Continue to PAGE 2

NOTEBOOK

Did is a word of achievement,
Won’t is a word of retreat,
Might is a word of bereavement,
Can’t is a word of defeat.
Ought is a word of duty,
Try is a word of each hour,
Will is a word of beauty,
Can is a word of power.

Gerard Hargraves

"When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it."
Henry Ford
(1863-1947)

"The tragedy of life is what dies inside a man while he lives."
Albert Einstein
(1879-1955)

"Fear is a darkroom where negatives develop.”
Usman B. Asif.

"Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disapointed."
Alexander Pope
(1688-1744)

"Expecting the world to treat you fairly because you're a good person is like expecting a bull not to charge you because you're a vegetarian."
 Rabbi Mordechai Kaplan
(1881-1983)

HOME

POEMS

QUOTES

PURPOSE

AUTHOR

MUSES

CONTACT

"A loving heart is the truest wisdom"
Charles Dickens
(1812-1870)

Introduction

Welcome to my Bits 'n' Bobs page. Here I will be putting the likes of informative and thought provoking articles, both mine and others. Christian articles and the likes can be found on my biblical potpourri page. The link button to that page has been placed midst my Christian poem list which is on the same page that lists all my poems. Bear in mind that any article appearing on this page may be added to or improved upon at any time.

"The only way to make sure people you agree with can speak is to support the rights of people you don't agree with."
Eleanor Holmes Norton (1937- )

1. Duty And Purpose

5. Why Earth's Woes?

A more balanced approach to such.

Normally I would have placed this in my Christian section, but because Earth’s woes are affecting us all, both Christian and non-Christian, I felt that the non-Christian would benefit from this article should they be prepared to see it through given that it does contain a Christian perspective, though one that’s in contrast to that which many Christians wrongly express. So, if you’re a non-Christian, please take the time to peruse this article and to even tell me what you think.
It seems natural for many Christians to consider Earth’s current woes as being the outward expression of God’s wrath — judgments, they call them, and often these Christians are militant placard carrying, street marching, protesters whose behaviour is often far from true Christianity. I'm reminded of those Christians who I recently saw on the news (13/1/2011) who were protesting outside a church where a funeral was taking place. My, what shameful behaviour.
Though a Christian myself, and one who sees such woes as having something to do with God’s restraining hand  being slowly withdrawn due to the rebelliousness and depravity of mankind whose time has come, I think there’s a little more to this scene than meets the eye.
It’s my belief that the woes afflicting us all are largely self-made — by that I mean, the result of mankind’s folly, not acts of God. After all, the Earth has a fragile ecological system — that is to say, everything is dependant on everything else.
Who’s responsible for stripping the Amazon, denuding the Earth of trees, polluting and plundering the seas, filling the Earth and air with toxins, irresponsibly dumping waste, unnecessarily depleting Earth’s resources, creating potential slips and floods, endangering species, etc? It’s man!
There’s no question that mankind has badly affected the way this planet operates and that we are reaping the results, be that unstable and disastrous weather, the melting of the polar icecaps, hotter temperatures, or perhaps even earthquakes. Earthquakes, you say? Well, who in recent history has been letting off powerful explosions under the Earth’s crust. Could such detonations have affected the tectonic plates, created huge craters, leading to certain underground disturbances over time?
Between 1946 and 1958, twenty-three nuclear devices were detonated at Bikini atoll, (where the bikini got its name from, by the way), and don’t forget all that radioactive contamination that resulted. Such doesn’t just disappear.
After the Second World War the United States, along with their French and British allies, frequently tested nuclear weapons in the Pacific region. France began testing nuclear weapons in French Polynesia from about the mid-1960s. Remember Moruroa atoll?
Yes, there has been atmospheric testing, underwater testing, and underground testing, and all over the world, and we wonder why we’ve problems. This Earth was not designed to handle such destructiveness, nor that radioactive contamination.
And what about those drums of nuclear waste that were dumped under the ocean? What about all the damage to the environment from all the wars that have taken place, and those chemicals that have been cruelly used. And we wonder why there are mutations, birth defects, etc.
As far as wars, famines, poverty and starvation go, much of such can be attributed to man again, for there are clearly those behind the scenes who’ve been instrumental in deliberately creating wars, mayhem, releasing this and that upon society, and so on, for their own selfish, twisted, and deluded agenda — effectively the human agents of an evil supernatural force.
As far as health issues go, mankind has largely created such via lack of care or through outright abuse. And look at what humans consume, let alone those drugs that are doing the rounds, etc.
As far as society goes, mankind has largely created the problems that abound by forsaking those things that once held society and this world together. Therefore, it’s no wonder things are coming unstuck. In other words, we’ve been fouling our own nest, creating ticking time bombs, potential disasters, destroying those very things that acted as safeguards. We seem to be hell-bent on selfish pursuits, show little regard for others and things that matter, and many even have their heads in the sand. To put it another way, we’ve been too busy eating, drinking, and being merry, and it’s finally catching up with us. Look at the violence, corruption and perversion that the movie industry is churning out! Nothing is sacred anymore. It seems that anything goes now. Is God responsible for sexual dieases? Hardly! Such is linked to promiscuity, not God
And take a look at the Christian community. Can you tell it apart? Hardly! Tragically so, there has been a wholesale sell out here too. Christians have forsaken this or that, have been questioning the Bible, watering it down, altering things to suit, accommodating to please, and have been imitating and embracing all that they’ve been warned to leave alone — in other words, they’re hardly on the straight and narrow anymore, many foolishly thinking that they’re saved when they’re not.
Thus, I wouldn’t  blame God. He didn’t even have to provide us with a way out!
In summary, I don’t see all these things as God’s judgments in the sense of Him standing there and saying, “Okay, I’ll create an earthquake today,” or, “I’ll send a famine today,” or, “I’ll send a flood today.”
I simply think that three things are occurring:
1) We’re reaping the results of our own rebelliousness and stupidity, and the results of what we’ve foolishly been doing to the Earth. All this has had a huge societal impact, and is impacting ecologically too.
2) This earth is breaking down under the weight of sin’s decaying effects.
3) As mentioned at the beginning, I believe that God’s restraining hand is slowly being withdrawn due to the rebelliousness and depravity of mankind whose time has come. And where evil and wrong are more prevalent, His restraining hand may well be being withdrawn more frequently or strongly. I'm quite sure that if it wasn't for His restraining hand, humanity would have self destructed long ago.
Yes, as far as God goes, I personally believe that He has simply been adopting a more hands-off-approach, allowing these things to occur, and more so, in order to get our attention. He knows this Earth is coming to an end of sorts, and that we well all be destroyed unless we repent of our foolishness, have a change of heart, and accept His escape plan. Otherwise, should He prevent these things from occurring, we would simply continue to eat, drink, and be merry, only to self destruct and perish forever. We need to be forced to our knees, so to speak, for our own good. Sometimes we seem to need more than one shake up.
The only time that I see God deliberately causing anything is, when the plagues of Revelation (see Revelation chapters 16,17,18, then 13) take place, such occurring just prior to Christ's return when mankind has finally filled his cup with iniquity and pledged allegiance to the religious/political and blasphemous New World Order “beast” power that we’re warned will enslave, persecute, and even kill. A wolf in sheep’s clothing.
I've sometimes wondered whether those plagues might once again be the result of man's folly. Consequences that God allows to occur as punishment, things that will snowball perhaps, things He could have held in check, but not this time. But don't quote me on that one.

6. In Times Like These

In times like these especially, what a difference it would make…

If those who are very wealthy, be they pop stars, actors, entertainers, business men/women, etc, were to refrain from spending their wealth on lavishly indulging themselves, be that on over-the-top parties, outrageously priced cars, jets, super yachts, chattels, mansions here and there, regular extravagant country to country jaunts, etc, and instead, used their wealth to alleviate suffering and poverty at home and abroad, be that via providing equipment, food, medical supplies, clinics, housing, education, clothing, opportunities, etc. It could be said, that how much one has left, after they’ve given, indicates the true state of their generosity. Yes, how much is still sitting in their bank account? Assets? You might like to read my poem, or view the power point, “I’ve A Duty, I’ve A Reason.”

If governments, local councils, etc, refrained from spending money on the likes of trips to the moon (that’ll never work for us, can’t), the proliferation of weapons, fire works, extravagant buildings, unnecessary and expensive statues, memorials, events, or titivations, and instead, spent it on animal welfare/protection, food banks, refuge centres, cheaper public transport, recycling, mental health services, free or cheaper medical care and aids (such as crutches, spectacles, dentures, artificial limbs, hearing aids), etc.

If the likes of heads of state, members of parliament, chief executives, refused to accept and justify unacceptable (some would say obscene), unwarranted salaries, bonuses.

If those in the medical profession, be they doctors, dentists, surgeons, optometrists, etc, cut their charges, accepted lower profits, and particularly helped those on low incomes, benefits, be it via free services from time to time, or be it via reduced costs.

If those with skills, be they an electrician, computer whiz, builder, mechanic, lawyer, etc, volunteered their service/ability from time to time, without charge, in an effort to help those in difficulty and struggling financially, and also cut their charges in general so that their services were more affordable to all.

If those who own businesses showed more concern over their staff and the community than their profits, improved wages and conditions (certainly where warranted), sought to produce quality products at a price that showed generosity and thought, rather than possible greed.

If husbands and wives put all their effort into trying to make their partner happy, putting them first, loving and caring for them (self-sacrificially), displaying affection, compassion, sensitivity, building them up, supporting them, being their for them, being faithful, transparent, non-violent, nor manipulative, and not placing unfair expectations on them.

If both parents and children made a greater effort to understand each other, worked together for the greater good of each other, showed mutual respect, were more tolerant and forgiving towards each other, and more sensitive to each others needs, less judgmental.

If you and I lived more humbly, focusing on needs rather than wants, not the indulgent or unnecessary, and instead, used that money (that we might have wasted) to help those in the community who are poorer, struggling, or by giving it to food banks, charities, sponsoring children overseas, doing our bit to halt poverty and suffering around the world, etc.

If Christians truly lived according to their Bible, displayed tolerance, love, compassion, and a non-judgmental, nor self-righteous attitude, allowed others to respectfully challenge their beliefs and actions without responding negatively or showing a bias. Let me add that there’s a difference between self-righteously judging and the necessary evaluation, rebuke, come discipline. You might like to read my poem, “To Judge Or Not To Judge.”

If all, whether Christian, Muslim, or atheist, put self last, insisted upon a higher standard within society, appreciated and respected values, morals, etiquette, showed tolerance, fairness, and compassion, sought peace, valued the sacredness of life, upheld law and order, freedom of speech, civil/religious liberty, non-violence.

If all in authority humbly sought to serve rather than dominate, to aid rather than hinder, to improve rather than worsen, to give rather than take, to protect rather than injure.

If no one killed creatures for sport, cruelly experimented on them, confined them to cages for self gratification, or mistreated them in general.

If all acted responsibly towards the environment, took pride in themselves and their surroundings, took care of their health to the best of their ability.

Could you add to or improve upon this? Are you in agreement or not? Tell me.

7. Reasons

Ten Reasons For Caring

1) Caring shows that we have a heart and a conscience.
2) The greatest happiness and satisfaction comes from losing ourselves in others.
3) Every human via their very being is precious, and worthy of time, effort and love.
4) We’re all linked by origin and lineage; we’re one big family.
5) We’re all suffering in one way or another.
6) We all know how easy it is to err, and that many are paying terribly for their error.
7) Caring will place us on the side of right, light, and hope.
8) What goes around comes around. In other words: If we don’t show care towards others, care may not come our way when we need it.
9) Pulling together is the only way we can improve the lot of humanity, cut back the damage we’ve done to our planet, and lessen damage in future.
10) We’re all in the same boat (earth), are facing the same apocalyptic scenario, and time wise have the same narrow window.

Ten Reasons For Taking Care

1) Our lives are only capable of lasting a certain length of time. By not taking care of ourselves we might decrease that period.
2) By not taking care of ourselves we might suffer from health problems at an earlier age, and as a consequence, no doubt for a longer period of time.
3) By not taking care of ourselves we might create unnecessary problems or misery for ourselves, and for our loved ones too, affecting quality of life.
4) By not taking care of ourselves we might add to the already overtaxed medical system and budget blowouts depriving others (even ourselves) of assistance when it’s needed.
5) By not taking care of ourselves we might add to the already stretched and under funded organisations (and resources) involved in attending to us, such as search and rescue.
6) Overusing and mistreating any organ or member unnecessarily, or sustaining unnecessary injuries (via the likes of certain sports, fun activities, etc), might see us pay a price that may well out weigh the pleasure we get. Pain just for a buzz?
7) By not taking care of ourselves we might be less well off financially due to certain expenses incurred, be that due to doctor or dentist visits, travel expenses, etc.
8) By not taking care of ourselves we might influence others who’ll possibly suffer similar woes, adding to the burdens their loved ones and society has to bear.
9) By not taking care of ourselves, or in general, we might display a lack of wisdom and common sense, even a recklessness and disregard for others.
10) By not taking care of ourselves, or in general, we might even inadvertently harm someone else.

Ten Reasons For Being Yourself

1) It’s being yourself that makes you very special, the unique person that you are.
2) The world will be all the less for you hiding behind someone else. Such stifles your individuality.
3) We can never be someone else no matter how hard we try.
4) Trying to be someone else may upset that person you’re trying to be.
5) Everyone is human, faulty, has their own issues, uses the bathroom! So don’t be too hard on yourself. You’re no better or worse.
6) Trying to be someone else leads to confusion, emotional illness and stress.
7) Trying to be someone else is somewhat acting dishonestly, deceitfully.
8) You might disappoint those who like you the way you are.
9) Not being yourself holds you back from contributing in your own unique way.
10) No matter how little you think of yourself it won’t alter your value. Your worth is based on your very existence.

