough, this happened > while he was being arrested. And they *still* arrested him.) type=you-sound-ridiculous-Joshua> Hey, you don't need protection. People can say you sound ridiculous all they want. > . . . Mennonites do not compel their family members beyond > the age of understanding (typically 14 yrs) to follow their religion. > (Sadly, most of the children are leaving the church.) At the Mennonite church I visited a few times in Albuquerque, there were a lot of teens and young adults, most of whom were children of older people there. > A pseudo Mennonite distinction is forming among the general nominal > Christian population from people who have gotten serious about their > faith, and have decided to live in much the same way as the Mennonites do > (although they have come to their conclusions completely independently), > and are embracing nonresistance, simple living (which is good for *all* > of us), and modest dress. Interestingly, this is not restricted to the nominal Christian population. Certainly my vehemently-atheist uncle Arthur believes in these things (despite being addicted to old computer parts, which somewhat cramp his simplicity of living). There was a show on PBS a night or two ago (here in Dayton -- perhaps elsewhere too) called Affluenza, much of which was about our society suffering from the opposite (violence, material-goods-desire-as-a-way-of-life, and vanity), but part of which was about people who are doing the opposite. > Go read http://www.anabaptists.org/children/applebtr.html -- it's good > reading. =) OK. > > > If things go bad, it's welcome to the 3rd world for all of us. There > > > won't be any rich nations to blame for our problems or to receive aid from, > > > either. > > Thank goodness. > > Yes. A little humility won't hurt any of us. > > Sadly, the 3rd world will be very hurt if there are Y2K percussions. > If our economies sink, so will theirs, and they have much less upon > which to fall back. I think you are dead wrong there. While there will certainly be third-world countries who are hard-hit, I think any Y2K disaster would be beneficial to most in the following ways: - No more foreign aid; government will have to come from the consent of the governed, not cash and weapons from the US. - Decentralization. Many third-world communities are much healthier -- in that they have better social cohesion -- than, say, US communities. Most third-world *countries* obviously don't have good social cohesion as wholes. The temporary failure of the systems that are supporting centralization (computer systems and foreign aid) will tend to put more power in the hands of the healthier elements of the society. Kragen