JosephM

Neon, I think much of the problem is that literalists also take the Old Testament as the word of God which portrays a God much more violent than Jesus represented. Also as George said, i think in general we as a people "conveniently select passages from the Bible to support our views, overlook others that might challenge it and interpret others as needed." Joseph

As Neon said...as far as this thread goes. everything that needs to be said has been said and i would add that continuing serves no useful purpose in my view as moderator. It is a highly emotional thread for some as evidenced by some of the posts and Karen's final response here. With 203 replies, everyone has been given a chance to respond.and the thread has pretty well, except for my comments, and possibly 1 other as a member been one-sided and run its course. I see no need for it to continue . If there are new incidents a new thread can always be started. But for now i feel this thread will serve the forum best by being closed. JosephM (as Moderator)

To all members, Our current software is being updated with a patch to plug a security hole that was just uncovered. Please report any strange behavior that may be a result of that patch. While not seen by members we are constantly being challenged by spammers and spam bots in excess of 100's per month. We have current security measures in place to limit that but occasionally a few get through.that must be manually removed. JosephM (as Admin)

Hi Jay, For many of us who use the label PC , point one of the 8 points says it well...... we mean that we are Christians who.... Have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus. Having said that, in general, on this site, we do not define the label for others in any more specific beliefs or dogma other than pretty much as has been said so far by the posts in this thread. Joseph

As one might say on Facebook "I like this" Bold emphasis is mine. Joseph

George , i believe his views are based on more of a literal interpretation of the Bible and that he believes the Bible (at least what Jesus is recorded saying) is God's word to us. He makes a good case for his points as relates to his interpretation. Very few people i know including Christians would agree to living with the tenets in the first Chapter though all of them sound in a way noble and virtuous and Christ-like. I will stop there as the OP thread subject is just asking for those who wish to or are interested in a review of the book rather than any opinions at this time. I think the book is worth reading. Joseph

George , George, One has only to read the first chapter to see that his ideas are rejected or considered strange by the majority of societies and existing Christians. Total non resistance is not a concept presently in practice by governments or individuals that i am acquainted with. Even Tolstoy himself says in the book "In this way, then, the discussions of my book on the part of Churchmen and freethinking critics alike showed me that the majority of men simply do not understand either Christ's teaching or the questions which Christ's teaching solves." This to me tells me even Tolstoy believed his ideas were strange or unacceptable to freethinking critics and to the majority of men. Joseph PS I think Chapter 3 and 4 discusses what he views as a misunderstanding of Christian teachings both to Christian believers and men of science respectively..

The translated book appears to be able to be read free and may be found here. I yhink one will find It's ideas quite strange to most people. Joseph

Different culture, different country makeup. As i pointed out in a previous post, even some of the states here in the US without restrictive gun laws have a lower gun homicide rate than Austrailia. Why? is a good question to ask. Perhaps the answer will give us some insight. I think because if we focus on reducing violent crimes in general then it stands to reason that gun homicides will reduce also. And if so, there is no need to remove a liberty that is valued by so many people as their right to keep and bear arms to protect and defend their self and families. Those who wish to forgo that right and depend on police or the government for protection may do so if they wish as far as i am concerned but i will not vote to take away that right from others even if i am willing to surrender it for myself. Is there a cost for that right? Yes, of course. There is a cost for every freedom or right. People have a right to drink alcoholic beverages and that right is often abused and can and does lead to a significant number of deaths in automobiles and by other means. We neither ban drinking or automobiles.because some people are irresponsible with their drinking or are reckless with their automobiles. Your changes of dying as you may already know are greater in the US by automobile than guns. Perhaps we would be safer using mass transit instead of autos? I don't hear anyone seeking to disallow autos or a particularly larger and heavier auto that will do more damage. Necessity could of course be argued but so can it be with guns. However all will not agree. I am finished here but have appreciated the opportunity to express my views and study some unfamiliar data for myself. Regardless of whether anyone has altered their view either way, i appreciate the civility of such a hot topic and am thankful to all who participated Joseph ====================================================== This thread seems to me to have pretty well run its useful course for this forum. To avoid continued repetition please make any final civil comments as i will be closing this thread topic in a few days. (JosephM as Moderator) ======================================================

Dutch, I believe you will find that California has some of the strictest gun laws in the US. Still they remain one of the highest gun homicide rates. Assaut weapons ban has remained in effect for California and other states according to the wishes of the people there.

Neon, I can't and haven't determined that. Although i must admit It has already been tried and didn't seem to have much effect improving things especially in states like California which still has an assault ban in effect. I have merely made other points that to me point to problems deeper than gun presence and possibly finding other more effective ways to solve violent crime without giving up our right to posses such. UK and others may be a good example of showing that the absence of guns , while reducing deaths by such, does not deter violent crimes. Joseph

Paul, Yes, i'll give you ...... your difference,..... the absence or availability of fire arms changes the difference with violent crime. Yet doing so limits the right of the individual to protect himself and family from violent crime which is more pervasive and at a higher rate than the US in countries such as UK, Germany, France, Austria, Sweden Belgium, Canada, Finland and Netherlands. It would be interesting to know the percentage in the US of gun homicides that are not innocent victims but rather gangs, drug war participants,crimmals shot by police, turf wars etc. I have no data but there may be a correlation to our higher gun homicide rate.just like in areas of South America Joseph

Welcome Grace, Glad to see you made it through the registration process and thanks for the wonderful introduction. Merry Christmas and best wishes for the New Year. May it be a year of profound spiritual growth for you. Joseph

Neon, I think there are more responsible gun owners than irresponsible one and neither side of the gun issue is moving from the country..Both sides have their extreme positions and i hope the problems will be solved by level headed leaders. I am certainly not against required safety training , thorough and continued periodic background checks and of course addressing the root causes of violence which won't go away by simply banning assault weapons or guns. I don't feel like this administration has done anything to suppress gun rights. Paul, Your conclusion would seem to be so but countries are different and the answer is not so easy. If it was than one would not see such a difference even between states here in the US. The ones i quoted with rates less than Austrila and Canada, etc in general have very little gun restrictions yet the gun homicide rate is lower. Perhaps you can find the correlation or reason why those states are so low and others are so high? If it was so simple i would think we would already have done what is best for the people, i think we would already have banned most guns.and their availability. George, I don't think anyone including gun activists are saying that banning guns will not decrease gun homicides. As it stands, the people are not willing to give up the right just because our gun homicide rate is higher. There are other solutions and they have been reducing gun homicides to approximately 1/2 of 1992 levels through 2011. Joseph

George, Like you, i don't think i could pull the trigger either. However, I certainly would not forbid another should they choose to do so. Nor would i judge them for their difference. It is just not for me at this time. PS Have a Merry and safe Christmas one and all..... Joseph

Here are two different sources but i did find a conflicting report on wyoming as you point out when you use FBI statistics I'll give you that one as the data might be more current and the difference because of population more significant. (11 deaths-FBI) I still think the point of the post was significant in general. http://en.wikipedia....States_by_state http://flowingdata.c...rearms-murders/ PS. As you point out with Lincoln.... neither do i hunt animals or do i intentionally kill an animal bigger than a mosquito except for fishing..

Neon, Problems are deeper than guns and just with school shootings... problems are in a myriad of areas of society including mental areas, judicial areas , prison system, economic including distribution of wealth, education, overpopulated areas, corruption , media, negativity and violence, religion, entertainment options, greed, government, and a host of others that society in general is and must address on an ongoing basis.. If you feel unsafe here because of gun homicides one can always choose a state in the US with less gun homicides than Australia , Canada , England or much of Europe. One can choose to move to New Hampshire Vermont, Hawaii, Wyoming, North Dakota, Maine, South Dakota, Iowa or Utah. All have less than 1 per 100,000 capita gun homicides. New Hampshire and Vermont are the lowest rates and have no state restrictive gun laws or bans on assault weapons. Neither does Wyoming, Iowa or Utah. All states mentioned are quite liberal in their state gun laws and only Hawaii has their own assault weapon ban. Perhaps someone could tell me why those states have such a low gun homicide rate per capita compared to those with the highest such as Louisiana, Maryland , Mississippi, California , Nevada, South Carolina and Illinois. It certainly doesn't correlate to an assault weapon ban or severe gun restrictions. BTW, California does have quite a few restrictions and an assault weapon ban Joseph

