I agree with much of this but statements like: "We are not facing World War Three. We are in it." seem to be fear mongering, implying how much worse things are getting methinks.  Here's another view indicating how much better things are getting:

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

Pinker is far from alone with these views, by the way.

It seems to me that we tend to associate bondage with primitive societies and believe that educated people living in democratic countries are free from bondage.

Why would educated people vote for self serving politicians?

What I am attempting to get at is that freedom is an illusion to many people and many modern Christians think that they are advocating freedom because they do not actively advocate bondage.

brett A - a world war is a war in which not all, but most of the world, is involved. It is not linked to any level of violence. - though some violence is certainly there.

World War One was not really a World war since much of the world was not involved. World War Two was a more complete won.

World War Three involves more people and countries than either of those wars did. Apart from a steadily mounting series of official wars, we also have largely unnoticed wars that appear as rebellions or civil disorders in the news, but in which Russian or American or British or Israeli special forces were involved. these have happened all over Africa, Central America, the middle least, and in Asia. that's most of the world.  special ops, which work by assassination, stirring up civil wars, the use of drones - are the new form of war. And these lead to something bigger. China has announced that any American attack on Pakistan will be treated as an attack on China. This is a hint  of where this is taking us. I am fear-mongering. You should be afraid. if you aren't, you are living in a delusion             Sorry for the awful paragraph construction. After  few lines, my computer refuses to make a new paragraph.

BrettA,

that Pinker essay is a classic; I have used it many a time :3  It is part of my 'Humanity Uplifting' arsenal :3

graeme,

here is a 'What If?' for you:  what do you think if, right now, everyone on Earth gained the ability to know what someone else was thinking and feeling?  A kind of global telepathy?  What would be the short-term effects?  The long-term effects?

Wow!   i  would hope we could break free of the hatreds and fears that have driven the world into a (can't write in the word I wanted to - my computer is acating very strangely on this site. The word began freny but the needed second to last  letter will not appear.)

I think if we realied what everyone was thinking, we would understand we are all rather more alike than we think we are - and some people are using us for t heir own ends.

Graeme as usual is on a rant.

But he does have some points.  The violence currently in Mexico, for example.  This started when a new Mexican government (with much pushing from the US) decided to get serious about drugs.

It seems highly unfair to me that the violence associated with the distribution of illegal drugs falls on countries like Mexico.  On the other hand, I cannot see a simple solution.   

Legalizing marijuana would do nothing.  It is not marijuana, it is cocaine that is making the money.   Permitting the sale of heroin via prescription would not even help.  These are both possible things we could do.  But I cannot see my way to legalizing cocaine, a highly dangerous drug--which can cause certain people to become psychotic and in any case is very bad for one's health.

Still I do wonder why Christians don't discuss this more and push for a more equitable solution.  If the people dying are all in Mexico, we can ignore it, seems to the viewpoint.

I certainly don't see legalizing cocaine (or marijuana0. If legalizing could solve problems, then we should immediately legalize drunk driving.

This is an industry pulling in four billion a year - and this largely from an American economy that has to cut social services and education and health to the bone. It also creates an enormous pot to corrupt officials on both sides.

In a similar vein, over a million innocent people were killed in Iraq, and their greatest natural resource taken over by American billionaires. (If that's a rant, then I will certainly rant about it.)

We invaded Afghanistan, presumably because of 9/11. We have killed many thousands - and you'll note that our news media haven't cared enough (nor have we) to count how many. Now, bin Laden is dead. So why are we still there?

The US government has said often enough it has no evidence the Taliban were involved in 9/11. So why did we go in the first place ? And why are we still there with bin Laden dead?

We Christians are cooperating in killing on a large scale. I should think Christians would want to be discussing that in the context of their faith.

If they don't, they should let us know how this is acceptable in the context of their faith.

Or do they think Jesus was just ranting?

Hi Graeme, my sense is that most active, committed Christians are not supportive of the violence that is happening.  We live in a secular world now where, for most people, materialism, power, and personal agendas of fear and hate have the most influence. 

Hi graeme,

Yes, though not to the exclusion of all else.

Yes, though not to the exclusion of all else.

Church attendance and membership are not prerequisites for getting to heaven.  At least not in my theological circle.

It shouldn't be though it happens in some.

Is it the Christian world or the Western world which is at fault?  Are economic drivers the same as spiritual drivers or can they be separated?  Some Christian priests sexually assaulted children.  Did every Christian minister sexually assault children?  Is there a danger in painting with too wide a brush?

An aggression which has not been primarily militaristic correct?  Most of this has been economic aggression and is controlled by Christians?  Capitalists?  Capitalist Christians?  Churches?  Individuals?  Corporations?

Which is a political domain issue.  Have Christian principles impacted upon that domain or are Christian principles being rejected by that domain?

Again, is that the result of Christian aim and activity or is that the result of political decision making which values something more than what Christians have traditionally valued?

I suspect that it strikes many that none of this is faithful.  I suspect that there are many others who, under the doctrine of manifest destiny, believe it is perfectly Christian.  I suspect that even for those the issue needs to be clouded somewhat before there is buy in.

