Fred White wrote:
> On Thursday, November 13, 2003, at 01:56  PM, Jay Maynard wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 01:42:03PM -0700, Fred White wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, November 13, 2003, at 01:16  PM, Jay Maynard wrote:
>>>
>>>>Not necessarily the meanest...but I do believe that I have not only a
>>>>right, but a duty, to defend mself if attacked.
>>>
>>>However, that's only half of your responsibility. More importantly,
>>>perhaps, is to find out WHY you were chosen as the target. Then, if
>>>you
>>>can eliminate  the cause, you may never again be targeted.
>>
>>Huh? What difference does it make? If someone attacke me, and I end the
>>attack, either they'll be dumb enough to attack me in the face of that
>>- in
>>which case nothing would deter them anyway - or else they'll wise up
>>and go
>>attack soemone else, at worst, or choose another path, at best.
>>
>>Giving them what they want, however, is not the answer. All it does is
>>teach
>>them that they can get what they want by committing violence.
>>
>>This applies to terrorism as well. I don't *care* why they're
>>attacking the
>>US.
>
>
> Those folks didn't just say to themselves "Let's go kill someone even
> if we have to kill ourselves in the process". They decided to choose us
> as a target because they believe, rightly or wrongly, that we have
> screwed them and that this is the only course left open to them to
> achieve revenge and/or to have us listen to them and their perceived
> plight.
>
> If you have any curiosity at all, you might like to know what drove
> them to such desperate measures. Or, of course, you can take the
> anti-Christian course of just blindly killing all of those bastards and
> never learning what drove them to become such bastards. How very
> enlightened. How very civilized.
>
> FW
>
> "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" - Abraham
> Lincoln
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>

I find things like this to be more easily understood in very small,
personal situations. Like Cain and Abel who both had relatively good
parents (except for that original sin thing) and all of them knew God
personally.

Cain's offering was not accepted (he was supposed to offer an animal,
not plants/fruits/vegetables which he grew). Cain takes it out on Abel
instead of correcting his own actions.

Abel didn't live long enough to understand why his brother was (wrongly)
upset with him. And even if Abel did live, he shouldn't have changed his
behavior. Sometimes (not often) it *is* all the other guy.

Genesis 4
3   And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the
fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4   And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the
fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
5   But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was
very wroth, and his countenance fell.
6   And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy
countenance fallen?
7   If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest
not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and
thou shalt rule over him.
8   And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when
they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and
slew him.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *