Acceptance of those who have committed activity, in terms of what some may consider offensive or unforgivable activity, may be a challenge to some. I though see this as something potentially worthy of taking on.

One media story titled 'North Carolina Pastor and Wife Forgive Driver Who Killed Their Young Sons in Car Crash', said: "Forgiveness can be a tricky thing. But like my brother said during the service, forgiving the driver was easy and hard all at the same time.

Hard because our natural inclination is to cling to the pain and hurt and even anger. Easy because we believe in a good God."

http://people.com/celebrity/pastor-and-wife-forgive-driver-who-killed-their-young-sons-in-car-crash/

Do we as humans want to live in a society, governed by a legal system in which all of those who work within a courtroom make money, when there are better opportunities to improve those living in the community, by being inclusive, showing encouragement and accepting all and not living off hate?

It is extremely and unlikely to ever become reality, quote "by being inclusive" some people just do not want to do what you or others do.

This is confusing Quote "Do we as humans want to live in a society, governed by a legal system in which all of those who work within a courtroom make money, when there are better opportunities to improve those living in the community," ARE you saying instead of paying for courts and a legal system we should just forgive offenders.
IT may work with some people but very doubtful it would work with the majority after you forgive them one time two times and so on what are you going to do?

You can only turn the cheek so many times before your blood boils over and you strike out.

Also the greater the disparity between rich and poor the less likely your dream will become to fruition.

Dear Nathan,

Paul Collins wrote a book - it's title -
"Believers: Does Australian Catholicism have a future?"

In it Collins tells us that the
most radical aspect of the teachings of Christ goes beyond
even the commandment of love - is His insistence on forgiveness,
even of enemies. Collins states that "Christ's ordinance of
total love, of self-offering to the assailant, is in any strict
sense, an enormity. The victim is to love his butcher.
A monstrous proposition. But one shedding fathomless light.
How are mortal men and women to fulfill it?"

Collins points out that here is the real core of Christ's moral
teaching. Everything else is secondary.

But who of us would be really capable of doing that in our
everyday lives? Wouldn't forgiveness seem like weakness,
especially within an extreme terrorist context where the
"lex talionis" is seen as justified and even exalted by some
Muslims as an aspect of "jihad". This confronts the Christian
with the question of how we should respond to outrages like
the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York, and the Bali, Madrid and
London bombings. Should we turn the other cheek?

What would turning the other cheek have achieved?

Collins tells us that - "Personally, I think it would have
achieved a lot more that the so called "war on terror".
He goes on to say that "Only a true superior statesperson would
have shamed and isolated the terrorists by saying "I forgive
you." This according to Collins would have been accompanied
by intelligent and astute-diplomatic and political work to
isolate the terrorists and by appealing to the vast majority
of sensible, civilised and peaceful Muslims.

Sadly we are not governed by such intelligent political leaders.

Terrorists are impressed by Reaper and AC-130. 'A sign from above on the wings of a dove'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMtL_kqUxN4

What's not to like about a surprise trip to Hades for them?

For no particular reason, other than leoj posted an old favorite, I'll stick up my partners favorite spiritual.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhtL7WFnnmg

p/s Foxy, "T" does a rather good one of this herself when she gets up and sings.

For me, I'll chuck in my favorite sad song of all times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnRRZ4b_FS8

A few beers in and my mate Nikko does Green Green Grass of Home, the drunker he is the better he sounds. only joking, he's got a good voice, and I'll do that one above, only because I know the words, and its not too hard to sing.

Foxy,

As Paul Collins believes that Christ is God then how would he explain that Christ, who, (Collins would also believe), knows all things, past, present and future, allowed Peter to carry a sword.

Christ would have known that Peter was about to do some ear lopping, yet He chose not to stop Peter.

Thus the religious recognition and justification of the right of self defence or the defence of an innocent person.

Dear Paul,

Thank You for the links.

Music is a universal language and so much a part of
our lives. We all have our
favourites. I love to sing - but sadly - I'm tone-deaf
so I'm only allowed to do it in the shower. I envy
anyone who has a good voice. I have a strong voice -
but a flat one. I got kicked out of the school choir
because I kept leading everyone else astray. I was allowed
on the stage but our music teacher threatened me if I
allowed a sound to escape from my mouth. So I simply
mouthed the words. Still today, my grand-kids love my
singing - and we sing often.

Dear Is Mise,

I'm not a theologian and I certainly can't speak on
behalf of Paul Collins. I'm sure that he would give you
an eloquent answer to your question. The best that I can
do is reply with what is available on the web. There's
quite a few links there on the subject. Here is just one:

http://holyspiritactivism.com/2013/01/18/why-did-jesus-tell-the-disciples-to-buy-two-swords/

Foxy,

An interesting link, but a bit otherworldly.

Justified defence of oneself, family and the innocent is a Christian obligation.
If Christ were in Judea today, Peter would have a Desert Eagle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMI_Desert_Eagle

Dear Is Mise,

This is taken from the link I gave earlier:

"Jesus rebuked Peter and rebuked the use of defensive
violence:

John 18:36:

"My kingdom is not of this world: If my kingdom were of
this world, then my servants would fight ..."

If Jesus' kingdom were of this world. his servants could use
defensive violence when attacked. However Jesus' kingdom is not
of this world. In contrast to the kingdoms of the world Jesus'
servants do not fight. His Kingdom is built around love and
the love of enemies. Jesus specifically forbade Peter from using
the sword, but his wording was universal:

Matthew 26:52: " Put your sword back in its place
for all who take the sword will die by the sword."

Yes we should accept them, but only as the first passengers on a one way trip to the moon or Mares, which ever becomes available first.

Pity there are no new continents to enable transportation.

Is Mise

." explain that Christ, , allowed Peter to carry a sword."

Luke explains at 22:37 " that this that is written must be accomplished in me , and he was reckoned with the transgressors" .
38 .. " Lord , here are 2 swords . He said it is enough ". Peter cut off the ear . 22:51 "And Jesus answered and said Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear and healed him ".

Knowing the size of the armed guard coming , would 2 swords make sense for his successful defence? And if Peter was off-target then who could defend against Jesus skill with the other sword? That's not a sword ..this is a sword.( flick flick outta here).

Foxy.

""My kingdom is not of this world: If my kingdom were of
this world, then my servants would fight ..."

If Jesus' kingdom were of this world. his servants could use
defensive violence when attacked. However, Jesus' kingdom is not
of this world."

That's alright for Christ's kingdom but we live in the Kingdom of the Commonwealth of Australia and defensive force is allowed.
Using a sword for self defence is not living by the sword, far from it.

"As Paul Collins believes that Christ is God"
"we live in Commonwealth of Australia"
Which one are you arguing for? I've heard the RSL commemoration:
"they died that we may live" and RAR symbol is 2 crossed swords.

Dear Is Mise,

There's many who would agree with you that what
was preached so many centuries ago (and written
in the Holy Books) no longer applies to our current
way of life. But as we know there's also many who
believe otherwise. I guess our beliefs will
dictate our actions.

Whether we choose to destroy our civilisation or save
it is a collective decision and hopefully we may hope
and trust that our ultimate choice will be to enhance
the life on the bright and lovely planet on which
billions of us share our adventure.

'collective decision'? Which collective might that be? Democracy is constantly being circumvented by collectives and the first casualty is freedom of speech.

Proof that the pen is mightier than the sword and even more dangerous is available daily in the endless spin in the media. Where much of that misleading, manipulative spin is being generated by the media themselves, who can and do make up the news.

That is how an event that happened half a world away, in a country that is vastly different to Australia, is presently being used to frighten and threaten the public, to create public hysteria. That suits politicians who are forever seeking scare issues to direct attention away from their own mistakes, such Australia becoming one of the foremost illicit drug consuming countries of the world and still on a growth trajectory in that respect.

Or to take another example, the media's and especially the ABC's protection of Sydney's Lord Mayor Clover Moore, by turning a blind eye to the deliberate conversion of the inner suburbs of Sydney into the preserve and playground for the wealthy, 'arty' types, preferably international. Clover's Moore's 'Progressivism' (that is the exact reverse of progressive) suite the idealism of the heavily leftist (and naive) ABC's bureaucrats.

Yet Sydney could more easily follow the examples being set in the Netherlands for example, where the aged and less well to do are not being ruthlessly pushed out but are having their suburbs revitalised for them through new greater density development (cheaper living) and with community improvements to enhance their lifestyle and wellness. That is cheaper on the public purse and for ratepayers too.

Entrenched elite in Sydney,

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/lord-mayor-clover-moores-deputy-kerryn-phelps-in-shock-resignation/news-story/af323a0cf4751a248345920b9409a604

I can see that perhaps further explanation is
necessary for some. My apologies to those who've
heard all this from me in the past and understood
what I was trying to say.

A fundamental insight of sociology is that once
people no longer take their world for granted, but instead
understand the social authorship of their lives and
futures, they can become an irresistible force in history.
As I stated earlier - whether we choose to destroy our
civilisation or save it is a collective decision and it
is one that may well be made within our lifetimes. By that
I mean that if more and more nuclear weapons are built, and
if more sophisticated means of delivering them are devised,
and if more and more nations get control of these vile
devices, than we surely risk our own destruction.

If ways are found to reverse that process, then we can divert
unprecedented energy and resources to the real problems that
face us, including poverty, disease, overpopulation, injustice,
oppression, and the devastation of our natural environment.

I shall repeat that - we may hope and trust that our ultimate
choice will be to enhance the life on the bright and lovely
planet on which billions of us share our adventure.

Nuke disarmament is now the precondition for doing something about those 'Struggle Streets', drugs, poor city planning and the problems of mass immigration?

But nuke this and Trump that didn't prevent you from demanding gay marriage first and foremost. It has preoccupied Labor and Greens and the federal parliament for decades.

When will those 'Struggle Streets' and the other 'wicked' problems be getting priority? No sooner than never, where the always entitled political elite are concerned, huh?

Try being informed, not just opinionated.

leoj
Do you have preferences for handling the issues of poverty ?

"Nuke disarmament is now the precondition for doing something". Wrong again leoj, Foxy is not saying that at all. She said that if nations were to resolve their belligerency towards each other, giving the proliferation of nuclear weapons as an example of that, then more resources could be directed towards solving the massive problems humanity is facing. Using Foxy's words "we (the world) can divert unprecedented energy and resources to the real problems that face us, including poverty, disease, overpopulation, injustice, oppression, and the devastation of our natural environment." Nothing from Foxy supports your assumption that there is some precondition that nuke disarmament has to take place first, before anything at all can be done. People of goodwill in the world are presently doing something about many of those problems, but more can be done, if more resources are available.
The world spends about $1.6 trillion annually on militarism, in my opinion a total waste of resources. If only a fraction of that expenditure was directed towards solving the real problems then it would make a mighty difference.
Leoj, people with your attitde are not the solution, but the cause of the problem.

Dear Paul,

Many countries spend more of their budgets for military
purposes than they do for education or medical care.
The international military establishment as we know -
employs millions of people. I remember reading that
the World military expenditures in the "International
Year of Peace," (ages ago - 1986) was a record $900
billion. Over the past quarter century, global spending
for military purposes has consumed spending in the trillions.
This represents a colossal diversion of funds
from socially useful goals: for example
a single hour's worth of expenditure -
according to the Washington Post would suffice to save through
immunization, hundreds of thousands of children around the
world who die each day from preventable infectious diseases.

Over the centuries, warfare has shaped and disrupted
societies, altered the course of history, and led to the
slaughter of hundreds of millions of people, combatants and
non-combatants alike.

Anyway, Thank You for understanding what I was trying to say.

Is mise
If Jesus was in Judea today. The Islamic fundamentalists would probably kill him.

Foxy
< If ways are found to reverse that process,(nuclear weapons) then we can divert
unprecedented energy and resources to the real problems that
face us, including poverty, disease, overpopulation, injustice,
oppression, and the devastation of our natural environment.>

Nations could have directed billions in aid toward providing women with the means to control
their own fertility, the male leaders and religions in these poverty stricken overpopulated countries
who dominate the United Nations wouldn’t and won’t allow this.

At the same time they think they can push all the big populations caused by this,
into Europe and Western countries whilst being in total denial they caused the problem in the first place.
The overpopulation causes much more environmental damage than Western nations.
India and China burning much more coal for power than western countries.
I read somewhere recently that one of those two, I forget which, is all set to build another 800coal power stations.

Then in very poor areas where they don’t even have coal, they use all the trees for cooking, and drive the animals to extinction with their ever expanding populations.

All the problems you list, are the result of male dominated religions, and oppression of women

I am tired of the Countries in the United Nations and around the world, laying all these problems
And blame on Western European countries. And expecting us to constantly pour the money of
the hard working Western people’s into problems not caused by us at all.
The finger and blame should be pointed, mostly at Muslim countries and their backward thinking
Religious leaders, who have held those countries back in the dark ages and have never allowed them to
Advance and prosper. Now they think that countries who didn’t hold people back with blasphemy laws to kill
any who dared to raise new ideas that may have threatened the power of the imams should be given over to them.

Is it time to "accept all" in a move towards improved communities.

And just how are you going to get into the minds of all individuals and make them
"accept all"

This is where these nice sounding ideas break down. Nobody has control over the way people's mind are and what they believe and how they will act.

And what if you try your hardest to accept an ethnic group, but they don't accept you.
What if they send their kids to segregated religious schools where they never have to mix and accept other people in the community.
When those kids come home, they come home to only those people who live in their own big enclaves and grow up there under different religious laws to the rest of the community.

Im sorry, but it makes the topic for discussion here, impossible to achieve, and a form of
thinking this kind of acceptance can be forced and taught to people, when none of us can control the minds of others or their willingness to accept other groups.
The same human behaviour that has been in play for thousands of years is still the same as it always was.