This paper presents the comparative analysis of the family policy of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Republic of Lithuania. It analyses such fields as the changes in the conception of family and family policy, discusses what changes the national economic and political framework underwent. Morcover, the paper determines what major demographic problems existed in the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic and what demographic problems are current in the Republic of Lithuania and, in addition, how value-related attitudes changed in respect of family. The analysis of the family policy itself covers other spheres, such as family assistance instruments (benefits, allowances, pensions, privileges for housing acquisition and occupational privileges, vacations), education of the young generation (sefeguarding the chlidren's rights, education at the pre-school establishments and schools), and overviews the changes in the family policy (regulation of marriage, divorse, property and personal relations betwee the parents and children or other close relatives).
This paper presents the comparative analysis of the family policy of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Republic of Lithuania. It analyses such fields as the changes in the conception of family and family policy, discusses what changes the national economic and political framework underwent. Morcover, the paper determines what major demographic problems existed in the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic and what demographic problems are current in the Republic of Lithuania and, in addition, how value-related attitudes changed in respect of family. The analysis of the family policy itself covers other spheres, such as family assistance instruments (benefits, allowances, pensions, privileges for housing acquisition and occupational privileges, vacations), education of the young generation (sefeguarding the chlidren's rights, education at the pre-school establishments and schools), and overviews the changes in the family policy (regulation of marriage, divorse, property and personal relations betwee the parents and children or other close relatives).
The present article deals with the tendencies rendering German coinages in the newspaper for Lithuanian ethnical minority of East Prussia the "Naujasis Tilžės keleivis"; its publishers and article authors were concerned about retention of the Lithuanian language in this land. On the base of theoretical considerations by Pažūsis, Girčienė, Drotvinas, integration of approximately 50 German coinages (basically, referential political, civilisation-related notions) in newspaper texts is under investigation, first of all, regarding their graphical emphasis and meta-linguistic commentaries. Taking into account that the coinages are a wider phenomenon, the article also focuses on the processes which are related to the integration into the language system and their entrenchment in the language use. Rendering German coinages in the texts of the newspaper consisted of several stages. Usually it started with integration into a text (graphical emphasis, meta-linguistic commentaries), where they intertwined with grammatical integration and authors' interaction strategies and developed until they achieved the intended result — "programming" the loanword or its equivalent (usually loan-translation) in the usage. Sometimes this process was prolonged by searching for a more appropriate structure of a compound. Peculiarities of rendering German coinages were predetermined by a number of interrelated factors, which conditioned the constant search for a compromise and rendering dynamics. The following can be mentioned among the most significant: the relevance of the named realia (the term of national-socialism lexis vs. a more common word), the purpose of the text and individual strivings of authors (while highlighting significance of rendering the content, equivalents (reflecting Lithuanian traditions of written East Prussian loan-translations or Lithuanian words of standard Lithuanian) are sought and, on the contrary[.]
The present article deals with the tendencies rendering German coinages in the newspaper for Lithuanian ethnical minority of East Prussia the "Naujasis Tilžės keleivis"; its publishers and article authors were concerned about retention of the Lithuanian language in this land. On the base of theoretical considerations by Pažūsis, Girčienė, Drotvinas, integration of approximately 50 German coinages (basically, referential political, civilisation-related notions) in newspaper texts is under investigation, first of all, regarding their graphical emphasis and meta-linguistic commentaries. Taking into account that the coinages are a wider phenomenon, the article also focuses on the processes which are related to the integration into the language system and their entrenchment in the language use. Rendering German coinages in the texts of the newspaper consisted of several stages. Usually it started with integration into a text (graphical emphasis, meta-linguistic commentaries), where they intertwined with grammatical integration and authors' interaction strategies and developed until they achieved the intended result — "programming" the loanword or its equivalent (usually loan-translation) in the usage. Sometimes this process was prolonged by searching for a more appropriate structure of a compound. Peculiarities of rendering German coinages were predetermined by a number of interrelated factors, which conditioned the constant search for a compromise and rendering dynamics. The following can be mentioned among the most significant: the relevance of the named realia (the term of national-socialism lexis vs. a more common word), the purpose of the text and individual strivings of authors (while highlighting significance of rendering the content, equivalents (reflecting Lithuanian traditions of written East Prussian loan-translations or Lithuanian words of standard Lithuanian) are sought and, on the contrary[.]
The purpose of the cultural elite members during soviet period was designated for the implementation of soviet indoctrination and legitimization of the regime. This task provided for those cultural elites not only the authority, symbolic capital and prestige among other societal groups, but also the strict mechanisms of control, censorship and public behavior. Even this model was valid for soviet Lithuania, the analysis of their relationship with the system in the late socialism reveals that local intellectuals and other cultural elite's members who were part of soviet cultural establishment transferred to the multi-edge relationship with the system. By taking the case of soviet writers, several intellectuals circles could be identified and this deployment could be sustained as a reflection of the rest of cultural elite. These groups not maintained constructed different relationship with the system or national ideology, but also experienced the intensive struggle for the power in local cultural establishments. The group of ideologists gradually lost their influence to the group of conservatist, who in the 70-80 occupied main chairs in cultural institutions and who were more enthusiastic towards ethnic issues, but being a part of cultural nomenclatura they also found consensus with local party apparatchiks. Another part of cultural nomenclatura -- ideologists could not also gained the public recognition as conservatists or the famous intellectuals from local intelligentsia circles (moderate writers), who have increased their authority for their talent and deep attachment to local and ethnic issues. Adapted from the source document.
The paper compares the political economic systems under German (1915–1918) and Soviet (1940–1941, 1944–1990 m.) occupations in Lithuania. During the World War I, Lithuania was part of the German occupation zone Ober Ost, ruled by the higher commando of the German Eastern front (Oberbefehlshaber Ost). The German military command of Eastern front under Paul Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff used Lithuania as a laboratory for large scale social experiment, creating the first planned command administrative economy in the world. After they were promoted to the higher commando of all German armed forced and established in 1917–1918 de facto military dictatorship over Germany, they made the attempt to establish the Ober Ost system in the metropole. Although the realization of the complete "Hindenburg programme" did fail, by 1917 Germany lived under military socialism (Kriegssozialismus) and coercive economy, which became the example and source of inspiration for Bolsheviks constructing Soviet model of state socialism. In 1940, this model came back to Lithuania, history making the full circle. This means that the market transition in 1990–1992 was second restoration of capitalism in Lithuania, because in 1918–1922 the capitalist economic system also was restored here jointly with the establishment of national state. Contemporary Lithuania demands from Russia to pay for damage inflicted on Lithuanian economy by Soviet occupation, and interwar Lithuania did demand the same form Weimar Germany in 1922–1923. However, while interwar Lithuania did ask to pay only direct occupation damage, contemporary Lithuania demands to compensate also the indirect damage. The main part of this damage is the loss of the national income which Lithuania did not receive in 1940–1990 because the efficient capitalist economic system was replaced by the less productive state socialist system during this time. However, the calculations of the indirect damage incorrectly assume that all varieties of capitalism are more efficient in the developing countries in comparison with command administrative system. The assumption that the variety of capitalism which existed in Lithuania by 1940 (state cooperative capitalism) was not less efficient than Stalinist Soviet socialism is politically correct one, as much as the expectation that under this system independent Lithuania would become advanced technological frontier country ("second Finland") by 1990. Nevertheless, the counterfactual development path of the independent capitalist Lithuania in 1940–1990 would include critical conjunctures and crossroads, which could end with Lithuania entering "low road" development path. Tellingly, Latin American capitalist country Uruguay (similar to Lithuania and other Baltic culture by its size and economc structure) had higher GDP per capita level than Lithuania in 1940, but by 1990 this level was lower than in Soviet Lithuania. Importantly, Uruguay never was under Soviet Russian occupation, did not construct socialism or suffered war damage.
The paper compares the political economic systems under German (1915–1918) and Soviet (1940–1941, 1944–1990 m.) occupations in Lithuania. During the World War I, Lithuania was part of the German occupation zone Ober Ost, ruled by the higher commando of the German Eastern front (Oberbefehlshaber Ost). The German military command of Eastern front under Paul Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff used Lithuania as a laboratory for large scale social experiment, creating the first planned command administrative economy in the world. After they were promoted to the higher commando of all German armed forced and established in 1917–1918 de facto military dictatorship over Germany, they made the attempt to establish the Ober Ost system in the metropole. Although the realization of the complete "Hindenburg programme" did fail, by 1917 Germany lived under military socialism (Kriegssozialismus) and coercive economy, which became the example and source of inspiration for Bolsheviks constructing Soviet model of state socialism. In 1940, this model came back to Lithuania, history making the full circle. This means that the market transition in 1990–1992 was second restoration of capitalism in Lithuania, because in 1918–1922 the capitalist economic system also was restored here jointly with the establishment of national state. Contemporary Lithuania demands from Russia to pay for damage inflicted on Lithuanian economy by Soviet occupation, and interwar Lithuania did demand the same form Weimar Germany in 1922–1923. However, while interwar Lithuania did ask to pay only direct occupation damage, contemporary Lithuania demands to compensate also the indirect damage. The main part of this damage is the loss of the national income which Lithuania did not receive in 1940–1990 because the efficient capitalist economic system was replaced by the less productive state socialist system during this time. However, the calculations of the indirect damage incorrectly assume that all varieties of capitalism are more efficient in the developing countries in comparison with command administrative system. The assumption that the variety of capitalism which existed in Lithuania by 1940 (state cooperative capitalism) was not less efficient than Stalinist Soviet socialism is politically correct one, as much as the expectation that under this system independent Lithuania would become advanced technological frontier country ("second Finland") by 1990. Nevertheless, the counterfactual development path of the independent capitalist Lithuania in 1940–1990 would include critical conjunctures and crossroads, which could end with Lithuania entering "low road" development path. Tellingly, Latin American capitalist country Uruguay (similar to Lithuania and other Baltic culture by its size and economc structure) had higher GDP per capita level than Lithuania in 1940, but by 1990 this level was lower than in Soviet Lithuania. Importantly, Uruguay never was under Soviet Russian occupation, did not construct socialism or suffered war damage.
The paper compares the political economic systems under German (1915–1918) and Soviet (1940–1941, 1944–1990 m.) occupations in Lithuania. During the World War I, Lithuania was part of the German occupation zone Ober Ost, ruled by the higher commando of the German Eastern front (Oberbefehlshaber Ost). The German military command of Eastern front under Paul Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff used Lithuania as a laboratory for large scale social experiment, creating the first planned command administrative economy in the world. After they were promoted to the higher commando of all German armed forced and established in 1917–1918 de facto military dictatorship over Germany, they made the attempt to establish the Ober Ost system in the metropole. Although the realization of the complete "Hindenburg programme" did fail, by 1917 Germany lived under military socialism (Kriegssozialismus) and coercive economy, which became the example and source of inspiration for Bolsheviks constructing Soviet model of state socialism. In 1940, this model came back to Lithuania, history making the full circle. This means that the market transition in 1990–1992 was second restoration of capitalism in Lithuania, because in 1918–1922 the capitalist economic system also was restored here jointly with the establishment of national state. