After 2000 years it doesn't seem to have made any difference. I think we need more pragmatic solutions.

Instead of WYD we might as well have 250,000 representatives of world governments getting together for a big "love-in".

David

Gibo writes ...

‘Go to Jesus Christ for a new heart.HE gives it to everyone who receives Him and what HE did on the Cross.’

What kind of father allows his own son to be tortured for many hours and nailed to a cross to die slowly from shock and loss of blood? And what kind of a person allows himself to be subjected to such horrific treatment, just because his father told him to?

The whole Passion of the Christ story is about father fixation, blind obedience to authority, sado-masochism, political martyrdom and capital punishment – all the psychological hallmarks of the structural violence endemic to societies based on dominance.

You missed the point SJF.
Its all about the Shedding of Blood for the forgiveness of sins.
In the Old Testament it was animal blood.
In the NT it was Christs Blood...if we receive Him and His Sacrifice. To do that you, genuinely, confess your sins and invite Jesus in and The Holy Spirit comes...viva! new life!...you become born again (John 3:3).
"All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God"...Romans 3:23.
Why the shedding of blood to cover sin?
God Requires it so.
"Life is in the blood"...Leviticus 17:11.
This points to the seriousness of the sin we have in our lives, that blood needs to be shed to cover it.
The fall of man in Eden is very serious and the root of all our troubles.

Gibo

You argumnet is no different really to what the Islamists argue.

Embrace (insert name of god here) and there will be peace in yourself and on earth.

I must admit I haven't noticed much historical evidence for these asertions.

I would say that this article is superficial but that would be too kind. It is feel-good bunk. It could only have been written by someone who studied "peace studies."

It is not the lack of information or social progress that causes wars. It is 1. greed (for power/goods/land), 2. conflicts of interest (between groups). Period.

I have no idea where the author found "urge to discover" instinct and made it a fundamental concept in human inter-relationships. It is an individual quality at best. Why not consider the "urge to survive" or "urge to reproduce" instead?

Ideologies may or may not contribute to warfare -- depends on the ideology or its interpretation. It depends on the time and place. For it to be a cause for war one or more of the two factors must be present. An ideology of hate or discrimination must have other people to hate and discriminate against. Therefore "religion" or any other ideology must link to cause one or cause two or both to be violent.

On the other hand, given human history, the idea that war is just part of our evil nature is probably right, but that is too simple and direct and doesn't pay for cute, fancy, feel-good "peace studies" classes or diplomas.

Kactuz

PS: I would like to see some "peace studies" graduates go to Darfur and explain to the Janjaweed raiders that are killing and raping that their "bad" behavior is because they have no good information sources and they have been allowed to discover whatever they are supposed to have been discovered. I am sure that after a 5 minute lecture they would turn around and go back, feeling good that the warm milk of radiated human kindness has finally thawed the frozen recesses of their cold, ignorant, lost and misunderstood hearts.

Passy,

Please try to avoid using "isms". If you ask 10 painters to paint a portrait of someone, you will get 10 different perceptions of the same person. If you ask 10 painters to paint a portrait of anyone, you will get 10 completely different pictures.

Similarly, if you ask 10 of your associates to write about an "ism", you will get 10 different interpretation of the same thing. If you ask your associates to write about any their favourite "ism", you will get 10 completely different views.

Anyway, who are these people who direct us what to beleive and what to do? Why are so many of the leading advocates of any system end up disgraced or in front of a judge? Examples: Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bush, Howard, the bosses of Enron, Pol Pot, the leaders of the "cultural revolution" in China, etc.

You may like to acquaint yourself with the Chaos Theory (the mathematical version), and its implication to various human activities.

VK3AUU,

If you look more closely at the situation in Afghanistan, about 70% of the population are illiterate. It is difficult to have any meaningful education in that situation, or to have a free media and judiciary. They have a feudalistic system which excludes the majotity from any kind of social advancement. As you can guess, illiterates can be pray to anyone who offers them any "salvation" as the Taliban have done.

SJF,

If you want peace, it is worth trying to understand what causes wars.

Kactuz,

Regarding Darfur, the Janjaweed are pasturalists. There is a clash between those who want to stay settled on a farm, and those who want to roam freely with their cattle.

The situation is complex. One thing you do not do is talk to them trying to "re-educate" them in farming practices. Even if their government was intent of investing in eudcation and in agriculture, instead of spending money on their military, things will not change in a hurry. All the while, the Chinese are just looking on and helping themselves to Sudanese oil.