At the same time I do not see Christian Churches, at least none that I would attend, standing up and leading the charge on these issues.  I see Christian individuals, neck deep in the political realm signing papers and giving orders.  I hear many a justification of Christian self though the Christian self doesn't need to justify its self.

It is being discussed by Christians.  Our voice doesn't carry the weight it once did.  For a number of reasons.  Some entirely valid and others less so.  As you point out our National Public Media are very good about shaping the appearance of public discourse.

In 2009 I was quoted by the National Post while speaking at General Council 40.  I was quoted slapping down language employed by a certain segment of the Church.  What does that mean?  It means one of two things depending on which extremist is interpreting.  It means something entirely other if you went into the discussion with an open mind.

Because they aren't.

Seriously, graeme that allegation is hyperbole at best and ignorance at worst.  Just for fun I ran the phrase streets of gold through the archives.  It returned 142 hits with the words "streets," "of," and "gold."  Of those 142 hits only 35 threads actually used the phrase "streets of Gold."  To be fair I even allowed "golden streets" and "gold lined streets"  Which gave me a 25% hit rate.

There are 6618 threads on the Religion and Faith Forum.  That means that "streets of gold" is discussed in the Religion and Faith Forum roughly .5% of the time.

I'll be honest.  I don't completely trust my math on this.  I believe that I may have counted some threads twice.  So my .5% may be overly generous.

So far you are the only one who has ever asked the question of whether or not Mary played hopscotch as a little girl (.02% if you are interested).

Certainly all Christians haven't done so with intent.  Some I'm not so certain of.  Part of it will be the amateur ways that Christ is presented by folk long on enthusiasm and short on sober thought.

Some of it will be the way that ridiculous assertions can be so casually tossed out and either accepted uncritically or reacted against over emotionally.

Most of it, I believe, is communication issues caused by preconceptions brought into the discussion such as Christianity is monolithic and making fun of one Christian stereotype (fundamentalist Christian) is critical and accurate commentary of all Christians.

There is also, in the fall of Christendom, considerable barring of doors and shuttering of windows.  When individuals are held up to ridicule they tend to shrink back.  Some won't (but should) and some will who shouldn't.  Why talk to folk who aren't willing to listen?

Denying funding to Kairos?  Political or spiritual move.  How much time should we devote to protesting that?  Is Kairos still doing its work?

Grace and peace to you.

John

So Jesus was wrong to denounce the money lenders i the temple. Their work was in the political domain. We were wrong to criticize Hitler. That was in the public domain.

It's not just streets lined with gold. The religion and faith section is normally trivial.

As to the church not being heard, that does not relieve Christians from the responsibility to become informaed - and to learn to see the "public domain" in the context of Christian values.

Generally, Christian gorups, whether in the context of weekly church activities or of within the service, spend their time i ntrivia in the one case, and ritural or abstractions in the other.

I was always astonished between the churches and the synagogues in this respect. The synagogues, unfortunately, are now heavily influenced by the Israeli lobby. But their is still more active and free discussion in them than I have seen in any Christian church.

Jesus did not come to talk about abstractions. There were very practical reasons to be "good". There still are.

Would Jesius have been silent while millions are killed, and nations pillaged? Would he have said that is public domain? Wound't he at least have said, "Hey. look what's happening over there/"

The Church: For polite socializing and abstract moralizing? 

It seems to have become that for the privileged congregations. They tend to concentrate on maintaining the status quo.

Graham, really, what do you want from "Christians"? We've been put in our place even in our own country by having to retreat into the world of political correctness.

We tip toe around secular society's rules or just throw up our hands and join them. We'll even praise the martyrs of our faith in other lands, but cower in our boots if someone tells us we cannot mention God or pray in our workplace or schools.

How do you expect us to take the world to task and speak of the gospel if we cannot even speak up for our personal freedoms in our own neighbourhoods? We've been demoralized and "whipped" into submission and we lack the courage of the disciples.

Graeme

Iraq's natural resources have not been taken over by anybody.  In fact, the large US & European oil companies have stayed away due to security issues.

Check this out. It looks like the US will be watching over the resources in Iraq for awhile.

waterfall,

impressive, ennit?  I wonder if they have a gift shop? :3  And I wonder how close the Judiac--then-Christian Garden of Eden is?  Wouldn't it be ironic if it was inside the Embassy? :3

Such a mythic place to be, Iraq.  So connected with the 3 biggie monotheisms.

To be alive at this time, witnessing the birth of a global humanity, the global gentling of humankind.

Who knows?  Perhaps eventually even China will be gentled...

Do some reading, EO. Part of the "peace"  agreement was that the wells went to American companies (possibly a British one, too. They were also exempted  from spending  any of their money in Iraq if they so wished.

The war was fought for oil. They didn't fight it  t o give the oil to Iraq. Iraq already had it. That's why US forces are staying - and it was always intended they should stay - for a long as the US lasts - which is probably not more then ten years.

You ain't seen nothing yet.

