jefferiah

Well the Bible does not sanction Jihad. I dont think you have to worry about anyone leading a campaign against the Amalekites or any of the post Exodus wars.

You should have read further into Romans. It says immediately after that no one has any excuse whatsoever. And advocates mercy to those who break the laws. If there is death for them, there is death for everyone. The wages of sin is death, remember. The book of Romans is divided into two halves basically. The first part is the conviction against mankind (all mankind), and the second part is salvation. These things Paul was referring to were not something some particular group had done. Following on not so far from where you ended that quote: Romans Chapter 3:9-10 9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are under sin.10 As it is written: "There is no one who is righteous, not one." Don't you understand that Paul was not advocating the death penalty? How many Christians or Jews do you see actually putting homosexuals to death? Or women on their weddings nights? Any of these? You misinterpreted Jesus words about the sword. In order to follow Jesus people would have to actually go against the grain. By this I mean, fathers and brothers and family would no longer approve of you. The disciples themselves had to wage warfare in this way. When they preached they risked their lives, the threat of an actual sword being used against them was upon them. You will also remember that Jesus told his followers those who live by the sword die by the sword. So it becomes quite clear that what you think it means is out of place. In the New Testament, Cybercoma, scripture is referred to as a sword. When faced with death by the sword they used an intangible sword to fight back, which often led to their deaths. In essence, Christ created division. The parable I was referring to was the one with the servants and the talents which you mentioned, months ago. There is no call in the New Testament for any kind of genocide. Nor is there any call for Jews to commit genocide, and I certainly do not see them committing it. Are you afraid that the Jews will kill the Amalekites?

Sorry Cybercoma, no deal. I still don't accept that. If you are talking about that parable again, I already explained to you why you were wrong. The New Testament commands believers to live in the world but not be of it. The only call to battle is a battle fought with intangible weapons----faith, love, truth, etc.

Now that is actually a pretty good point BK59. We have no way of knowing if the crimes were in the name of Jihad. Or even the riots. Because sometimes political opinions and other issues come to a head between two different groups that have nothing to do with the groups themselves necessarily. Hmmm....that's a mouthful and I am not sure if it made any sense. But nonetheless there is still this prevalence of violence. I don't think being an immigrant in a society and starting off in a new country is an excuse for it. Though one could also point to the fact that in America, any time a mass influx of immigrants came from any nation---ie Ireland, Italy, Germany---there was the problem of gangs. JBG makes a good point though about how the Jewish people were law abiding generally in Germany, and were law abiding wherever they moved. And as we all know there were some very anti-Semitic neighbourhoods where people petitioned to keep them out. And yet there were no Jewish riots. So starting out in a new place is not an excuse for violence, and it should not be excused by society. Whatever the reason, if the convictions be religious or cultural, countries in Europe are having a real problem which no one wants to address because it would be racist.

So you are saying that religion is dangerous because some people can misinterpret it. That is truly a shame Cybercoma, and I understand your concern. But that is not a reason to ask everyone to reject it. I mean let's say I wrote a book that had a profound effect on many people, and some people misinterpreted it and began behaving badly because they saw justification in it. Is that my fault that people are misrepresenting things which I said, or is it the fault of those of my readers who have a more reasonable view of what I am saying?

And what does this have to do with Western Society today. There is no command for Jews or Christians to kill anyone.

The Amalekites? There is no command to destroy unbelievers. This was a specific command at the time for a specific people. The law does not change, but mercy takes the place of punishment. Can you make no distinction between basic moral laws and laws concerning ritual cleanness?

Now Cybercoma when did I ask people not to be gay? Show me where I asked this. Also I pointed out to you that, yes, it is quite true that homosexual activists demand that you accept it. There are human rights cases concerning this. One concerns a Reverend who wrote to a newspaper editorial complaining about the fact that it is taught to children in schools, and that his tax dollars go to fund gay groups. Whether or not you agree with these things is irrelevant. Should he have to pay $5000 for expressing his views. Or also there is the case of the man who was asked his views in an interview, which I already outlined for you. He said I believe they deserve to be treated like anyone else, however I am Catholic and I feel it is a sin. He was sued for 1000. How did he violate someone's human rights by saying this? Gay people can still be gay, in spite of what he said. It is not a basic human right that people should have to condone things. The only right that was violated was one man's right to free speech and freedom of conscience.