Twelve Reasons For Speaking Out

1) Where freedom of expression or civil/religious liberty is under threat.
2) Where others may be endangered.
3) Wherever there is prejudice and bigotry of any kind.
4) Where someone is being wrongly maligned, as one day that someone could well be you.
5) Where truth is under attack or lies injured.
6) Where an injustice is occurring. Every injustice ignored sees injustice grow.
7) Where there are those who need us to speak on their behalf.
8) Where it’s cowardly to not speak out.
9) You may not get another opportunity than the one that comes your way.
10) Speaking out shows that you have a mind and will of your own, an inner strength.
11) It builds character, courageous muscles.
12) It encourages others, sets a valuable example.

8. Your Hearing's Precious

Seems sad but true that most have to lose their hearing, or suffer damage to their hearing, before they truly appreciate it, or appreciate it as much as they should.
So how do we lose or damage our hearing, including ending up suffering from tinnitus (noises within the ear), a miserable thing on its own?
Well, other than via some misfortune (certain antibiotics and other medications, ear infections, explosions, etc.), or a general deterioration due to age, there are two ways in which hearing loss occurs:
1) Via conscious exposure to noise, willingly or unwillingly.
2) Via unconscious exposure to noise.
The latter occurs due to ignorance, or due to what we think are benign noises — in other words, noises that we don’t think are harmful when they actually are, especially accumulatively.
Our hearing deteriorates over time not just due to specific occurrences but due to accumulative exposure to noises in general throughout our lifetime. Therefore, if we truly value our hearing, the idea is to lessen such exposure.
The following is a list of noise damaging examples that can result in immediate damage or accumulative damage (wear and tear on one’s hearing), and bearing in mind that while we can’t always get away from such noises we can limit exposure to them, and take precautions.
Here we go:
1) Remaining in a room where there’s a loud babble of noise. The longer one remains the more likely and worse the damage will be. Examples: General gatherings which would include wedding receptions, parties and other such functions, church luncheons; and venues would include bars, night clubs, airport terminals and the likes.
2) Machinery. Examples: Lawnmowers (better to use a push mower), electric power tools, electric kitchen equipment (food mixers, blenders), electric household equipment (vacuum cleaners), hand drying machines in public places (some excessively noisy).
3) Guns, explosives, crackers.
4) Screaming children (worse if they’re being held), classrooms where yelling children are present, childcare centres, kindergartens, playcentres.
5) The unnecessary slamming of doors, windows, cupboards, the loud shuffling of pots and pans, crockery and cutlery, which near one’s ears can do damage instantly or accumulatively. Also, the whacking or throwing of things, or the dropping of things that can result in a loud noise — thus, we need to be more aware, cautious, careful.
6) Hammering.
7) Alarms, sirens, whistles, horns.
8) Music volume, and especially from stereo headphones sitting over or in the ear. Best not to enjoy music at all via this means.
9) Fax machines and the likes via the telephone receiver.
10) Sports events, general events, shows, where there’s loud noise due to people either yelling, whistling out, or even singing in mass, loud music, fireworks, hailers, starting guns, motor racing, revving, acoustic feedback, etc.
11) Shopping malls where there are many people and an accumulation of surrounding noises in general.
12) Transport. Example: General traffic noise, riding on motorbikes, being in or near noisy cars and trucks. Bus, train, boat, and plane travel. Airports where shrill engines are running.
13) Noises coming from work being done nearby, or machines that are stationed nearby.
14) The low frequency noises coming from amplified sound (woofers).
16) People shouting near your ear.
17) Driving any reasonable distance with the window down. Such will wear the hearing quicker in the ear that’s closer to the open window and road.
Perhaps you can think of more.
If you value your hearing, I would recommend that where you are exposed to even moderate noise, that you insert, where practical, some kind of noise dampening device into or over your ears. And don’t be afraid to put your hands over your ears in public regarding certain loud noises that go past you or that you pass by. Don’t worry what others might think — you’re hearing isn’t worth damaging for the sake of pride. If your hearing is already damaged then that’s all the more reason to take care of it.
Our ears can be damaged easier than we think! Its not until the damage becomes noticeable that we finally register and become regretful — in other words, the damage can be slow and subtle, hence the danger. Don’t be lulled into a false sense of security. Too many don’t take action until it’s too late. As long as we think we’re hearing well we don’t concern ourselves too much — therein lies a major problem. Remember, we only hear as good as we’re hearing.
Hear today, gone tomorrow. It can be that quick. Take care — you’ll miss it badly!

9. Words Of Wisdom

Appreciate and treasure your very existence, the opportunities that your birth has presented — yes, appreciate and treasure each moment, day, week, month, and year, for your lifespan is just that — a very limited span of time, one that passes very quickly, but usually unnoticed until you’ve far less time than more.

Appreciate and treasure your loved ones as if you only have that present moment with them, for their life may cease the very moment that present moment ends; and also never treat them less than well, lest their departure leave you with greater pain, deep regret, and even guilt.

Treat everyone as you would like them to treat you, bearing in mind that what goes around comes around, (in some form or another), be that sooner or later, and even after you’ve seen the error of your ways, and also bear in mind that those whom you mistreat might seek to harm you, might seek to get back at you somehow.

At all times display courtesy, politeness, good manners, due respect and etiquette, bearing in mind that should you not do so, you might upset the very ones that you’ll have cause to regret upsetting, be they the likes of a potential father-in-law, employer, judge, tutor, or benefactor.

Learn to go without, and cultivate generosity, not just as a character building exercise, but for the sake of others who’re less fortunate, and who have as much right to life’s necessities as you, and bearing in mind that one day you may well be in need yourself.

Always forgive others and even yourself, never seek revenge, and don’t harbour grudges or bitterness, for by so doing, such will turn in on you like a cancer, eating away at you emotionally and physically, and thereby adding to any pain and injustice that came your way, depriving you of hope and joy, preventing you from moving on and being a blessing to others, or negatively affecting those dearest to you.

Value and uphold the rights of others, their right to freedom of speech, (be it pleasing or displeasing), and civil/religious liberty, lest you suffer from the same erosion and loss, and join them in becoming subjects rather than citizens.

Avoid gossip, armchair judgments, and unconstructive criticism, lest such return to bite you, and always be honest with others and transparent in all that you do, freely admitting your faults, mistakes and failures, and thereby freeing yourself of skeletons and potential accusations.

Never indulge in bigotry, nor allow bias or prejudice to play a part in your dealings with others, and always give them the opportunity to state their case and disagree, to respectfully challenge what you believe, uphold and practice, thereby being receptive and prepared to change should their argument have validity.

Always put another’s best interests before your own, giving them the time of day and the benefit of the doubt, respecting their right to privacy and quality of life, appreciating their individuality, talents and input, being quick to apologise where at fault, and at all times displaying hospitality, thoughtfulness, compassion, genuine affection, and loving concern.

Always show respect to those in authority, (be they right or wrong, and lest your lot be made harder), and value the wisdom of those who’re of mature years, or experienced in their field.

Always choose good over evil, aligning yourself with that positive force in life that leads to better outcomes and blessings; always act justly, fairly, and impartially, and seek to turn any enemy into a friend that they may thereby cease to be a threat.

Never mistreat any creature [animal, etc], for they’ve the same right to life as you, and are no less deserving of tender loving care, and bear in mind that their very presence (and more so if they’re in one’s care) poses a test that reveals the state of an individual’s heart, or the heartbeat of society.

Value and look after your health via exercise, self-discipline and temperance, via consuming only that which is beneficial, and via avoiding that which could injure, lest your journey be more painful, and your loved ones burdened, thus adding to society’s costs, lessening your lifespan, and leaving your loved ones grieving much sooner.

Appreciate what you have, for many haven’t even that, and appreciate the fact that what you currently have you could easily lose, for life is unpredictable, and has a way of unpleasantly surprising the ungrateful, those who take things for granted, or who don’t give thought to the things they should.

Take time to enjoy the company of good friends, relations, and family, to savour the taste of beneficial food, to listen to uplifting music, to enrich the mind with noble and useful material, to marvel at the wonders of nature, to pursue a constructive and pleasurable hobby, to have wholesome fun, to share experiences that foster hope, and to regain physical and mental strength through peaceful relaxation and heavenly meditation.

Go out of your way to ease the burdens and workload of others, to visit the lonely, the ill, the despondent, the incapacitated, the incarcerated, and to assist in that which is charitable, bearing in mind that your benevolence and kindness should also include vagrants and strangers.

Develop a positive attitude, face your fears, don’t be afraid to express your emotions, roll with life’s punches, allow yourself to be moulded by life’s lessons, and put past mistakes and misfortunes behind in order to move on, in order to give others the benefit of your own experiences, and in order to leave something behind that will make a positive difference and even show a change in direction.

Seek to improve on your capabilities, to gain new skills, to experience and learn all that you can in order that it may help you grow and mature, become more well-rounded, and that it may give more depth to your understanding, thus developing within you a more wholistic outlook, an ability to appreciate the lot and concerns of others, to think outside the box and not be confined to the narrow views of some.

At all times maintain your dignity, refraining from course language, crude expressions, bawdy, riotous, slothful behaviour, childish outbursts, pettiness, vindictiveness, and sulkiness.

Never indulge in mind games, nor manipulation of any sort, nor attempt to force others to accept or do something against their will, but rather, use gentle persuasion and sound reasoning, allowing them to decide for themselves which path they'll take, as is their right.

Always do your own research and investigating, drawing from many sources and weighing the various arguments, lest you be taken off track and swayed by the majority, (so often wrong, and usually made up of sheep who let others do their thinking for them and thereby decide their destiny), and lest you perpetuate error and mislead others in turn.

Appreciate that a moment of carelessness, any inattention, fooling around, or any unnecessary risk, could result in serious injury to yourself, (or others), much misery and suffering, the loss of your hearing, eyesight, a limb or limbs, all of which might thereby deprive you of the ability to participate fully in life, to pursue and enjoy that which once gave you much pleasure, or even deprive you of life itself.

Take pride in your appearance and surroundings, for should you not do so, it could work against you, for others may be less inclined to lend you their things, rent you their home, or may consider you unworthy of their generosity, or unfit for some role that would please you.

Value and look after the environment in all that you do, be that via careful use of contaminants, or their non-usage, be that via recycling and avoidance of wastage, (lest you help deplete the earth's vital resources), or be that via taking care of what you possess in order to ensure its longevity, and thus not unnecessarily and irresponsibly add to the stockpile polluting the earth, and which fouls your own nest.

In summary:

Use your time, mind, body, abilities and resources in a way that will bring maximum return rather than minimum, that will produce good rather than evil, that will keep you free of injury, ill-health, and trouble, (as much as is humanly possible), that will keep you free of accusation or charge, that will help to resolve, solve, or improve, that will prove of benefit to others and the creatures that share our planet, that will make the world a better and brighter place, and that will leave behind the sweet aroma of your selflessness, bravery, and positive contribution.

10. Wealth

Wealth isn't wrong in itself. After all, some folk inherit wealth, some folk accumulate wealth via a business that prospers, and so on. Thus, the problem isn't wealth as such, but the fact that many are living in poverty, going without their needs, or dying of starvation, while others have way in excess of their needs, aren't doing what they can, or as much as they can, to alleviate the lot of these who're less fortunate. And many, if not most, are guilty of grossly misusing their wealth. What these folk spend on pure and outlandish selfish indulgence would keep millions from dying each year. Therefore, as mentioned, the problem isn't wealth, but often, or mostly, the person who has such wealth. And I guess that's where the problem will always lie.
If one doesn't have a conscience, nor a sense of duty or responsibility, they'll clearly stand idly by, as it were, while their fellowman suffers unnecessarily. Given there's so much wealth in the world, there shouldn't be the amount of suffering that there is. However, one doesn't have to be wealthy to be guilty of such, as most of us could probably do more than we do — that is, if we are doing anything. And sometimes the needy are right next door, or very close at hand. We are living in times where the need is so great. Even if we — that is, those of us who're not wealthy — were to forgo some of our seemingly minor indulgences, we would spare many from a horrid death.
I must also mention that the reason we have the poverrty and starvation that we do on Earth, is not because the world is overpopulated, (because it's not, far from it), but simply because of  human greed and selfishness — oh yes, and because of the manipulating of things that goes on behind the scenes.
Let me quote someone, "We have an abundant resource and potential to produce much more than is required to sustain a far greater population than we have."
Personally, with so many suffering today, I couldn't in all conscience spend money on things like a second house, a speed boat, a vintage car, and so on. Not when I think of how many I could help with that same money. Yes, while the Western world parties and so forth, others die before they even reach school age. Where's the justice in that?

11. Welfare

I felt compelled to pen the following given the unfortunate attitude that I've seen being exhibited by so many here in New Zealand who have a beef with the welfare system or those who're on a benefit -- yes, armchair critics with no coal face experience, and who've never been on a benefit, nor had need of a lower rental government house, for that matter. And let's remember too, that for those who have been there, been there is a very different experience for many people.
It has been my personal experience that those who are the most vocal in their condemnation are those who have been blessed with a nice home and car, savings in their bank account, and so on, (and fair enough too. There's nothing wrong with such things). But midst their good fortune, their holidays abroad say, their two cars perhaps, even a batch somewhere, they complain bitterly about being overtaxed, and turn on the welfare system or those who're on a benefit, (or at least certain ones who're on a benefit).
Such people remind me of someone who's complaining because someone has taken the little crusty ring off the top of their apple pie. Haven't they still got their pie? If I were them, I would just be foccusing on enjoying what I have, not complaining, lest an earthquake or personal tragedy rob such from me. In other words, let's appreciate what we have while we've got it rather than looking at what others suposedly are taking from us. Such people also remind me of someone who has a generously laden apple tree on their property of which they're observing with binoculars and complaining because their poorer neighbour has just taken some apples off a branch that was hanging over their side of the fence. Perhaps twenty apples to the observers three hundred. And yet, look who's counting.
I remember bumping into someone we know, (a number of years back, that is), who casually asked, (as folk do), how I and my family were. "Oh, we're struggling along," I replied, given that we rented a goverment house, had a number of kids, no money in the bank, and were barely getting by. "Yes, we're stuggling too," she said, and then continued, "I lost my job recently, so just hubby is working now." Here they were, lovely home in a relatively expensive area, two cars, boat, batch somewhere where they went for regular holidays, husband on a very good wage, and to add insult to injury, a few weeks later headed overseas for another holiday. Struggling? You've got to be kidding, I thought, their house probably paid off given their ages and incomes. The truth of the matter is that they really had no idea of what struggling is all about.  Imagine not being able to afford to go to the doctor. Such folk are simply struggling, (if you can call it that), because they're trying to keep up with a certain standard of living that they desire but hardly need. 

As far as those who're ripping off the welfare system go, (and draining money), let's remember that there are people ripping off the system everywhere, many at the top, and many who're employed. And then there are the likes of drunk drivers, (many employed and doing nicely), who cost the country millions and millions every year, and who also create victims who thereby take up more hospital beds and drain more money. Adding to the drain on taxpayer's money are those who're injured whilst involved in extreme sports or foolish ventures; those who're injured whilst committing crime; those who're injured whilst courousing (not to mention their victims); and those who due to willfully abusing their health, (be that through diet, drugs, smoking, etc), end up requiring medical assistance and/or a hospital bed. Shall I go on?
And let's not forget those who make money from another's misfortune, or ill-health, (via excessive fees); the likes of plastic surgeons who play on the beauty thing, charging and pocketing scurrilous amounts of money; wealthy people receiving entitlements they don't need, (at the expense of the taxpayer); those who go on strike in order to get a wage increase when they're already on a good wage; landlords who hike rents after an earthquake; or those CEOs on salaries that are clearly unjustifiable and quite appalling. Yes, so many are on the make one way or another, or are getting what they hardly need, or what they shouldn't get. And how many businesses put profit before people via unreasonable markups?
As far as bludgers go, (a nickname given to some on a benefit), surely bludgers come in many forms. How many people, (especially those who're well off), put their hands up and say, "Seen as it was my own fault, I will pay the cost," or, "Seen as I don't need it, I won't take it."
In my experience I have found the most kind-hearted, generous, and sacrificing people to be those who're lacking in material wealth. And the most penny pinching, penny conscious, to be those who don't need to be so. Hence why many of them visit the op-shops depleting those shops of clothing (they've picked over) that was intended for those who're poor. I mean poor! Many (via such) are getting cream on top of their cake, a cake that may be said to already have cream on it when compared to the lot of others, (who don't even have a cake). My wife and I were told of a lady who used to visit such shops in her Mercedes Benz, believe it or not. Well, they do take a lot to run, don't they? I thought it was a Rolls Royce, just quietly, but my wife's memory is generally better, so a Mercedes Benz it is. And while I'm on the subject, I know of a doctor with two homes and a working wife who likewise visits such shops, (or did, last time I knew). And yet here we are fixated on beneficiaries.
So why is there such a sustained attack on the welfare system. Yes, a handy scapegoat it seems. A welfare system is a necessary and humane response. A necessary drain on pockets. It's something we should learn to live with and come to value lest we have a need of it too. The answer lies in how it's managed. Governments who adopt a slash and burn approach, or who take a heavy hand to such, simply cause as many problems as they solve, even worse ones. Personally, I'd rather err towards a government that's heart isn't connected to its head than a government that's head isn't connected to its heart. Better a little left than a little right, I say. The ideal? Taking the best from both the left and the right until you have a healthy balance. While people continue to swing strongly to the left or strongly to the right we'll never actually get things right. And many don't believe they've swung. Half the problem.
A little sympathy is a fine thing too. Many of those who are on a benefit don't have the joy that comes from owning their own home, don't have a car, (or have a wreck), don't get a proper holiday, are often sick via worry and stress, are in debt, have little if any money in their bank account, and wouldn't be able to get a job if they tried due to high unemployment, age, constant health issues, and the various kinds of discrimination that go on, hence why some can be out of work for years and why they're the last ones that folk should condemn.  
Let's look at this a little further. I've often heard folk saying that there's work out there for those who really want to work, implying that many who are unemployed don't want to work, and would rather sit on a benefit. Such an attitude effectively taints all who are out of work. It would do well for such critics to ponder on the following:
There may be a number of job vacancies — and countrywide, there could even be quite a lot, at any given time — but when one breaks those vacancies down into towns and cities and into what is suitable for any one individual, it's quite another story.
Let's take a middle-aged man who is unskilled and out of work, and then peruse the vacancies in his local newspaper — that is, the town or city in which he lives. What do we see, (ignoring the political correctness nonsense, and being practical and fair)?
Jobs that are only suitable for women; jobs that only women would want to do; jobs that most employers would only hire a woman to do.
Jobs that require someone who has a trade — builder, plumber, etc.
Jobs that require someone who has professional training — doctor, scientist, etc.
Jobs that require proven managerial skills, or expereience in a certain feild, (there and then) — paramedic, physiotherapist, fireman, etc.
Jobs that  would somehow cut across someon'e religious beliefs or ethics.
Jobs that are too far away to be viable or practical.
Jobs that not all can cope with -- high-rise window cleaning, mining, etc.
Plus, the middle-aged man that I've used as an example, might also have certain physical, emotional, or medical conditions that restrict his abilities, (who wants a lame duck, it seems), and he may even have past convictions — and, sadly so, certain disfigurements or off-puting things that see most employers backing away from.
And no doubt more things could be mentioned.
In summary, the amount of vacancies that he could sensibly apply for at any given time might be very few in the scheme of things, and how many are waiting in the very same queue wanting the very same job?
And while we're on the subject, here's another thing that's worth thinking about:
In times of high unemployment, (and the problems that result from such), why do those men and women who don't need to work continue to do so, thus adding to the problem in the sense that they are unnecessarily filling jobs that others who're out of work could do with? Perhaps those who don't need to work do so because they are bored at home, like the job they've got, enjoy the social contact, want another overseas holiday, or simply remain working because it makes them feel useful, though there are lots of other ways in which folk can make themselves useful. However, whatever the case may be, their absence from the workforce would surely make a big difference because there is a lot of them out there. Sometimes in life, for the good of others, or society in general, we should be prepared to make certain sacrifices. Isn't that what love for our fellowman is all about. Better that than those with young families having to go on the dole, (the unemployment benefit). Better that than having out-of-work young folk getting into trouble due to too much time on their hands, frustration or disillusionment.
Yes, so let's be a little more thoughtful when it comes to those who are unemployed, and more so during those harder times. 
When one is speaking about those on a benefit, or mentioning the woes of those who're on a benefit, the responses of those condemning them often go something like this:
1) "We worked hard for what we've got."
Well, that may be so, but they're still blessed in the sense that they have much to be grateful for given that many others aren't as fortunate as they. Best they enjoy the ninety percent that they have than waste their time getting ulcers over that ten percent they think someone is draining from them. Compared to others many are living like kings yet complaining as if they're paupers. Some folk just don't know how well off they are.
2) "Their problems are of their own making."
Oh? I find it quite ironic that in this "Don't judge me!" age these people are doing just that. And who are they to judge. Some also point to certain things that someone on a benefit might have, and say, "Boy, they're doing alright on a benefit."  But how did they acquire that car or whatever it might be? Was such gifted? Did family or church members chip in? Did they win such in a competition, (and so on)? Did someone shout them that meal at a restaurant? Was something a birthday present or a Christmas gift, (and so on)? It's a bit much when someone on a benefit is made to feel guilty because they're enjoying an ice-cream.
There are those who won't help certain parents who are on a benefit because they feel that those parents shouldn't be on a benefit. One downside of this is, that the children of those parents suffer as a result. Why penalise innocent children? It's not their fault. Thus, it's better to help those parents, even if they shouldn't be on a benefit, than to see those children suffering more so.
3) "If I can do it so can they."
Such a statement is often far from the truth and very cruel, and is sometimes even stated by those who once were on a benefit themselves but have since lost touch, or who've sucumbed to the erroneous "You can do whatever you set your mind to" mantra propagated by the positive thinking brigade. There's a big difference between thinking positively and the 'positive thinking' gospel that's doing the rounds today, (and raking in good money, I might add). A gospel that has serious flaws.
There are those on a benefit who may be deemed as able to enter the workforce but who, (due to certain issues they have), just don't cope out there. There's a big difference between those who're outright bludgers and those who are struggling to cope. And let me add, that just because the latter may seem to be having a great time on a benefit, it doesn't mean that they actually are. Don't we sometimes see cancer victims smiling and laughing? Aren't those on a benefit allowed to have some fun, some pleasures in life too? Do we doubt their illness or condition? No, such is simply a perpetrated myth thats validity only applies to the outright bludger but that so often is used in a universal way as if all who're on a benefit are having a great time. It's hardly fun being on a benefit. Who would enjoy the stigma? Who would enjoy having to check in and out, getting asked this or that, being told to do this or that, having no say, the insecurity, and so on? And how many are actually reaching out from their ivory towers (or better paddocks) and helping these folk so that they don't become a burden on a burdened system? If we're not prepared to help somone who's broken down on the road of life, we can't complain if they're slowing down the traffic and holding us up. Yes, it's so easy for folk to comment when they're on the other side of the fence.
Folk on a benefit may well appear to be getting by in the sense that they're paying their bills — rent, etc — but the truth of the matter often is, that in order to pay those bills, they and their family are going without decent food, medication, are missing meals, not going to the doctor when they need to, not managing to keep their needed car warrantable, making do with cast off and well used clothing, going without adequate heating, and as a result, via lack of money, not attending to things that need attention, (including their health), and which in time will therefore create bigger problems and more expense, and effectively create greater dependency on others and the State. Thus, if the taxpayer doesn't get hit one way, they get hit another. Folk in such a vulnerable situation only need one major expense to befall them and they're in dire straits.
Those who make the above three statements remind me of those who think that prisons are too comfortable and want them made less so. I wonder how they would feel if they ended up in one. Just being in prison is misery enough. Some seem to have a very uninformed idea of just how miserable being in prison is. Personally, I'd rather talk rehabilitation than dungeons. Even if prisoners had a TV it would hardly compensate for their loss of freedom and all that goes on in prisons, (violence, sex attacks, threats, intimidation, etc). And bear in mind that if prison conditions are made worse, such will also affect the innocent person who is wrongly accused and sent to prison -- and there are many of them, even on death row. And that person may well end up being you one day!  No, knee-jerk legislation is folly, and all to common.
Such thinking also reminds me of those who clamour for the death penalty. I don't like to say it, but if you really want a perpetrator to suffer, leave them in prison for the rest of their life. Executing them hardly punishes them, as once they're dead, that's it!  No more suffering. Thus, you've effectively defeated the whole purpose of making them pay. Some aren't phased by the thought of departing this world. It may even be what they want at the end of the day. But years and years cooped up in a cell is hell. Most people when they've suffered the loss of a loved one due to some perpetrator, don't think or react rationally or objectively. While such is very understandable, it's far from sensible.
Anyway, getting back to those who don't cope or are struggling in general:
When such are forced up against the wall by pushing them out into the workforce, or by removing their benefit, they may simply turn to crime, (or further crime), or midst their inability to cope, commit suicide, or take their distress and frustration out on society, and somewhat understandably. Hence some of the mass shootings we see, not that I'm condoning such. When will we learn this? Many of those who're on a benefit have complexities within their situation, complexities that are fueled via the likes of their unfortunate background from which many complexities stem, and which are only agravated by harsher measures and insensitive attitudes. Those who stand and judge often have no idea of what's really going on in that person's life. And remember that when a person on a benefit is threatened, so is their family, so let's spare a little thought for the wider picture.
As a kid I remember those adults who complained about council workers who seemingly stood around all day leaning on their shovels. "What a waste of taxpayers money," they cried!  Well, the way I see it, at least they were off the streets and their family being taken care of. Things are invariably better that way.  It's better to be too soft than too harsh, it's better to be generous rather than miserly. Answers don't always lie in an accountant's notebook. Hence why I repeat that an accountant type approach can actually worsen things. We need to consider what the cost to society is when people are forced up against the wall. It may be greater than paying benefits to those we consider bludgers and more disastrous to society.
However, aren't their checks and balances? If there were, surely we wouldn't have quite the problem we do. How many people who abuse their government rented houses by knocking them around are being held accountable for such. If they're not being held accountable why complain about such housing draining taxpayers money. Deal with the problem makers. Don't slash and burn the system, and don't get stuck into the one's who genuinely are not able to cope and who need support. (Don't go by appearances). In other words, go after the real bludger.
And by the way, where is the support for those who're struggling? The truth is that there is not the degree of support out there that is needed, so forcing those back into work who don't cope out there simply forces the problem in another direction and onto others out there who may receive the brunt of it in any which a way. Some folk only cope because they're on a benefit. And let me add too, that doctors don't always fully comprehend or pick up on what's going on within someone, (emotionally or physically), hence why some folk may not get a doctors approval to remain off work when they should remain off work. Many doctors no doubt have the same welfare bashing attitude. Thus, some folk who're already on a benefit and are struggling are best just left alone lest greater problems ensue, and more so if they're not harming anyone and not committing crime. Yes, better some wastage than the trouble that may come through being tight-fisted fiscally. Remember: The tighter the rope, the greater the tension. And snap?
Is the welfare system a sustainable system? Of course it is, but only where there's the will. And morally, their should always be the will, there should always be a way. Most people are too busy looking down the wrong end of the telescope, too busy picking up on that unfair and undue anti-beneficiary sentiment.
Far too often, all we hear about is the so-called bludgers. It's time that myth was seperated from fact. Finally, there's no shame in being on welfare, unless one is a bludger, and hey, who knows all the facts? I would imagine that a search would show that benefits are largely used as they're meant to be, and that the majority of people stay on them only as long as they need to. However, were that not so, one shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water!

A note to Christians:
Before you condemn someone (John 8:6-11) on a benefit you might like to consider the following: Might it suit God's plans that they be on that benefit and for the length of time that they are. Might He have something that He wants them to do that they'd only be able to do for Him on that benefit, something that requires a degree of time that they wouldn't otherwise have, something that might prove a blessing to others and further His plans. After all, this earth's rushing to it's end. There are more important issues at stake. Employment isn't the beginning and end of everything. Thus, it might be God's toes that you're treading on. Both God and the Holy Spirit should not be confined to some sort of human box. And remember that the only person that God condemns is the one who's too lazy to get off their bottom and work, not the one who struggles to cope out there and requires assistance, (a benefit for which they too have paid taxes). Such strugglers are worlds apart.

12. Mind Those Charlatans

I assume you’ve heard the expression, “Everyone’s a comedian.” Such is sometimes sarcastically stated when someone’s cracking jokes. Well, it seems that these days everyone’s also a marriage guidance counsellor, a sexual therapist, a psychologist, a motivational guru, a financial expert, an astrologer, a faith healer, a psychic, or a medium. Can’t you just sense something?
It seems that if one can come up with a clever book, (or seminar), conveying how to have a blissful marriage, a terrific sex life, a fat bank account, happiness by the bucket load, an out-of-world experience, a miraculous healing, or contact with the departed, that they’re bound to become not only popular but handsomely rewarded financially. Hello?
And I guess the reason that such folk are so successful is because so many people are reaching for the latest magic wand, don’t want to face up to reality, have been bewitched by New Age nonsense, (really age old nonsense in new garb), are just plain gullible, or are in a very vulnerable place.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not against worthwhile material pertaining to certain subjects, and there are many genuine people out there producing some very good material, but hey, when it comes to every man and his dog producing such, (much of it truth peppered with error, pure nonsense, or simply flawed in some way), it really makes one wonder, and brings home the necessity of seriously scrutinizing such.
The downside of all this is that it often has folk wandering all over the place until they finally stumble on what’s right — that is, if they do. And with so many books out there, all with their own ideas on what will work and so forth, one might well ask,  "Who's got it right?"
The world is full of charlatans, (with followers by the thousands), and nowhere is this more clearly seen than via the likes of mediums with their bogus books on the “afterlife” and their TV programmes where they supposedly impart soothing messages from the departed to the gullible sitting in the audience. When I say gullible, I don’t mean that in an insulting way, but in the sense that midst their grieving (vulnerability) they fall for the mediums chicanery. If only people spent more time thinking things through logically.
If these mediums are able to have contact with spirit beings who impart such knowledge, or the departed ones themselves, why do they have to ask so many probing questions of those in the audience. Surely the spirit beings or the departed ones would tell these mediums straightaway. Yes, it’s quite amusing, and very telling, how it takes all that messing about. Oh dear, all that static on the airwaves!
I once watched a programme on TV, (wish I’d taped it now), which showed how these sophisticated conmen or con-women (mediums) operate. It was quite an eye opener. It's an art form, believe me. But when folk are feeling desperate and vulnerable they will try anything. It’s the “just in case” syndrome. Most of us have been there done that. I’m sure that some of these mediums are deluded enough to actually believe in what they’re doing, which makes them all the more dangerous, and given that Christians believe that there are fallen angels, (evil spirit beings), I would imagine that some mediums are in fact being fed via such, (in some way), but certainly not truthfully as such beings love to deceive. If only these mediums truely knew the forces that they are playing with. Many who once dabbled with such forces have some pretty horrific stories to tell.
Why would evil spirit beings do nice things, or speak the truth? And as far as good spirit beings go, they would hardly operate via charlatans, and wouldn’t cruelly string folk out, nor would they be slow in presenting information to psychics that would prove a blessing. Besides, if the dead could make contact with us, I’m sure they’d be capable of doing that themselves. Not that I believe the dead have somehow, in some form, left their grave and departed for some other destination yet (Heb 11:39,40), where, as mediums try to convince, they somehow communicate. Such is simply pagan fiction that found its way into the realm of Christian belief (doctrine) via the apostasies that crept into the early Christian Church via Greek influence, for one. No wonder mediums are having a field day! If such were true, what would be the point in Christ's second coming resurrection? He'd hardly come back just for bodies if folk were somehow already up in Heaven.
And tell me, why do so-called psychics need to be taken to the scene of a crime? Seems the source that’s providing them with that telepathic information has that oh so familiar static problem, and a faulty GPS system. Can't they just ask those spirit beings? Thus, my heart bleeds for the victims of these psychics and mediums who sincerely believe the rubbish they’re told. Yes, hit and miss. If they're really good, more hit than miss.
If I published a book saying how I was a medium and had contact with spirit beings who imparted certain messages, I’m sure that in time, (with a certain exposure), I would soon have a following, and folk believing that what I was saying was true, (or that it might be true), especially if I came across as very genuine, and even more so if I was somewhat respected within the community, or a celebrity.
And then there are those astral conmen, *astrologers who have people following their daily predictions. I once took the time to check out my so-called star sign and the daily predictions proffered. I discovered that I wasn’t simply an Aries but actually a mixture. A bit of this and a bit of that — lol. Such reminds me of that psychology nonsense that once again places people in similar little boxes — sanguine, melancholic, choleric, and phlegmatic. And surprise, surprise, once again you’ll probably find that you’re a bit of this and a bit of that, just like I found. I hope that you'll excuse my yawn. My understanding is that the origin of such is Babylonian astrology.
As for the astrologer’s predictions? Once again, just clever humbug, hit and miss, nonsense that percolates within the subconscious, if one's silly enough to dwell on such, that is — in other words, it’s just mind over matter. Things have a way of turning out the way we let them. If we’re a bit of this or that, part this or part that, which prediction would actually be the right one on the day? I mean, think about it. The one for the Aries person, the one for the Virgo person, the one for the Gemini person…?
And then there are those motivational books such as Dale Carnegie’s How To Stop Worrying And Start Living. Please don’t give such to someone who’s struggling emotionally or suffering from depression, as if all they need to do is to think positively and they’ll come right. Motivational books may have their place, but beware those who think that the likes of depression is simply a state of mind that positive thinking will cure. Such is not only naïve, but insensitive and dangerous given the complexities within an individual's mind, background and life in general. And that’s where such books can mislead the uninformed or misinformed. Along with their misleading, "You can acheive anything you want to" nonsense. Hardly reality based. Such is the bedfellow of the positive thinking carry on. Yes, another subject, but suffice to say, there is a big difference between thinking positively and positive thinking — a tired old mantra that does more harm than good, and that is full of more holes than a sieve.
As I mentioned earlier, there are some genuine people putting out some very good material, but even here, one needs to tread with care. One example that comes to mind is, The Five Love Languages by the Christian Gary Chapman. Teaching that your spouse's love language may be that of receiving gifts is simply foolishness, in my mind. Such is teaching spouses (husbands and wives) to have a selfish expectation, almost as if it’s their right to have such, and get such. Pity the husband, (for example, and who might be the sole breadwinner), who’s unemployed or on a meagre wage. So much for that relationship perhaps, should gifts not be forthcoming, if receiving gifts is his wife's love language. While it’s nice for a husband to surprise his wife with a little gift here and there, (and so a husband should, I feel), it shouldn’t become an expectation on the wife’s behalf, (nor the man's). Such expectations cease to be surprises effectively, and, I might add, (as far as Christians go), are contrary to the selflessness that the Christian Bible teaches.  For the Christian it's all about giving, not receiving.
Rather than such being a spontaneous act that comes from a man's heart, it thus becomes something that he feels he had better do or needs to do, otherwise... And all because his wife has been foolishly taught that her love language is that of receiving gifts. And hence her expectence. What next? It's all about how you treat a woman, (your spouse), not about gifts which can become an insincere and selfish way of attempting to get certain favours. And gifts, (just like anything else), can become taken for granted, cease to excite the same. Oh, another one? How nice...yawn. A trip to Disneyland might be fun, but were one to visit Disneyland each day, it would soon just become a bore.
Quite honestly, you can read all the books on marriage you want, but at the end of the day, its that little word “me” that’s mainly responsible for marital troubles. If the husband is doing all he can to selflessly please his wife, and the wife is doing all she can to selflessly please her husband, both will eventually get what they want. The problem is that we seldom see such selfless behaviour, but it's where the answer lies. it’s all about dying to self, and after all the books on marriage are read, that’s what it ultimately comes down to. Why run around in circles. Begin where it really counts. That same advice applies to our relationships in general. The problems within society, and with Christianity too, largely stem from that same “me” mentality. 
And while we’re on the subject of books written by Christians, another one that comes to mind is, The Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren. As far as The Purpose Driven Life goes, it’s a book that rather than confronting Christians with what they need to hear, simply lulls them into an even deeper Laodicean sleep via pop psychology, humanistic theology, and a watered down gospel that pleases itchy ears. It’s message is far from apostolic given it’s lack of balance, worldly fusion, and error. Funny how such books are so popular today. Or is it? Yes, it’s not just buyers beware, but readers beware, and watch the likes of those charlatans parading as mediums, or those faith healers who're just as bogus, (popular and wealthy), and that just like mediums, are poping up everywhere these days. Signs of the times?

*The following plucked article bears out my comments regarding astral conmen:

The abrupt dawning of the age of Ophiucus

AFP January 15, 2011, 3:53 pm

WASHINGTON - Thousands of people woke up to the realization this week that they aren't who they thought they were. Worse still, neither was that partner they always thought they were so compatible with based on their astrological signs, because this week it was announced that many of us were reading the wrong horoscope. "Over the 2,500 years or so since the zodiac was established, your sign has moved about a month relative to the sun and stars," wrote Robert Roy Britt in a posting on Live Science that was republished by a newspaper in Minnesota, triggering the zodiac panic. "You're no longer what you think you are, and so if you're an astrology buff, perhaps poised to make a New Year's resolution based on the stars and a reading of your supposed personality, know that you're actually following observations, predictions and advice aimed at another person entirely."
The shift in the alignment of the stars, which has come about because the Earth has been wobbling on its axis for millennia, means most people go back a sign. Warm-hearted, patient Taurus becomes selfish, quick-tempered Aries. Eminently practical and prudent Capricorns are now blindly optimistic and careless Sagittarians. And many Sagittarians are now Ophiucus.
Oh what?
Ophiucus. It's the hitherto little-heard-of 13th astrological sign. Apparently the Babylonians had an Ophiucus column in their daily horoscopes but it got dropped somewhere between their civilization and ours. In any case, news of the celestial shift and of Ophiucus's resurrection sent astrology buffs reeling. If they weren't wondering how to get rid of the Scorpio tattoo that they just had done when it turns out they're really Libra, as Michele Zipp did in a blog posting on The Stir, they were pondering some of the other existential questions raised by the change. What, for instance, are Ophiucus's personality traits? What signs are compatible with Ophiucans? And do the lyrics to the song from "Hair" that go, "This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius" have to be rewritten? It would become "the dawning of the age of Capricorn", which doesn't really work with the meter of the song. Knowing that famous Ophiucans include the late Sir Winston Churchill, rocker and reality show star Ozzy Osbourne, the late US comedian Richard Pryor, and pop star Britney Spears, all of whom were born between November 29 and December 17, sheds little light on what the sign's personality traits are. In fact, wrote John Abbott in Kernel Press about Ophiucus, "To claim that people as disparate as Ozzy Osbourne, Winston Churchill and Richard Pryor have a similar set of characteristics is nonsense."
The news of the heavenly shift is in fact old -- Britt's story links to another published on Live Science in 2007, in which the shift in the heavens and Ophiucus were announced, and Abbott wrote his piece in 1996, which is why he didn't mention Britney Spears -- she released her debut album in 1999. Britts and Abbott both point out that astrology is not a science, a hint that no one was supposed to take the redrawing of the zodiac map too seriously. But for some reason, the whole thing went viral after the Star Tribune newspaper in Minneapolis picked up the story and got an astronomer -- a real scientist -- to comment on it. The astronomer was swamped with phone calls, and the Star Tribune's website got more than 183,000 hits on Thursday. "If we had checked our horoscope, maybe we would have seen this coming," chuckled the Star Tribune's Bill Ward in his column on Friday. According to a survey conducted in 2009 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, a quarter of Americans believe in astrology. That's 75 million people who could now be worried that someone is trying to Ophiucus.

13. Getting Folk To See

I'm sure we've all heard it said that truth is stranger than fiction, and if such is so, then surely no more so than today with all the things that are going on. And hence why one should keep an open mind, read broadly, investigate thoroughly, and avoid the bias trap that gets in the way of so many discovering the truth about anything. We've all got to find out for ourselves what is correct. Not just blindly adhere to what our parents, friends, teachers, ministers, politicians, or anyone else has told or taught us. Nor get fooled by things that come in nice packages but are actually danger in waiting.
I'm a great believer in freedom of expression and that all should have the opportunity to say what they believe or think in the public arena. Take that away and we're doomed! The only ones who should be silenced (so to speak) are those who clearly teach or preach violence and outright hatred. Let's not confuse things. For example: One should be allowed to publicaly state that they believe same-sex sexual acts are wrong and injurous, and that they believe such shouldn't be condoned in any form. But that's where it should end, no further. Those who practice such acts should still be treated humanely, be shown the same love and compassion that all should be. Second example: One should be allowed to publicaly state that they believe a particular religion is misleading people, and that certain doctrines it holds are wrong. But that's where it should end, no further. Condemnation is one thing, bigotry and persecution quite another. Yes, it's one thing to condemn and oppose someone's beliefs or actions, quite another thing for us to mistreat them personally or collectively.
Now, back to where I came in. Given that truth is stranger than fiction, we shouldn't dismiss every conspiracy theory that turns up, nor should we put an end to such in any way. While some conspiracy theories prove to be false, some prove to be true, certainly given time. And I assume we've all heard about the 9/11 conspiracy theory. Does it have validity? Well, wisdom would surely have us checking such out, for if what's being said is so, it wouldn't pay for us to be ignorant of such, and we also need to draw from the best material that's available out there. After all, there is a lot of rubbish, and even the wisest of folk can get fooled. One needs to compare this and that, check out the fors and against. It's no good just reading what suits. We need to view both sides of an argument. Hopefully neither bias nor patriotism will get in the way of any serious inspection. And at the end of the day, YOU, must be the judge.
I must add too, that only those with something to hide would deny such websites the freedom to operate and deny folk the opportunity to inspect such.
Getting the masses to see what they need to see, (for their own well-being, or others), or simply trying to reach folk individually in order to achieve the same, is not an easy task, and nor has it been for those who have made such their mission throughout this earth's history. It's a tragedy that so many aren't receptive to what they need to hear, but what makes such even worse is, the rampant self-delusion that's out there.
Though not a follower of the likes of America's Got Talent and American Idol, such are glaring examples, for here we see hundreds of people (from among the thousands) who strongly believe they're good singers, or are very talented, when in fact they're woefully not so!
Their lack is clearly obvious to the judges, those in the auditorium, and those watching via TV, but clearly not obvious to these sadly deluded souls who take umbridge at being told that they aren't good singers, aren't talented, or don't have a good act. Maybe some do know it's so, but simply want their 5 minutes of fame.
Though the judges shouldn't be rude or sarcastic, one can certainly understand their frustration which clearly boils over at times given how many deluded hopefuls they have to wade through, hopefuls you would think would know better. (Mind you, I have to admit that these judges are terribly inconsistent! And I do wonder about their ability to judge at times).
This delusion I'm mentioning is not restricted to such "wannabes" but is also found in other areas, hence why we see people embarking on the ridiculous, the foolish, clinging to certain views or beliefs that are unhealthy, or that are way off track, or following some leader of a cult. It often intriques me as to how folk can be so blind to their faults, foolishness, unreasonable views, or lack of talent, and hence why getting folk to see what they need to see can be a very difficult task.
It's rare to find folk who are truely open-minded, balanced, able and willingly to see and acknowledge their faults or mistaken views, and who're able to objectively analyse whether they do have a talent or not.
The state of those who're deluded isn't helped by parents and friends who, rather than being honest, furnish them with praise that isn't due, thus adding to someone's inner delusion and effectively helping them to continue making a fool of themselves.
Yes, people can certainly mystify.

14. UFOs

This article is really just an extension to the one above — article 13.

As a Christian, I have always considered UFOs, (and even ghosts), to be the work of evil supernatural beings playing tricks on humanity. But that said, I must admit that I have in fact entertained the possibility of such also being the clever behind the scenes activity of certain humans, alias agencies.
Such a possibility was heightened in my mind when I stumbled across what I guess is considered a conspiracy theory. Perhaps you may already be aware of such — NASA’s blue beam project. Such was apparently first brought to the attention of the world via an investigative journalist by the name of  Sergo Monast, a Canadian. He and another journalist, both of whom were researching Project Blue Beam, died of heart attacks within weeks of each other although neither had a history of heart disease.
According to this conspiracy theory, (and I think I’ve been around long enough to realise that there’s often a degree of truth in some of these theories, and some may be right on the money), NASA, among other clandestine things, has been working on projecting three-dimensional optical holograms into the sky in preparation for some coming deception that is tied in with a New World Order. According to this theory, at some point in the future, space-based laser-generating satellites will apparently project simultaneous images to the four corners of the planet, and even in every language and dialect according to the region.
According to this theory, the UFO sightings that have been seen around the world, are part and parcel of this experimentation that is going on. Interesting isn’t it?
Given that the Christian Bible talks about a worldwide persecuting and controlling religious/political End-time power surrounded by signs and wonders, it does make one stop and think. Presumably these images would endorse such a power.
By the way: If it’s true that certain cures have been found, and inventions that could solve things, but which are being secretly withheld, the question is, “Why?” — and could it be that such will be pulled out of the bag at some future time as part of the signs and wonders mentioned, and in order to authenticate such a power?
Getting back to where I came in, I must say that given the cleverness of man today, I can't see any reason why a UFO couldn't be built, and perhaps they have been, and are part of the equation like I mentioned at the begining.

15. Torture Can Never Be Justified

The following has been drawn from various sources.
Torture is the ultimate depravity. It’s the practice of the depraved, not the just. It's morally repugnant. It’s usage corrupts, degrades, and dehumanises the torturer; disgraces, undermines, and damages a country’s reputation —
Such grants a certain legitimacy to the use of torture by other countries.
Torture generates a deeper hatred in both the tortured one, his comrades, and his allies. It creates a desire for revenge. Troops from a country that tortures, and who’re taken prisoner, will face pay back.
When a country tortures, such can be used as a recruitment tool against that country that is doing the torturing, (or those who are doing the torturing) — in other words, such provides the enemy with something they can exploit for propaganda.
A free informant might be afraid to talk about what they know lest they end up being tortured too
The use of torture removes integrity and the moral high ground — it damages the moral authority of an institution.
Torture is against human rights and the Geneva convention.
Civilised people do not torture.
No one can truly be trusted with such power — legalised or permitted torture leads to abuse. Evil done behind the scenes is evil kept behind the scenes. Legalised torture just creates legalised criminals.
The torturer can never be sure they’re getting the truth. Under torture, an innocent person may confess to avoid their misery, or may be made to confess to something that they are innocent of.
Torture actually invalidates confessions, because it creates "evidence" that cannot be used in a court of law.
Torture can generate false leads that can derail or hold up ongoing investigations. 
Torture can lead to death or permanent emotional or physical injury — an even greater crime should the one who’s being tortured be innocent.
Some torturers may enjoy or begin to enjoy inflicting such pain. The work of torture attracts sadists who are more interested in torturing than they are in getting information —
On the other hand, torturers can suffer Reverse Stockholm Syndrome, (known in some circles as remorse).
Torture can create sympathy for people who would otherwise be scorned and shamed.
The 'Ticking Time Bomb' scenario that has been put forth by Alan Dershowitz, and that endorses the use of torture under certain circumstances, is one that's seriously flawed, and almost a subject on its own. Besides, it's naive to believe that laws against torture would have any significance in a true "ticking bomb" scenario, though it needs to be said that real life doesn't present "ticking bomb" situations. But where does one draw the line? When ten thousand people are at risk or ten? Morally you can't have a trade off. Yes, hard cases make bad law.
For the Christian it’s always a case of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” We're all God's children. But at the end of the day, torture is wrong because it is wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right. Torture mistreats the vulnerable and violates the demands of justice. Torture is wrong because it inflicts unspeakable pain upon the body of a fellow human being who is entirely at our mercy. It treats the victim as a thing, returns us to the dark ages. Torture turns us into hypocrites. And always remember that what is introduced to extract information or to punish can be used on the innocent -- the tougher the prison, the harder it is on the inmate who's unjustly incarcerated. Yes, that could become you. Oh, it's also worth remembering that the person who is tortured is someone's spouse or child.

The following worthy comments are by Cesare Beccaria, an Italian economist who published, Essay on Crimes and Punishment, in 1764.  

A cruelty consecrated among most nations by custom is the torture of the accused during his trial, on the pretext of compelling him to confess his crime, of clearing up contradictions in his statements, of discovering his accomplices, of purging him in some metaphysical and incomprehensible way from infamy, or finally of finding out other crimes of which he may possibly be guilty, but of which he is not accused.
A man cannot be called guilty before sentence has been passed on him by a judge, nor can society deprive him of its protection till it has been decided that he has broken the condition on which it was granted. What, then, is that right but one of mere might by which a judge is empowered to inflict a punishment on a citizen whilst his guilt or innocence are still undetermined?
The following dilemma is no new one; either the crime is certain or uncertain; if certain, no other punishment is suitable for it than that affixed to it by law; and torture is useless. If it is uncertain, it is wrong to torture an innocent person, such as the law adjudges him to be, whose crimes are not yet proved.

16. Regarding Chocolate

Chocolate contains tannin, theobromine, (the primary chemical), and caffeine.
Caffeine negatively affects and alters brain function. Without a doubt, it's a drug, one that can create an addiction, hence why many can't seem to do without their coffee, tea, cola, or chocolate fix, and can suffer from withdrawal symptoms. While it initially gives one a lift mentaly, it eventually leaves one with less mental alertness than before. It's believed that it can even lead to dementia and is known to cause birth defects in babies. Caffeine is also a diuretic -- that is, it dehydrates.
Caffeine and theobromine are methylxanthines. The presence of methylxanthines in the body can lead to the development of cysts and benign tumors, particularly in the female breast. It's believed by many in the medical profession that methylxanthines can likewise affect the male prostate.
Chocolate is made from cocoa beans. The cocoa pod processing, which is carried out in countries where sanitation levels and production standards are low, is one that attracts various kinds of contamination — among them: urine and excreta from dogs and rodents, molds, bacteria, and insects. Hence the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare acknowledgment of such. This agency attempts to limit such contamination by requiring that visible or solid animal excreta must not exceed ten milligrams per pound; that chocolate powder must not have more than seventy-five insect body fragments in three tablespoons of powder. Can you believe it! They realise that such contamination is part and parcel of the scene, and therefore are foolishly prepared to accept a degree of such — a degree that is clearly injurious, let alone appalling. And it may well be that this contamination is responsible for resultant allergies, and not just the chocolate itself.
As a cancer control measure, women are advised to discontinue taking tea, coffee, cola, and chocolate. Why? Because they contain methylxanthines.
Chocolate is loaded with sugar and contains high amounts of artificial flavours, colourings,  and various chemicals to keep it fresh.
Chocolate is also responsible for increasing calcium excretion, and can cause headaches, nervous irritation, muscle twitches, disturbed sleep, anxiety, and depression.

17. Politicians

We will never get sound government until we get sound men, (or women), men of integrity, noble character, who won't lie, fudge, dodge, skip, hide, twist, stretch, fool, make excuses, behave childishly, bullishly, or pedantically, nor succumb to ego and popularity;
men with no personal axe to grind, and who've no left or right agenda, but simply a passion for improving the lot of their fellowman, creatures, society, Earth, a passion that's displayed in policies that don't polarise, stigmatise, rob Peter to pay Paul, sell of the family's heirlooms, (the country's assets), imperil the safety, health, liberties, rights, and quality of life of its citizens, give government greater control over its citizens, favour the rich over the poor, and that aren't draconian;
men who won't feather their own nest, misuse privileges, fleece, indulge in cronyism, manipulate things to their advantage, chase the baubles of power, pander to certain quarters, promise and not deliver without good and acceptable reason, nor cave under pressure;
and men who've no skeletons in their cupboard.

18. Keep This In Mind

Always remember that those who’ve an evil agenda, and who do not have your best interests at heart:

Malign anyone and deny anything suggesting or saying otherwise.
Seek to silence opposition, destroy or withhold evidence, remove opportunity and avenues for complaint, and appoint those who will bow to their wishes.
Use circumstances or situations to their advantage.
Make promises they won’t keep.
Make ambiguous statements.
Say things that they know you’ll want to hear.
Avoid answering questions directly.
Twist the truth.
Bend or change the rules, interfere in the due process.
Feign ignorance regarding certain underhand activities, or point to anyone or anything rather than themselves.
Hide behind popular causes, religion, positions of authority and institutions.
Create problems behind the scenes that they then profess to have the answers to, thereby receiving approval to implement those answers which further their plans.
Provide fake evidence.
Are often charismatic, influential, wealthy, very educated, or benign seeming.
And usually tell you that they do have your best interests at heart.

19. The Pacifist, Pacifism, Violence And War

Note: Christian comment appears at the end of this article.

A dictionary search:

Pacifist:
One who opposes war or other violence.
Pacifism:
The belief that peaceful methods should be used to settle differences among nations. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes nationally (or personally).
The principle or policy of universal peace; settlement of all differences between nations by peaceful means; opposition to war.

The pacifist:

A pacifist is someone who believes that violence is:
The way of weakness, not strength.
The result of failure, not success.
The path to estrangement, not reconciliation.
The partner of crime, not law and order.
The creator of misery, not happiness.
The perpetuator of evil, not good.
The consideration of fools, not the wise.
The outpouring and outcome of hate or anger, not love and peace.
The violator of rights, not the protector of.
The debaser of offenders, not the uplifter of.
The lover and promoter of weaponry, not the reducer or destroyer of.
The raider of marriages, families, and communities.
The tool of bullies, dictators, warmongers, and despots.
And is something to shun, never embrace.

My approach:

Bearing in mind that there are pacifists and pacifists.

Personally, as a pacifist by stance, I would defend myself or my family if attacked by an assailant, and would run to the aid of someone being attacked by an assailant, but I would never bear arms with the deliberate premeditated intention of taking another’s life, as in war.
Do I believe that one’s country needs a defence force of some sort lest it be attacked. Currently, and given this world we live in, reality would have to say, “Regretably, yes”. Unfortunately though, defence forces have a way of crossing the line.

In general:

Pacifism does not equal passivity.

Given that it is claimed by many that wars, (and more so modern wars perhaps), are the product of misguided men, propaganda, and agendas, it could be argued that the conscientious objector who won’t bear arms but will assist medically say, is simply aiding an evil war machine, and patching up soldiers so that they can go back and continue killing, which inevitably includes the raping, torturing and murder of innocent citizens. That being so, the conscientious objector would surely also have blood on his/her hands.
Were it a so-called just war, it could be argued that the conscientious objector would still have blood on his/her hands, and given that they won't bare arms, (in other words, kill), are thus acting hypocritically.

One could ask: Is taking the conscientious objector position, (assisting but not bearing arms), a compromise in order to not upset the governing authority and to prevent ridicule and outrage from fellow citizens?

At the end of the day, any participation in war makes one an accomplice — a dilemma for the conscientious objector who won’t bear arms but will assist the war machine in some other way.

Yet another reason why pacifism is the only solution that offers humanity hope. Otherwise, it's war and more war.

Quotes regarding pacifism:

What is called the utopian dream of pacifism is in fact a practical policy
– indeed the only practical, the only realistic policy that there is.
Aldous Huxley

War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and
prestige that the warrior does today.
John F. Kennedy

The question is not what pacifism has achieved throughout history, but what has war achieved?
William Blum

Reasons why war is wrong:

1) Life is sacred. No one has the right to take someone else's life — that is, to muder.
2) War kills innocent people. Ninety percent of those who’re killed in a war are civilians who pose no threat.
3) War creates refugees. Millions of refugees exist worldwide as a result.
4) War creates poverty and starvation.
5) War disables healthy people, physically, mentally, and emotionally. War leaves terrible scars.
6) The results of war can continue for years.
7) The likes of landmines and cluster bombs cause death and destruction long after a war has ended. Large areas of land become uninhabitable, poisoned by dangerous chemicals.
8) When war is officially over, huge sums of money are needed to deal with the damage done.
9) War creates fear and uncertainty.
10) War separates families, and orphans children.
11) In wars great evils take place, like rape, pillage, wanton destruction, general brutality, and torture.
12) War makes it difficult or impossible for people to grow food to feed themselves and others.
13) War contributes to the spread of diseases.
14) War causes tremendous - even permanent - harm to the natural environment.
15) In certain countries children are forced by the government or self-appointed leaders to join in the fighting and commit brutal acts.
16) War brings out the worst in us.

17) War violates human rights.
18) War is a terrible wastage of talent, ability, and skill, let alone human life.
19) War corrupts, dehumanises, desensitises, and traumatises soldiers, who suffer from the likes of flashbacks, nightmares and depression, and all of which leaves their family having to deal with the unfortunate results -- domestic violence, substance abuse and suicide.
The following comment is from the book "The Christian Pacifist" by David Ramanauskas:
An article in the Spring 2010 issue of Abolish War, the newsletter for the Movement for The Abolition of War, stated that in the US over 6,500 veterans commit suicide each year, and in the UK there are an estimated 20,000 veterans in the criminal justice system, with 8,500 behind bars – almost 1 in 10 of the prison population.
20) In war zones law and order disappear and no one is safe.
21) Huge sums of money are spent on weapons which not only affects the warring country’s economy but also its social services that many of its citizens are badly in need of. An unnecessary war is not only a criminal act in itself, but an even greater crime when it deprives many citizens of their needs.
22) As a consequence of war, war is glorified in books and movies, seen as entertainment, when it should be abhorred.
23) War is the worst possible solution to whatever problem we’re trying to solve.
24) Using physical brutality as a method to reach a conclusion is not only uncivilised but folly. No court in this world would accept a fight as a proper method of reaching a verdict.
25) War simply opens the door to further hatred, violence and murder.
26) It's hypocritical to condemn violence and talk of love and compassion on the one hand, and on the other hand to go warring. Violence is violence.
27) War is by its very nature evil.
28) Truth is the first casualty of war.

Bear in mind that those with war in mind will always malign the pacifist stance via their propaganda.

Many who knock pacifists are nothing more than obedient patriotic slaves who fall for, and bow to, the propaganda of their warring or misguided leaders.

(The reasons above were drawn from various sources)

Quotes regarding war:

The worse the man, the better the soldier.
Napoleon Bonaparte

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
General Smedley Darlington Butler of the USMC (Highest Decorated Marine).

The past is prophetic in that it asserts loudly that wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Distorted history boasts of bellicose glory . . . and seduces the souls of boys to seek mystical bliss in bloodshed and in battles.
Alfred Adler

No war by any nation in any age has ever been declared by the people.
Eugene Debs

People do not make wars; governments do.
Ronald Reagan

Whoever wants peace among nations must seek to limit the state and its influence most strictly.
Ludwig von Mises

What is absurd and monstrous about war is that men who have no personal quarrel should be trained to murder one another in cold blood.
Aldous Huxley

The only antidote to the poison of war is the public's courage to disagree with their leader.
Ramman Kenoun

We have guided missiles and misguided men.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

The only security for the American people today, or for any people, is to be found through the control of
force rather than the use of force.
Norman Cousins

War means blind obedience, unthinking stupidity, brutish callousness, wanton destruction, and irresponsible murder.
Alexander Berkman

They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war there is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason.
Ernest Hemingway

Liberty and democracy become unholy when their hands are dyed red with innocent blood.
Gandhi

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war that we know about peace, more about killing that we know about living.
Omar Bradley

Wars will stop when men refuse to fight.
Albert Einstein

Quotes regarding violence/war:

Evil means corrupt good ends.
Quaker pacifists, 1955 document

The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr

Force always attracts men of low morality.
Albert Einstein

The definition of civilized is to be capable of violence but able to restrain yourself from employing it.
Robb Allen

There is no way to peace: peace is the way.
A.J.Muste

From a Christian perspective:

A) Christ, plus
B) The flawed Just War theory
C) Texts
D) Worthwhile articles

A) Christ, plus

1) Christ never advocated war.
2) Christ never praised freedom–fighters.
3) Christ taught people never to retaliate or avenge.
4) The gospel of Christ condemns violence.
5) Christ preached a gospel of peace, and taught a new way of doing things.
6) Christ commanded us to love our enemies. Christ's cross serves as a model for His followers.
7) Christ commanded us not to murder.
8) Christ taught co-operation and reconciliation.
9) Christ said "Blessed are the peace makers".
10) Christ embodies a broad and deep vision of life that is thoroughly pacifist.
11) Christ himself practised pacifism, never striking anyone nor participating in or instigating revolutions. The Bible never says that when He drove the money-changers from the temple that He actually used the whip on the people themselves. Thus, He no doubt merely flailed it about. And don't forget that there were animals there too. Given that He is God, such is His divine prerogative, and not necessarily an example for us to follow.
12) It's hypocritical for Christians to preach Christ's gospel of love on the one hand, and on the other hand to go warring.
13) Christ rebuked Peter for severing the ear of the servant of the high priest. Peter was told to put his sword away.
14) Christ warned that those who take up the sword will perish by the sword (Matt 26:52).
15) Even when need necessitates the destruction of those who're evil, it's still considered as His strange act (Isa 28:21).
16) When Christians go to war they abandon the fruits of the Spirit.
17) Christian pacifism is grounded in theological affirmations.
18) Pacifism is in fact the original (or default) position of Christianity.
19) Constantine's arrival on the scene was responsible for the end of pacifism as the characteristic position of Christianity. Constantine, (who indulged in brutality, and who was baptised shortly before his death when he knew his life was coming to an end), made taking up arms and going to war an acceptable part of Christianity. Much rot within Christianity can be laid at Constantine's door and his Church and State fusion — such was the beginning of the worldly Church and secular Christianity. Constantine's measures, furthered by the persecuting Holy Roman Empire, saw pacifism ignored, discarded, and ruthlessly and brutally persecuted from the Christian faith. Some refer to Constantinianism as caesaropapism.
It was Augustine who first began to define when it was right for Christians to fight in wars. Augustine was responsible for many false teachings. Hardly a man to put one's faith in.
Is it any wonder now that “The only people who do not think Jesus was pacifist are Christians” —  quote by Hindu Mahatma Gandhi.
20) Over time, the pacifist convictions of many Christians have unfortunately been dwarfed by the militaristic and nationalistic “Christianity” of the “Christian right”, so prone to misinterpreting Scripture in favour of its war stance.
21) A soldier is required to act without questioning, something that the sound Christian (who's to be obedient to his Lord first) should never do.
22) How can a Christian in all conscience shoot another Christian who's on the other country's side?
23) It needs to be remembered that Christians aren't living under a theocracy like ancient Israel once was, but rather, amidst a mixed multitude, which here, they join at their peril. What the world (or the State) does, and what the Christian should do, are often two different and contrary things.

(The above facts were drawn from various sources)

Professor Jonathan R. Wilson makes some very good points in the following comments regarding American Christians:

"We Christians may not do as Americans something that we must not do as Christians. As we listen to and debate arguments about going to war, note how often our Christian identity is subordinated to our American identity. We have been so formed by the collusion of the church with America that we find it difficult to even distinguish between Christian and national identity, and harder to subordinate our national identity to our identity in Christ."

"Gospel pacifism believes that God primarily works in the world through the church, not the nation. The church, as the community of disciples, is called to bear witness to the one hope that we have: Jesus Christ. Most of the debates about war, even in the church, are about what the United States should do. This is natural for those who primarily find their identity as Americans. But for Christians, our debate should be about what the church should be doing."

"Gospel pacifism argues that the church compromises its mission, corrupts its life, and abandons its witness when it follows the way of death by acting out of national, racial, and cultural identity. If this is the case, God's judgment looms over the church in the West and elsewhere."

B) The flawed Just War theory

1) The Just War theory has no basis in Scripture despite some claiming otherwise.
2) The Just War theory is grounded on the assumption that those political leaders who take such a step are wise and just men. We have no good reason for such faith in authority, even be that authority made up of Christians, and given history, even less so perhaps.
3) From the time of Constantine, the Just War criteria has been bent, broken, or completely discarded, and has led to crusade after hellish crusade — yes, far from just.
4) The Just War theory is rooted in a Constantine-ised attempt to make a war seem okay when it's still in fact evil.
5) The Just War theory does not teach people the will of Christ on when to kill but instead teaches what leaders in the fallen Church taught.

The following is an extract from the book "The Christian Pacifist" by David Ramanauskas.

Philip Dransfield a member of the Anglican Pacifist Fellowship in his article The Just War, writes:
For many Christians the concept of the Just War was exploded with the atomic bomb in 1945. Any war which could destroy thousands of defenceless people so callously must be condemned as cruel and barbaric in the extreme.
Thousands of people were killed outright but thousands also were terribly burnt by fire or radioactivity and were left to die slowly without aid after the inferno.
Has the Christian Church ever repented of its tacit assent to this fiendish new development of warfare? Has it yet wakened up to the terrible fallacy of supposing that evil has sometimes to be done that good may prevail? Can it honestly claim that the cause of Christ was advanced in any possible way by such brutality?
It comes as something of a shock to find that there are a few people who still argue for the Just War. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki many found confirmation of the view that justice and war can never go together. But let us take the advocates of the Just War to be judged by their own principles and moral values.
The conditions which have to be fulfilled for a war to be called "Just” have been defined. Regrettably the Christian Church has tended to accept these conditions rather uncritically. Here they are with critical comments.

1. The methods employed must conform to the demands of moral law and non-combatants must be spared.
At Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were cruelly destroyed. If atomic weapons are used again the same would inevitably occur. So logically no war in which atomic weapons are used can be a Just War.

2. There must be reasonable hope of bettering conditions as a result of the war.
No sane person can believe that conditions can ever be improved by atomic war or by the other destructive weapons of modern warfare. It can only make them worse. Here again there can be no Just War.

3. There must be a moral certainty that a right has been violated.
Here we are in the rarefied atmosphere of the medieval schoolmen with their “finer education of less or more”. Who can talk of “moral certainty” when intrigue, duplicity, collusion, espionage and secret diplomacy have all been demonstrated as part of the political activity of all well-armed countries? What are the “rights” referred to? Each country determines its own “rights” in conflicts with other countries, and also makes its own decisions as to when their “rights” have been “violated”. As someone has said, “In war a country is its own judge, jury and executioner”. The accusation of “violation of rights” is often a cloak for national greed and national pride.

4. All attempts at peaceful settlement must have been tried and failed.
It would be unforgivable today for modern war to be inflicted on the world if this condition were not complied with. But who determines when “all attempts” have been made? Here again all that happens is that national leaders make their own decisions on the basis of self-interest.

5. The real motives for which the war is waged must be morally justifiable.
The sincerity behind this condition must be matched against its pathetic impracticability. We are with the schoolmen again and the angels dancing on the point of a needle. Who can assess the “real motives” for war? Motives of all the combatant nations in war are so mixed and tarnished that this condition can never be honestly complied with.  END

A quote from the same book: "Any Christian country that expects Christians to disobey the laws of Christ is not a Christian country".
Loyalty to Christ and His kingdom transcends every other loyalty.

I'm unsure of the source of this quote:
“It is wrong for a nation to be exclusively concerned with its own well-being in deciding whether to go to war; it must demonstrate concern for the well-being of the world as a whole--including the well-being of the nation it is attacking.”

I find it very interesting that a "Christian" country, and it being the "land of the free",  was the first to develop the scourge of nuclear weapons.

C) Texts

Text one:
"Then Jesus asked [his disciples], “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied" (Luke 22:35-38, NIV).

Interpretation:
Here, Christ is speaking figuratively, warning the disciples of the persecution that lay ahead that they and their converts were to suffer. After all, the period of popularity that the disciples had enjoyed had changed. The disciples obviously misunderstood Christ and were ready to take literally what He had said, hence their producing of two swords. It's noteworthy, that an hour or two after Christ had spoken of such, he warned Peter to put his weapon away. Christ's statement, "That is enough", no doubt refers to the discussion, not the swords, given that this was no time to be arguing a particular point. Christ would hardly make the comments that He did about turning the other cheek, loving your enemies, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, drawing the sword leads to dying by the sword, and so on, if he condoned the use of weapons and physical force.

Text two:
“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. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience” (Romans 13:1, 4-5, NIV).

Interpretation:
Okay, let's see what this text is really saying:
No human authority exists except by God's permission and under His control. Their rise and fall is in His hands. Therefore, Christians must not take it into their own hands to resist or to dispose of such authorities just like the Jews did via certain revolts that took place in Roman times. Such would bring reproach upon the Christian Church and its messagae of peace and brotherly love. If the Christian leads a peaceable life, he or she has no need to fear the wrath of such authorities. The use of the word "sword" here is simply symbolic of the ruler's legitimate authority to inflict due and rightful punishment, such as via the courts regarding crime. After all, society must have rules to safeguard its citizens. This power that such authorities wield is entrused to men by God according to His own purposes for man's welfare.
Paul is not implying that God always approves of the conduct of such authorities. Paul is not saying that it is the Christian's duty to always submit to such authorities. On the contrary, where the requirements of any government are contrary to the law of God, the Christian is to "obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

Text two:
"'...a time for war...' (Ecclesiastes 3:8, NIV)

Interpretation:
The above is not presented as truth, but as the writer's (Solomon's) speculation as he searches for truth.

You may also wish to read my secular poems, "Pacifism — A Noble Stance" and "Pacifists" found under my secular poem "When Will It Stop." Or, if a Christian, you may also wish to read my Christian poems, "Pacifism, My Take",  "The Christian And War", and the article, "God, War, and Violence" , the latter being on my Biblical Potpourri page.

D) Worthwhile articles

Christian Pacifism by Myron S. Augsburger

Jesus said, "Put your sword back in its place ... for all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Mt. 26:52). And again, "But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also" (Mt. 5:39). The Old Testament prophet said, "They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks" (Mic. 4:3), a prophecy fulfilled where the people take the way of Christ and his Spirit seriously. And the way of Christ is best found in his own words.
In Luke chapter six, we read, "But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. Do to others as you would have them do to you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. If you do lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners.... But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful" (Lk 6:27,36).
In John 18:36 Jesus says, "My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews". Again in Matthew 5:9, Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called [known as] the children of God".
These passages serve as a frame of reference for the discussion of nonresistance and pacifism. The discussion that follows takes as its foundation the explicit teachings of the New Testament rather than its silences. There are those who argue from silence--that since Jesus did not expressly condemn the centurian for being a soldier, it follows that military participation is right for the Christian. By the same logic one could argue for the practice of slavery, a stance taken earlier in American history. But the explicit teachings of the New Testament introduce a principle of love, a practice of respect for the ultimate worth of each individual, which when followed makes participation in both slavery and war antithetical.
The problem of the Christian and war is not one which can be viewed simply from the perspective of one's responsibility to his or her nation. We are now a global community in which we face the question of what violence does to all humanity. The increase of population, the problems of adequate food production and distribution, of meeting the basic necessities of life have made violence a way of life. Christians must have answers as they face problems of new dimensions in their relationship to other people around the world.
Furthermore, in viewing the question from the standpoint of our responsibility to our own nation, it appears impossible that there could be such a thing as a "just war" in a nuclear age with a world community. The arguments for a just war in history appear to be quite irrelevant in an age of modern, mechanized and nuclear warfare. But, theologically, the Christian must also face the meaning of the biblical affirmation, "as he is so are you in the world," or again the words of Jesus, "as the Father has sent me, even so send I you" (Jn. 20:21). Ours is a mission of announcing the good news of reconciliation to God, and through him to one another.
Minority Movement?
As Christians we are not here to provide an ethic for society or the state, but to clearly define an ethic for disciples of Jesus Christ.
In the American system of government it is difficult for this stance to be understood. We operate with the myth of being a Christian nation, and we seek to interpret for society an ethic that we can bless as Christians. We need a new awareness of the pluralism of the New Testament, that the crucial issue is the difference between the church and the world, and that the church operates "within the perfection of Christ," while the world operates outside the perfection or will of Christ. Christians influence the state for good through Christian ethics and integrity, but they do not equate church and state. Only an indepth understanding of this issue can save us from a cultural and a civil religion. As one who believes in New Testament nonresistance, or New Testament pacifism, it is important to me that this stance be clearly interpreted as an evangelical and biblical stance, not as the stance of humanistic or moralistic pacifism. Theologically, this position begins with the reality and priority of membership in the kingdom of Christ. This entails living by the way of love, a spirit of brotherhood and reverence for life. While brotherhood is an important concept, kingdom membership has first priority in New Testament nonresistance.
The question of the Christian's attitude toward war is viewed best by beginning with the New Testament, with Jesus Christ. This is to affirm that Jesus Christ brought the full meaning of God's will for us. All the way through the Old Testament God had something further to say about himself, about the will of God for humanity, and we see this fully in Jesus Christ. One can find numerous incidents in the Old Testament where Israel as the people of God was involved in war, enjoyed the blessing of God in victory and experienced defeat when out of favor with God. But a study of the context makes clear that God was meeting the Israelites where they were, demonstrating to people who worshiped their tribal gods that Yahweh, the God of Israel, was and is the true God. This is not to say that the full revelation of the will of Yahweh was then present. Rather, we see that there is progress in this revelation. Throughout the Old Testament God always had something further to say - until the New Testament. We read, "But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son" (Gal. 4:4), and that "in these last days [God] has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things" (Heb. 1:2); that is, the One in whom the whole comes to its culmination. In Jesus' words, "Think not that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them" (Mt. 5:17) - that is, to fill it full of meaning.
With this perspective we must recognize that peace is a holistic concept. Peace is not simply the absence of war. It is far more - it is positive, active peacemaking. The Hebrew word shalom contains in it the idea of wholeness or soundness.
To affirm that one is a member of the kingdom of Christ now means that loyalty to Christ and his kingdom transcends every other loyalty. This stance goes beyond nationalism and calls us to identify first of all with our fellow disciples, of whatever nation, as we serve Christ together. This is not a position which can be expected of the world nor asked of the government as such. The Christian respects rulers as God ordained them, to "protect the innocent and punish the evildoer." The Christian can only encourage the government to be the government and to let the church be the church. We ask the government to be secular and to let the church be free to do its work in society. The church enriches society by the many things it brings to it, and in its respect for government it does not subordinate itself to any particular social order but is in allegiance to its one Lord.
Properly read, Romans 13 is telling us that God ordains political institutions for ordering the society: But since God ordains the powers he remains above them. In that light our response on many occasions will be that as Christians, "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). We cannot assume that since God ordains government we are always obeying God in our obedience to it. We are not to be lawbreakers, for Paul says that the authorities do "not bear the sword in vain" (Rom. 13:4). But we also cannot disobey a divine law to obey a contrary law by the government. The passage in Romans 13 calls us to be "subject to" the powers, but it does not use the term "obey." Our ultimate allegiance is to the God who ordains nations to function for order in society. Any serious attempt to resolve the question of a Christian's participation in war hinges significantly on this issue.
A Global Community.
Grappling with the problem of war is not an isolated issue but has to do with the problems of the whole human community, involving race, poverty, equal opportunity and the freedom for persons to be individuals. To face this matter honestly we must look at the larger question of sin. As Samuel Shoemaker has said, "You do not wait for a war to look at the problem of evil, war is simply the problem of evil writ large."
Closely associated with the preceding is the fact that war is quite often for the protection of property. As Christians we will respect the right of the government to declare war to protect its own territory. But the Christian who is a conscientious objector to participation in war must be consistent with respect to his or her own attitude toward material things. The Christian must take seriously Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount that personality is more valuable than material goods and that we do not sacrifice life for the sake of goods [Lk. 6:29,35]. This means that as Christians under a government which enables us to become wealthy we cannot ask the government to sacrifice people's lives in protecting our goods. The Christian attitude toward material possessions is not that of a legal right but that of responsibility, of a moral obligation to use the things he has acquired to help others.
In our society another question we must ask is, What are the guidelines for Christians participating in government? In an attempt to be consistent with the premise just stated, it would appear that Christians may serve in political positions so long as they do not try to create a state church. It is our responsibility as Christians to call the government to be secular and to respect the freedom of Christians to serve in loyalty to their own king. Christians will help interpret to others who hold political power why the Christian must constantly say, "Caesar is not lord; Jesus Christ is Lord." Thus, Christians should only serve at government levels where they can honestly carry out the functions of their office without compromising their fidelity to Jesus Christ as Lord. They should not consider holding positions where they could not both fulfill the obligations of the office and remain consistent with their membership in the kingdom of Christ. To fulfill their obligations and violate their commitment to Christ would be wrong. Likewise, to live by their convictions and not fulfill the functions of their office with respect to the society which creates the office would also be wrong. The Christian in a political position serves the goal of effective government just like a secular person, but the Christian is a witness to the higher values of Jesus Christ. Christians ought never to use a powerful government position as a means to achieve Christ's goals for humanity. For the Christian, the desire to "rule" is always wrong; our stance is one of serving. This awareness will keep us from the struggle for power, a struggle which Malcolm Muggeridge has called "a pornography of the will."
One who accepts this stance - that New Testament nonresistance is the claim of Christ upon his disciples as an expression of the reality of his kingdom - will also follow other evangelical premises of faithfulness to Christ. For example, can one participate in war and take the life of a person for whom Christ died when our basic mission as Christians is to win that person to become a brother or sister in the Lord? Or, since the kingdom of God is global and transcends every national, racial and cultural distinction, when one's country is at war with another country can Christians participate knowing that by so doing they may be at war with persons who claim to worship and follow the same Lord?
To go back to the early church itself, according to several writers of history, there was in the church a significant percentage who renounced conflict and everything that produced war. The one thing Christians were armed with was love. E. Stanley Jones wrote that we search in vain during the early years of church history to find Christian people engaged in warfare. He states that Christians did not become soldiers. If they were in the army when converted, they resigned. Jones describes the early believers as saying, "we will match our power to suffer against your ability to inflict suffering, we will wear you down by our spirit, by soul force against physical force, by going the second mile, by turning the other cheek," until Rome finally stopped torturing Christians. That perspective on history underscores the New Testament emphasis that we go out not by force but by love; we seek to make our world an understanding community.
This disdain of military service held true until the period of Marcus Aurelius, emperor of Rome until about A.D. 180. After Constantine's time, who from our perspective instituted a "fallen church" of which everyone was forced to be a member, there were many "Christian" soldiers.
In our own era, Martin Luther King, Jr. brought into the American scene a now synthesis. It was not novel in terms of what he emphasized from the New Testament, but because he borrowed from Gandhi's philosophy. He created a new synthesis by enhancing New Testament nonviolence with Gandhi's strategy of nonviolent resistance and applying these to the nineteenth?century liberal idea of "the kingdom of God in America." What King did was to confront society with this new dimension, and it shook the country to its roots.
King's philosophy is expressed in five points: (1) Nonviolent resistance is not a method for cowards. It takes more strength to stand for love than to strike back. (2) Such resistance does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win friendship and understanding. (3) The attack is directed against forces of evil rather than against the people doing the evil. (4) Nonviolent resistance is a willingness to accept suffering without retaliation, to accept blows from the opponent without striking back. (5) This resistance avoids not only external physical force, but also internal violence of spirit.
On the premise that we cannot kill people for whom Christ died, John Howard Yoder emphasizes in his significant writings on pacifism that the cross has made a difference. Christ has come into the world to redeem all people and has acted for the sake of every person on the globe. We cannot kill a person for whom he died and rob him or her of the privilege of knowing the fullness of life that Jesus Christ offers. This calls us to express a pacifist position not by a negative but a positive stance. Ours is to be an active penetration into society with the redeeming love of God. Above everything else, we want our fellow men to become our brothers in Christ. When Jesus stated that the first commandment is to love God and that the second is just like it (to love your neighbor as yourself), he was asking that we bring to bear on the life of our neighbor that which we find most important in our own relationship with God.
From an evangelical perspective it may be said that wherever a Christian participates in war he has abdicated his responsibility to the greater calling of missions and evangelism. The way for Christians to change the world is by sharing the love of Christ and the good news of the gospel rather than to think we can stop anti-God movements by force. Jesus made this point ultimately in the Garden of Gethsemane and on Calvary's cross. As Christians, our answer to the violence in the world is simply that we don't have to live; we can die. This is the ultimate testimony of our belief in the kingdom of Christ and the resurrection. It is this same conviction which has motivated many people to go into unknown or violent areas of the world from which they may never return.
A Matter of Obedience.
Another evangelical premise that leads to a nonresistant view is that we regard Christ's Word in the Scripture as final. Having said that the New Testament is a culmination of God's will known in Christ, then it follows that his Word is final. He corrects the understanding of the old "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" attitude. God gave that position to limit violence, that is, only an eye for an eye. But now he declares that we are to love our enemies. He tells us that we will be better for the loving. We will be better people, better neighbors, better friends when we live by love. In answer to the question of whether this will work in our society, he showed us that we do not have to live; we can die. In dying we may sometimes do more for enriching the world than we would have done by living. We cannot answer the question of war on the basis of whether or not someone must suffer. Of course they will, one way or another. The question is, Which kind of suffering will we choose - that imposed by war or the suffering which comes because of love?
When troops move to take a beachhead, they do so with the conscious plan that they will sacrifice thousands of men. What if the Christian church moved into the world with the same conviction? What if we had a conscious plan to follow even though it might cost many lives? While there are conditioning factors to this comparison, it would appear that before the Christian church justifies giving the lives of so many of its people in military involvement it should look at the greater sin of being unwilling to sacrifice lives of affluent ease for the cause of building the kingdom of Christ.
Jesus says, "Put up your sword," and history has proven that warlike nations perish. When people take the course of violence, they suffer the consequences. This is seen in the image that America is creating in the world today. We are no longer looked on as a friendly, gracious people. We are looked at in terms of power. We have established a pattern of using force to answer the world's problems.
Whose Citizen?
As Christians we regard membership in the kingdom of Christ as our primary loyalty. Such an outlook is even more basic to the New Testament than the principle of love. Jesus himself said that he came to introduce another kingdom. Its spirit is one of love, but its platform of operation is loyalty to another Lord, an authority separate from any earthly power. This premise, which says that our primary loyalty is to the kingdom of heaven, underscores the fact that we answer first of all to Jesus Christ and his mandate alone.
This is true with respect to any given culture or nation in which a Christian lives. A believer will seek to be a good citizen, but with the awareness that there are many valid contributions Christians can make for the good of their fellow citizens when they give of themselves in a positive way. This should not be overlooked by those who imply that if one does not participate in military action he or she is not contributing to the nation. We carry an ethical responsibility to demonstrate that the position of conscientious objection to war is not something that you "turn on" during a war, as though this is the way to avoid several years of military service. Nonviolence is a total way of life. It means that we give ourselves in service to others. We are not to build status as people who give themselves to a materialistic power struggle.
Some readers may ask, Does Augsburger not understand that God used war in the Old Testament and blessed it? The answer is simply yes, this is well understood, but interpreted in relation to the "unfolding revelation" in which God moved men to higher levels of understanding of his will. I say this with a deep conviction in the full inspiration of Scripture. There are no contradictions of meaning in the Bible. But I am also convinced that the Bible is not a flat book. It is rather an unfolding revelation of God's will in Jesus Christ. God is no longer using a nation to achieve his purpose, but rather using the fellowship of believers, the church of the reborn. Instead of using a nation, Jesus Christ has given us the Great Commission to go into all the world and make disciples of all nations. This is our mission: discipling people to become members of the kingdom of Christ, not helping to justify participation in war. David Ben Gurion's question still confronts the Christian church: "When are you Christians going to begin working for peace?"
The love that is basic to the Christian's relationships with others is a volitional as well as emotional love. This means that we as Christians must find the way to build bridges of understanding. One problem that we face is to discern the course of love. A further problem is how to express that love. Certainly this involves more than merely talking about the problems. Many young people have given themselves through alternate service to the promotion of brotherhood, of peace and of understanding through rehabilitation and aid for those who are suffering. Nonresisters are not simply protesters.
Service in love must become a part of our whole philosophy of life. Our choice of vocation as well as our other involvements should be an expression and extension of the love of Jesus Christ. To open one's life to another makes the question of peace inescapable. Instead of waiting for a catastrophy to happen, we should be penetrating our world with acts of love to help alleviate its ills.
As Christians we believe in the infinite value of every human life. As Kant said, we should treat each person as an end in himself, not as a means to an end. We thus oppose any kind of revolutionary tactic which sacrifices persons for the sake of goals. Rather, from our Christian perspective we believe that deterioration occurs when people follow a course of violence as an answer to the world's ills. Believing in the sanctity of human life, we cannot be involved in anything, whether it is social injustice, violence, war or poverty, which interrupts a person's opportunities for a full life.
Committing oneself in ultimate loyalty to Jesus Christ means becoming a conscience to society, where that society operates beneath the level of the will of God. As members of the kingdom of heaven, obedience to Christ is the basic aspect of our approach to the question of war. The story of the good Samaritan highlights what it means to be a member of the kingdom of heaven. The interesting thing in this account is that it stands in judgment on everyone.
The story of the good Samaritan addresses the priest and the Levite as churchmen, and then shows that while these people could sit and talk about issues, when it came to concrete experience, they could not walk across the road to help a man who had been robbed and beaten. One of the sad facts about our life as a church in American society is that we can often talk about loving humanity in general, but not do anything about loving individuals. We can love people across the ocean and not walk across the street to help someone in need. The real consistency of our objection to war has to do with more than simply being opposed to war.
There are at least three other views of war held by the modern Christian church. One is that war is the lesser of two evils, and we cannot avoid it as an option. Another is that we turn to war only as a last resort. And another is that the Christian should be able to move beyond hate and kill in love. But from my perspective the issue is not answered by any of these, rather it is to be faced by the people of God on the basis of the character of his kingdom.
My intent here is to call for a Christian conscience to counteract violence by positive actions of love and thereby to promote peace in our society and in the world. Such activity is not a neutralizing of relationships, but an active expression of the love of Christ which treats every person as having ultimate worth.




Prose by Edna St. Vincent Millay:

Conscientious Objector

I shall die, but
that is all that I shall do for Death.
I hear him leading his horse out of the stall;
I hear the clatter on the barn-floor.
He is in haste; he has business in Cuba,
business in the Balkans, many calls to make this morning.
But I will not hold the bridle
while he clinches the girth.
And he may mount by himself:
I will not give him a leg up.

Though he flick my shoulders with his whip,
I will not tell him which way the fox ran.
With his hoof on my breast, I will not tell him where
the black boy hides in the swamp.
I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death;
I am not on his pay-roll.

I will not tell him the whereabouts of my friends
nor of my enemies either.
Though he promise me much,
I will not map him the route to any man's door.
Am I a spy in the land of the living,
that I should deliver men to Death?
Brother, the password and the plans of our city
are safe with me; never through me shall you be overcome.

20. A Sure To Work Plan

...for turning things around.

Ban sexually explicit images, gratuitous violence, gore, crudity and foul language from TV, DVDs, videos, and movies.
Introduce higher standards for advertisers and broadcasting in general.
Require total transparency and accountability from those in positions of trust and leadership, be they politicians, teachers, preachers, doctors, the police, etc.
Instill respect for authority and the aged, and strong penalties for foul-mouthing or cheeking a police officer.
Begin an intensive rehabilitation programme for offenders and the incarcerated.
Install a zero tolerance for violence of any kind (e.g. bullying, beating, animal cruelty, home invasion, rape, murder); for general lawlessness (e.g. graffiti, disorderly behaviour, swearing or spitting in public, intimidation, rioting), and for drink driving.
Outlaw gangs and any organisation that actively indulges in crime or the promotion of violence, vandalism, and outright religious or racial hatred.
Vigorously promote standards, values, etiquette, modesty, chastity, moderation, and selflessness.
Introduce an aggressive recycling programme that leaves no stone unturned, and encourage the production of recyclable products.
Work towards the complete destruction of weapons of war, create a disgust for weapons in general, ban the sale of imitation (toy) weapons, and also the likes of computer games that encourage participation in violence.
Foster contempt for wastage, junk food, abuse, vandalism, intemperance, bigotry, and unworthy intolerance.
Protect, uphold and support heterosexual marriages and families as the bedrock of society.
Require all who indulge in criminal activity, drink driving, (or drug driving), dangerous pastimes, or extreme sports, to pay for their own medical costs regarding injuries incurred during such, and enforce reparation for the victims of crime.
Make life and relationship skills a part of a school’s curriculum.
Encourage effective discipline within the home and school, and require a fair accountability from teachers and parents.
Outlaw the killing of any creature for sport, vivisection, and unfair caging practices.
Ensure freedom of expression and civil/religious liberty at all cost.
Foster self respect, due care and appreciation, and pride in one’s appearance and surroundings.
Encourage business owners to be community minded, environmentally responsible, and more staff orientated than profit driven, (happy employees, larger profits).
Outlaw corporate greed.
Enforce severe penalties for damage to the environment and zealously work at limiting and phasing out harmful production practices.
Provide a humane safety net for the unemployed, the unwell and injured, and provide the appropriate support services.
Actively address the problem of noise and other irritants within society, including certain dangers (e.g. toxins, genetically predisposed aggressive dogs).
Ensure that all have access to basic needs (e.g. food, clothing, warmth, shelter), free education, affordable healthcare, and cheap public transport.
Find better ways of utilizing the land for greater productivity and sustainability.
Ban brothels, strip joints, and abortion on demand clinics.
Remove pornography, non-medical drugs, (which effectively includes alcohol, it being a drug too), and casinos.
Reduce and set a ceiling on appallingly high salaries of CEOs, mayors, politicians, consultants, etc.
Usher in a return to beautiful, uplifting, relaxing, bright, joyful music on radio stations, in public places, and within the home.
Embark on an aggressive and continual tree planting exercise.
Completely overhaul and streamline the justice system to ensure fairness, neutrality, and sensible sentencing (sentences that fit the offence).
Discourage unnecessary activities, events (e.g. fireworks), even sports (e.g. drag racing), that waste precious resources (e.g. petrol, oil), money (that could aid food banks, etc.), and that pollute and endanger the environment.
Ensure that only those of the highest calibre get held up as public role models….

21. Is It Possible...

...just possible — that overtime — wars, (alias forays), have been deliberately generated in order to:
a) Feather the interests, and line the pockets of, those who’ve something to gain from such — an elite group or secret organisation?
b) Weary the world’s population so that one day they’ll accept anything for the sake of peace? In this case, not just wars, but general unrest and skulduggery within any particular nation, (one’s own or other), hence the following:
2) Is it possible that behind the governments of the day, and at all levels of society, and within various key institutions and organisations, and secret societies, there are those working in various ways to eventually bring about a New World Order that will achieve some selfish, evil and totalitarian end, but that is being pitched to convince otherwise, and thus using certain humanitarian and environmental agencies, etc, that will all get on the same bandwagon unaware of the waiting trap?
3) Is it possible that infiltrated religion, in a particular and even subtly tailor-made form, will combine with politics to form a Church and State union come power that will eventually stretch around the globe enforcing its dogma and dictates on all?
4) Is it possible that humanity is being prepared, (via the media, the education system, books, movies, etc), for a great deception of some sort in line with the above?
5) Is it possible that people don’t want to know about such, or refuse to believe such, due to naivety or some underlying fear?

22. Unpleasant Truth

Before we pat ourselves on the back:

If we withhold from someone that which is rightfully theirs, or deprive them of something that they should get, then we're a THEIF.

If we don’t back someone up when we know that they're right but under siege, then we're a COWARD.

If we hate someone for some reason, and wish they were dead, then we're a closet MURDERER.

If we promise someone something and then don’t deliver when we were capable of doing so, then we're a LIAR.

If we treat someone badly, poorly or indifferently because of their beliefs, then we're a BIGOT.

If we're unfaithful to our spouse after the exchange of our wedding vows, then we're a TRAITOR.

If we listen in to someone's private conversations, then we're a SPY.

If we tell other people things about someone that aren’t very nice and that aren't necessary, then we're a malicious GOSSIPER.

If we only give others compliments and refrain from saying what might upset but what’s really best, then we're a PEOPLE PLEASER.

If we attempt to manipulate, dominate or control someone, then we're a TYRANT.

If we attempt to take from someone that which we've no right without their permission, then we're a PIRATE.

If we hurt someone by doing that which isn’t fair or kind, then we're a BULLY.

If we get delight from cruelly teasing someone, we're a SADIST.

If we tread on someone, or wrongly discredit them, in order to get ahead of them, then we're an ENEMY.

If we try to convince someone of something that we know isn’t true, then we're a DECEIVER.

If we try to convince someone that we’re a certain way when we’re not, we’re a CON-MAN

If we seek some of the glory that belongs to someone else, we’re a POACHER.

If we tell others intimate details about our past relationship with someone, we’re a CAD.

If we make someone's life miserable via our selfish behaviour, we're a TORTURER.

If we recklessly or negligently bring troubles into someone's life, then we're a SABOTEUR.

If we gain what someone else would've got if we hadn’t acted underhandedly, then we're a CHEAT.

Well, effectively, that is.

What might you add to this list? Let me know.

23. What Have You Chosen To Be?

The prisoner of your background?

The hostage of your thoughts?

The slave of your passions?

The instrument of your folly?

The chaser of your troubles?

The dresser of your problems?

The minder of your grievances?

The nurser of your wounds?

The victim of your past mistakes?

The casualty of your ignorance?

The stooge of your mirror?

The depository of someone’s trash?

The owner of someone’s lies?

The wearer of someone’s propaganda?

The puppet of other hands?

The servant of abusers?

The plaything of users?

The soft-touch of takers?

The pawn of manipulators?

The follower of pied pipers?

The captive of the majority?

Or none of these?

What might you add to this list? Let me know.