This has always made me think, since "the war was fought for oil", does that mean there is One person, a kind of Pope in Authority, who we can go to and get the Real Reason for the Iraq occupation?

Or is it that it was done more by a bevvy of Authorities, with different reasons, the Secretary of Defence having their own reasons, BP & Haliburton having their own reasons, etc etc?

And there are the factors of the environment...if Peak Oil is truly happening, how much of a choice did they have?

SG - I th ink I agree with what  you say. I'm nost sure because it gets more complext and vaguer as the explanationn goes on.

Perhaps we can sum it up on one question. Did Martin Luther King get it right?

Inanna - There is no i distinction between business and government and the military in the US. America's strategic plans are determined by business The US wants control of the middle east and africa for oil. and other resouces. It' snot a secret.

Peak oil does not mean we're running out of oil. It means the remaining oil is becoming much more expensive and much more dangerous to get out. With China and India coming on line for more oil, the US oil industry to desperate to closing them out - and desperate to lock up the Venezuela supply.

I cannot imagine Jesus saying we have no choice but the kill people to make sure we can have all the oil we want.

Like your point aboot the myth of America, it all depends on what myths you believe in (even though they aren't 'objectively' true, as you keep on pointing out with your history), even Jesus :3

So then who is really after the oil?  Can you say who the instigator(s) are?

Graeme,

Did Dr. King get it right?

If you mean a social gospel as Jesus' message? Amen!

 If you mean a holistic approach to theology, not just worrying about dead people and souls but mind, body and spirit of the living, as Jesus' teachings, I would say "Hallelujah"

If you mean being a nonviolent activist, I would also say "Oh, yeah".  I would give an "amen" to his use of civil disobedience.

Loving your enemies starting by analyzing yourself? Oh, yeah!

Being more than a one trick pony, moving from civil rights and segregation issues to tending poverty and ending the war in Vietnam? I would again say yes, but I also feel it was speeches like "Beyond Vietnam" that it led to his death.

Financial compensation for disadvantaged Americans? Now that is a heavy one with no simple answer.

Not being there in the first attempt to march from Selma to Montgomery on that Bloody Sunday in March? After starting the ball rolling in a speech in January? I would say it was a poor decision.

His womanizing? No, that is not really right by me.

His Baptist theology? It worked for him, it doesn't at all for me.

His stance on homosexuality? No way. If he had lived and his stance had not changed, you could have seen us staring each down.

Nothing is simple and nobody has it ALL right. We all get things wrong.

IMHO, church should be about three things and, interestingly, they are embodied nicely in my fellowship's motto:

"Challenge the Mind; Nourish the Spirit; Act in the World"

Note that that is not a priority order.

Theology, "abstract moralizing", etc. are about challenging the mind; encouraging us to think about the basis for our understanding of the world and why we do what we do. It provides an intellectual basis for what we do.

Socializing, supporting each other, worshipping, are about the nourishing the spirit because, if we are not filled with spirit (not in the Christian sense, necessarily, but in a broader sense of being inspired, supported, and energized) we will not have the heart to put into our actions.

Act in the world, because all the thinking, socializing, and worshipping need to translate into how we engage with each other, the natural environment, the social environment, and so on.

Take away one, and I, personally, think you miss out. Unfortunately, when one does go missing, it often seems to be the third. When a church finds itself in trouble, often we take refuge in the spirit and/or intellect and let the need to use those as a basis for action slide.

My fellowship has slipped a bit on the action part at times due to lack of coordination, but have never lost it. Courtesy of a member who is a human rights activist, many of us are involved in campaigns on behalf of issues like press freedom and political prisoners. We are active in various ecumenical and secular organizations providing services in our community (such as cooking weekend meals for a women's shelter).

And on the issue of going to church to "feel superior": I hope not. Church should be about humility, not superiority. It should be about teaching us that we are special because we are part of a greater whole (God's Creation in  Christianity; the "interdependent web of all existence" in UU'ism) and have the power to contribute in some way, however small, to that greater whole, not because we go to the right building on Sunday morning.

Mendalla

Mendalla,  i pretty much agree with you.

 But  we should not underestimate the feeling superior aspect as a motivation. It goes deep into all people who consider themselves a chosen people - and a great many have done that.

In my childhood, church attendance was a way of establishing social status. Even the poor could be with the moral middle class on a Sunday evening.

I find the membership of the church prefers not to get too deeply into any subject at hand. We skim the surface to give the appearance of being engaged. Always careful to keep uncomfortable ideas at a safe distance.

I am including a clip which shows journalist Ed Morrow noticing the place of television in the construction of social experience. He seems to hit the nail pretty much on the head.

graeme,
 

I don't think we can get rid of status (I know that's not what you were necessarily writing aboot above, but what you wrote reminded me of it), but we can find ways of integrating it, of using it instead of trying to deny it.  Like some sort of mandatory civil service in Canada before being allowed to vote or some such...

And ya gots to watch out getting people to really think -- just look at what happened to Jesus!  Heck, someone who was on his side betrayed him.

so true. that's why it's tough to be a Christian.