Well, to this, I must respond that if you do not like the formulation you do not have to adhere to it. I firmly believe that Christ would have considered it a sin. If you disagree I cannot change that. I am not trying to bash anyone or attack anyone. This is just my belief. If you do not like this definition of sin I have no control over that. There are many moral issues where people have different beliefs. Having a belief is not a crime nor should it be. A crime is a crime. Therefore if someone believes that homosexuality is a sin, but does not commit a violent act or incite a violent act against gays simply for being gay, then there should be no problem. You will no doubt come back at me with something like...."Yes but if some people think it is wrong they may not be kind and may act violent." That is a shame. But the amount of persecution something receives is not justification for removing the moral itself, which does not demand a violent response. If there were a certain faction of women who took it upon themselves to violently avenge themselves on cheating husbands, I would not expect all women to then say "Adultery is good and acceptable." simply because adulterers are experiencing violence. The crime is not the idea that adultery is bad. The crime is the violence. The proper way is to say "Yes, this is wrong, but also so is violence." Who decides that meat eating is a sin? I can tell you that some people do. And believing that does not change my life as a meat eater. They are allowed to say it and promote it. As long as there is no criminal action taken against meat eaters there is no need to prosecute it. If and when that happens you prosecute the offenders, not people who believe meat eating is wrong. Some people have very strong views about smoking, and yet it does not mean that they hate smokers or cannot be friends with them. This brings us to one of the problems with many gay rights or other minority lobby groups. I am not sure if this is what JBG had in mind, but for me it is the defintion of what is a basic human right. It seems that now they define it as their right to have their actions condoned. This is not a basic human right. No one has the right to mandate that everyone should morally agree with you. The right to be gay is one thing. But there should be no right which says everyone must condone it. One's human rights end where someone else's begins. The fact that people believe it is wrong should be no obstruction whatsoever. The law allows me a legal right to drink alcohol (a right I don't exercise very often, cuz I tend to get sick easily). But it is not my right to force teetotalers to think drinking is ok, or to silence their moral opinion on the matter. If a teetotaler takes it upon himself, out of hatred for drinkers, to beat drinkers up, then that would be a criminal act. But merely expressing a moral opinion about the drinking cannot stop someone from drinking. You cannot force everyone in life to agree with you.

Ah but who said this. I said homosexuality is a sin. God hates sin. I also sin. You are putting words in people's mouths.

Now CLRV you are saying something which is not based in fact. I already explained to you why this is wrong, and you continue to go on in this vain. Believing something is a sin and professing that belief does not mean you hate someone else or view yourself as a better person. That fact that we focused on one sin in our argument is because Cybercoma used that one as an example of bigotry. And I explained that having a moral belief about something is not bigotry. It is possible that people who do have a moral belief about something can act like bigots about it and view themselves as better, but A is not always B. Like the child who is on drugs. Some people call him a dirty rotten scoundrel and use it as an excuse to trample him----in the words of Kris Kristofferson---"someone doing something dirty decent folks can frown on". And they believe that drugs are wrong, bad, immoral, etc. But the childs parents also believe that drug use is bad, but they love their child nonetheless and they don't see him as something dirty. They want him to stop using drugs, but it does not mean they hate him. They are not happy about having someone to put down, they have an actual concern for their child. Or as another example (one which I have used to death on this forum), I ate some pork chops yesterday. Alot of Jews believe pork is unclean. I did once hear a Jewish person on a chat room say something about unclean pagan pork eating Christians. You know something like that might fall into the line of being judgemental. But it didnt bother me. And other than that I never experience this from Jewish people. So just because someone has a moral belief on pork eating does not mean that they hate me. It's not bigotry to believe that something is wrong. And for Jews to share this belief they must have some way to communicate it, to each other and to prospective Judaism converts. So if people of the pork eating orientation got together and said we find this rule offensive and we wish to stop them from saying that pork eating is wrong because we are offended, then Jews would no longer be able to communicate their belief. Even if it is only one small belief, it is one part of Judaism and it is important to be able to maintain that among other things. I don't think this is the main focal point of Judaism, but if ever such an attempt were made by society to ban the expression of this belief (no matter how small it may seem to you) I am sure Jews would begin focusing on their right to profess it. And of course they should. We live in a free society----at least I think we do. As for the specialness of the Jews, you mean to say that being of a particular race does not make you special, it is who one is and what one does, etc. Well I think that is precisely why the Jewish people were chosen. If you read the Bible there is a line, father to son. And the patriarchs had multiple children, and the good children were always the chosen. Abraham was chosen. He had Ishmael and Isaac. Isaac was chosen because he was more humble, while Ishmael was mean to him. Then Isaac had Jacob and Esau. Jacob was chosen because he was quiet and humble and he valued spiritual matters more than a bowl of soup. When someone else is chosen you must accept it. And it will work out well for you if you do. God blessed the Jews so that thereby they might bless the world. Look at the story of Jacob's children. Joseph began having dreams from God about his future greatness. When he spoke of them his brother's became jealous of his chosenness. But the fact that he was chosen did not mean Joseph was mean to them. Rather they were mean to him and sold him as a slave. And the fact that Joseph was chosen turned out to be a good thing. He was chosen to save his entire family. God trusted Joseph with his blessing because he knew Joseph could be trusted to disperse that blessing. Being chosen is not a position of absolute tyrannical power. It is a position of great responsibility. And outside the Hebrew community there were societies of child sacrifice and corruption. But if any of these outsiders were faithful and did what was right they were counted among the Jews. Rahab the prostitute is a good example. Caleb was not Jewish but was actually a descendant of Esau. But he became accepted among the Jewish people.