Welcome Betty, Good to have you here. Perhaps you could introduce yourself in the introductions area when you get a chance to share a little about yourself. By your statement, are you implying that God cannot choose us without us first choosing God? Or that God can't be revealed to us if we do not choose God? Do we really need an answer to the question , does God exist? Can't we just ignore the question and live Life ? Joseph

I would tend to side with Paul here. Perhaps choice is a semantics thing? When conditions are ripe there is no need for a choice..... God is revealed and simply is.... to me now, choice of belief plays no part. If i am to be honest, my response is.... i do not believe or disbelieve in God. God simply is a reality in my life whether i want to choose or not choose it to be so . To me choice is an illusion of sorts. God to me is experienced presence and presence doesn't require my choice of belief to be so. Why should Paul choose to allow his mind to conceptualize another mind created God to believe in? Presence is inevitable with or without choice. Evolution of consciousness will see it through. No need to worry or fret in my view. Joseph

I agree that no forum is perfect for everyone. I think there is a time in ones walk where something is to be learned or gleaned from robust and even sometimes vicious debates. Of course this is not the place for that. That is probably why this more peaceful site is not designed as a fit for everyone's walk. Many have come and left and most all (but not all) of them have expressed that they have benefited greatly for the time they have spent here. Some seem to outgrow the need for what this site offers and i think that is great. Some have stayed here and been a blessing to new people who have walked a similar path. We as a forum (community) have no growth goals but we have indeed grown and personally i am delighted by any comfort, peace and opportunity for footing people have expressed that they have found from other members here as a member or guest. Joseph

Comparing the UK and US, there is no doubt that the lack of firearms does make it less likely you will be murdered in the UK than the US. The US rate is recorded at 4.5 per 100,000 as has been reported. Still there is more of a chance you will die from an auto accident here. The violent crime rate in the US is 403 per 100,000 (2010) and in the UK the rate of violent crime is 2034 so you are more than 5 times more likely to suffer a violent crime in the UK. Agreed, you are more likely to live from it.... I know we are talking about guns and the death rates on this thread but all is related. I agree there is no argument that whenever there are more guns available for crime there are more deaths from crime but we are definitely not one of the 10 most violent societies (countries) and i feel safer here than walking in many other countries with higher rates of violent crime. And i am still in favor of the right to bear arms with proper checks and training required which will help reduce deaths both accidentally and intentionally even at the present cost of lives. I would like to see us address the real problems rather than blame crime on the guns or assault weapons. Joseph

George , I said violent crimes. Pick pocketing and embezzlement is not normally a violent crime George ... Check New York City and some other dense cities with the strictest gun laws and i think you will still find a higher rate of homicides with guns or other means than the average sparsely populated city per capita . An FBI report shows Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter is 15.5 per 100,000 in new york city . That report doesn't say percentage of guns used but the number of homicides is high for such strict laws. District of Columbia (DC) is the worst

George, Even in Europe violent crime is usually more prevalent in more densely populated areas as are homicides. I did not say by country, i said in more densely populated areas. On another note, the UK is the violent capital of Europe . While with the exception of this year our violent crime pder capita has been decreasing since 1992, many European counties have seen an increase since then. We all have work to do but the fact of life is that as population grows and economies suffer, crime increases whether with guns or by other means. What i am saying is that research will show that "Contrary to common perceptions, today both property and violent crimes (with the exception of homicides) are more widespread in Europe than in the US,while the opposite was true thirty years ago." I think this is a clear indication that while there are more homicides when guns are present, crime itself, in general, is not related to the presence of guns. Joseph PS An interesting United Nations study on homicide rates and reasons.

Paul, Your dramatic reduction started way before yolur strict gun laws (1997) went into effect according to your charts. ours has been declining on the average since 1992. This year may be an exception? Joseph

Fair enough George. We all have our opinion.