Well, I live in the sticks Kitch, and I am not perfect but I understand where you are coming from. I enjoy nature as well. I am not the perfect environmentalist sort, but I do believe nature is special. I think there is some acceptable level of taking from nature that can be safe, and yes there are situations which go overboard. I live in NB and there is talk of opening uranium mines in Albert County. Don't know if you've ever been there, but it is hillbilly country, and I think it would a sad thing to see. And the Petitcodiac River runs through there. In Moncton the Petitcodiac is not much of a sight to see, but when you get out into Albert County it is a very beautiful river. Many people are opposed to the idea of mines and I am one of them. If you were an Inuit living the natural lifestyle they lived for years you would not be a vegetarian. In fact if there were no such things as roads and highways and concrete jungle stretched over miles of natural habitat, the vegetarian lifestyle would be impossible in much of Canada. Great A&P can't get oranges from Florida without some system of freight. And in much of Canada the growing season consists of a few months, and then you have winter. So in a simpler time when there were less skyscrapers and more small farms, meat would have been a necessity. When my mother was young she had chickens and cows. They grew vegetables in the summer, but only certain vegetables can be preserved long term. Potatoes, turnips, carrots, etc. You can make jams and jellies with things which don't keep in whole form, but still they don't provide a great deal of the required nutrition. So along with veggie preserves, they also killed chickens and such. My grandfather was a fisherman as well, so they had lots of salted fish in the winter. (FYI Before my mother was around, during the depression, my grandfather and a lot of people around here did alright compared to some other places, because they did not have droughts and they didn't need to buy food. They had food in the garden and in the ocean. You can't eat a dollar bill, but fish will fill ya. And they traded things as well.) Killing flies is not a major cause of the loss of biodiversity. Perhaps massive amounts of spray is. I can understand if you don't like doing it. I sometimes take bugs outside on my finger and let em go, rather than swat em. Dogs, cats they all bite at fleas and mosquitoes. If I find one of those black widow spiders in a cluster of imported grapes I am not going to let it go free in the house. This can all get to a very relative level when you argue what is ok and what is not. But I will point out to you that I think it is more advisable to think of human life as being more important than animal life, and I will explain it with a question. You come home from the store to find your house is on fire. Your daughter is inside and so is your cat, Fluffy. Who do you save first?

Because I believe that it is, among other things as well. And I think it's important to be able to maintain that. The right to say the other things has not been challenged. I have never heard of swingers demanding that people be sued for professing the belief that monogamy is the right way. If you read Romans there is a passage concerning this issue. It is mentioned amid other sins as well. There is no particular focus on it. Paul is speaking about the many sins of mankind, and this is only one of them he mentions. And when he is done he says we are all guilty of these sins. The bank robber, the proud, the adulterer, etc. No one is special here. In order to have a religious moral standard, you must be able to communicate it. If the Meat Eaters Society did not like the Zen Buddhists assertion that meat eating is wrong, then they don't have to join. But if they then say look "Let us also ban their right to profess their belief on this matter." Well this is only one small issue perhaps. But it is a small issue that is a part of Zen monastic life, and if they wish to hold this standard, they must have some way to communicate it. Or else how would they let newcomers know....we don't believe in eating meat.

The thing is Cybercoma, and I know you are being sarcastic, but you are the only one who has actually said this. JBG was talking about the sexual revolution in general, where the idea of having a different partner all the time is promoted. Having concern about this does not mean you think you are better than those who sleep around. No one is perfect. Jesus did not stone the adulteress or say she was a rotten wench, but neither did he say "Well, now go find yourself a man for the night."

Ham didn't cover Noah's nakedness. Shem and Japheth did, walking backwards.

Ah, but no one is focusing on it. Cybercoma mentioned it in reference to his belief that religious people collectively see homosexuals as sub-humans. I replied and explained that there is a difference between feeling something is wrong and feeling morally superior, then you all replied to that. And no male homosexuality should not be the focal point either. No one is talking about enforcing God's law. As I said I am not stopping people from being gay. All I ask is freedom to express the belief that it is a sin. Believing something is a sin does not necessitate a prosecution. You are right. Sin is a problem. And everyone is a sinner. And it is not something that I can solve. I am not trying to solve it. But I think there should be freedom to profess what sin is. In that sense, the homosexual issue has become a greater focus for Christians because this is one area where people are being charged for speaking. If you remember the case I mentioned about the politician from BC who expressed his views---he did not express these views because he was focused upon homosexuals or targetting them but simply because he was asked a question regarding his views in an interview. And he was sued. If your parents know you do drugs they may not be happy about it, but you are a grown man. They may express a concern for you, and feel that you are doing wrong. It does not mean your parents think you are the scum of the Earth. Or that they think they are better people than you are. And it certainly does not mean they hate you. A good example of sophistry is when people try to take the fact that Jesus is merciful and use it to say that there is no such thing as sin.

He never said it was punishment from God. But free love doesn't help keep herpes and AIDS at bay. In fact in the early days of aids there is one man who was known to have infected many many people. As for this other comment, you are taking one for the other. It is a common mistake you make, over and over again. Look let's say you start a movement or even a group of some kind. You have great ideals, charitable intents, but then two years after your death a branch-off group forms from your own. The Reformed Cybercoma Society. And they believe in implementing Cybercoma-esque policies, not by literature and education, but by military force. Now is Cybercoma to blame. Or is the original society to blame.

Ah, I think you are wrong there. Christ told us it was not for us to judge others. The law already determines what sin is, we don't have to judge. That means that I cannot look down on someone who is homosexual when I have committed adultery, because the same mercy that is extended to me depends upon mercy for all sinners. It means we cannot pass judgement on fellow sinners when we are sinners ourselves. But it does not mean that neither adultery or homosexual acts are sins. And this is where it refutes Cybercoma's assertion that Christianity views homosexuals as subhuman. Jesus never made any attempt to clear up the homosexual "mistake" (as you see it) in the Old Testament, either. He did not come to destroy the law. Not a pen stroke shall disappear. What changes is mercy takes the place of punishment. Believing that what someone does is wrong does not mean you hate that person. If this were the case CLRV, and you believe that we cannot even decide what sin is and to do so is just bigotry, then children could have their parents tried for hate crimes for telling them not to do things. Because the parents would then have no right to decide that something is wrong or sinful, and because thinking that something is immoral means you hate people who do it. That is preposterous. Jesus did teach love and mercy. But love and mercy do not mean that one cannot hold moral views about something. And believing that something is a sin is not hatred. Because one feels homosexuality is a sin, it does not mean that one thinks one is better than homosexuals. If you robbed a bank and I dated another man's wife, I could not say much about how I am better than you. But if I were asked if robbing a bank is right or wrong, would you expect me then to say it is ok? Of course not. I may be a sinner and I may be no better than a bank robber, but I know robbery is a sin.

Jesus never uttered any words about pedophiles either. But his followers said homosexuality was bad and they knew the man. Plus the Old Testament says this as well. Jesus being Jewish would have agreed. He never once softened religious values. In fact he made them stricter. Ceremonial and ritual laws he said came second. At the same time he believed in mercy. Therefore he would not punish or harm a gay person or refuse to talk or be friends. He was friends with sinners. But he never once said that sin was a-ok. Why do you think that believing something is a sin is hate-mongering? There is some faulty logic there. I do things which I know other people believe is sinful, the fact that they do not condone it or even express a moral dissent about it does not mean they hate me. Liquor is legal, but aside from law individuals can have their own moral limitations. If a teetotaler believes liquor is evil and expresses his belief, that is not hatred. I am not barging into someone's bedroom. I am not stopping people from being gay. I just ask for the freedom to say I believe something is a sin. Plain and simple. That is not hatred.

No one can criminalize belief (unless law enforcement can read minds), but that is immaterial because what I said was that it is criminal to express that belief. If you don't believe me look at the cases where people are being sued for saying just that. Do you remember the thread concerning a BC politician who when asked in an interview his views regarding the subject said, in effect, "I think they are entitled to rights and employment and to be treated like anyone else, but I am Catholic and personally I believe it is a sin." And he was sued for 1000 bucks. Many cases like this as well. The passage in Romans which refers to people having given up natural relations for unnatural ones has been deemed hate literature in Saskatchewan. Anyways, yes, I don't think JBG even mentioned homosexuality, but the sexual revolution. It was you who brought it up so the it is on you if that's where the thread goes. As for gay rights and many other rights groups, I have to say I am with JBG here. Everyone believes in rights of course. But a lot of these groups want more than their individual rights. They seek the right to censor what people can say, or they seek to impose parity laws, which are based on the logical fallacy that in a non-discriminatory society things would just magically work out evenly. Just because something has a good sounding name, does not make it great. But if someone asks to cut back funding on certain women's rights groups or gay rights groups because they can be quite ridiculous, nobody bothers to understand what the reasons were. They just hear "So-and-so wants to cut funding to women's right. Therefore, So-and-So is a misogynist." or a bigot, or a hate-monger, etc etc. In the PC society you don't need to lop off heads to silence opinion....you just have to paint the thinker as a bigot.

Incorrect. Homosexuality is viewed as a sin. So is adultery. So is stealing. Churches are filled with people who are sinners according to the Bible which says "No one is righteous." But it is becoming a criminal act to express the belief that homosexuality is a sin. Why is this? If someone believes that eating meat is sinful it does not offend me. I have a choice whether or not I want to adhere to this belief.

How can I explain this? Well, for one thing I think you have downplayed the violence Islam encourages, the superiority of Muslims over others, the right to take people as slaves, Mohammed's command not to befriend Christians or Jews, the passages which say you should not punish a Muslim brother for murdering a non-believer. But nonetheless, many Muslims do not adhere to the harsher things. And I concede that people can be Islamic without being violent. But this does not change the fact that a great deal of them are violent, and they commit violent acts in groups. So it does not mean all Muslims do this, but it means it is quite common. And if people keep dismissing that, it will never get better. The violence that occurs in Sudan is mandated condoned and encouraged by the Khartoum Gov. This is not a lone nut case. This is a nation of torture, censorship, kidnapping, and slavery. Look when racism was rampant in the South, it would not help to address the problem if everyone just said "well these thousands upon thousands of cases of blatant racism and mistreatment and segregation are all just isolated examples. The south isnt racist, its just some racist people. " Well hell yeah. Clearly there was something going on in the culture of the south. Now that does not mean we think everyone from the South is racist or that there is something genetic in southerners that makes them prone to thoughts of superiority. So being Southern did not make people racist in one sense (being a Muslim does not mean you will kill). But in other sense, there was a good chance they were racist because they were Southern and this was the culture (they kill because they come from a culture where radicalism happens to be common by comparison to others). But if you cannot address that problem, or if you dismiss it, then you will allow it to get worse. The woman who drowned her children was a lone nut. The rioters who shot nuns and burned things and stampeded after the Pope's comments or the cartoons, were not lone nuts. They did so in a large group.

Granted....what we are trying to say is that there is a prevalence of radicalism among Islam. I am assuming that this woman who drowned all her children was a lone nut, and it was not some group activity, nor do I think there is anything out there encouraging her to do so. I am not saying that being Muslim makes you kill, and I don't think that is what Scott was saying either. I am not out to ban the Koran or anything. But Muslims and non-muslims cannot ignore the fact that within Islam there is much radicalism. Look I am not saying that this is always the case, but with a great deal of Muslims I have talked to online (Pakistanis, Lebanese, etc), whenever you mention the word Jew or Israel then blammo you get a bunch of cuss words and foaming at the mouth combined with the words "swine pig dog". Walid Shoebat (whom I have mentioned before), an ex-PLO terrorist said he was raised in a culture of Jew hating. He compares the ideas they teach kids in Palestine to Nazism. And he should know. He was there. These are not just fringe groups on the radical edge of Muslim society. This is prevalent. In Sudan the Muslims kill people from the Black Christian South. They make it illegal to be of any other faith. Also because they are Muslims and have Shari'a law, they are allowed to take non-believers as slaves. They have raided the South of Sudan and taken whole families and sold them as slaves. This is legal. They torture people for not converting to Islam. They burn churches and villages. They also make slave raids and then attempt to sell their captives back to their families (legalized kidnapping and ransom).

Yes, but I think what you are saying is precisely what he meant. Muslims who kill, kill because they are Muslims....It sounds wrong...but in the context of the previous arguments against him, you can easily see that he was making a point that there is a cultural religious link to it. That they weren't just crimes committed in passing.

Look Sir, you are telling me that maybe I interpret it a certain way but that I may be wrong about the majority of others and this is only something people within my small peer group believe. Once again, you are making assumptions. I know very little of Dawkins, but I thought that it was an idea from his book you were expounding. A mistake. Believing that humans are special in some way does not necessitate bad behaviour. Sorry, but that is just nonsense. My analogy to the house was a good one. Many religious people actually do not believe in evolution and so therefore the situation is the same for them. They are on God's land. This is not our Earth. We were put in charge over it. That does not mean a position of being able to rape the land. Now you say that you have a thing against big religions for doing this. Religions are not doing this, Sir. Religions are not people. Imperialism and land grabbing and trying to maintain progress, these things have been around for ages, Sir. It is a human thing. The Earth is the Lord's and everything in it, says the Bible. So do you think this is a command to pollute rivers destroy forests and dump radioactive waste near my well? These things have been done in the name of "Progress", whether or not it really is progress. I never said we had the right to destroy things. I am pointing out that its not a religious thing, but it is plain human selfishness or dissatisfaction which makes us this way. In order to develop to the point that we have there had to be a great deal of land raping. I am not defending that or railing against that. This is the truth. In order to have the network of highways which brings people to hospitals, to have the paper which educates doctors, schools, power lines which light your house and give you your internet, there had to be a great deal of forest chopped down, land raped, oil sucked, etc. I am not saying it is right or wrong. But I will tell you that if you live in an area where you are let's say an hour from a hospital, there will be people there (religious or not) who would like to have one closer, or they would like to have a bipass highway built to bring them directly there. And this is not for religious reasons either. There is nothing so convenient that people will not want more of it, or nothing so fast and efficient that can't become faster. The standard of what we must have in order to survive has gone up a lot. I would say it is a secular thing. This is not a religious thing. I am not saying its good, I am not saying it is bad. I am saying it is. But you have to stop blaming this on religion. Do you think its because of the Bible that people want these things? I can tell you that atheists want them as much as anyone else. I did not groan about not having hospitals or losing these things, Sir. I was pointing out that people will groan. Cell phone towers, highways, etc, are not just associated with luxury but security. I do not have a cell phone myself, but many people see them as a wise thing to have. Parents buy their kids cell phones so they can keep track of them when they are not home or that if they need anything they can always call. You can phone the ambulance, police, etc etc, in situations where you previously could not. This has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with how much humans demand in order to feel safe. I am not saying that standard is good, or bad, or groaning about it. I am saying that this is a good part of the reason for human raping of land. Because where service progresses and problems are solved, they are never one hundred percent solved. The bar raises. And wherever these progresses have not been made, people feel it must be spread there to give the needy in third world countries more hospitals, schools, roads and highways. I am not saying this is good or bad. I think the intention is good behind it, Sir. But at the same time I know that the Earth can only handle so much. I agree with you on this. But unless you sell your car, put up a solar panel, grow your own organic food...etc...you better stop pointing the finger at other people. Other than that, if a ruthless person destroys land and takes more than his share from it, in order to have what he wants, it is probably because of his own selfishness or because he can get better mass production from taking more. The Amish are Christians who fit the example of a people who don't rape the land and they live harmoniously with it. If you want people to live without intrusion, I commend you. Now start doing it and stop complaining.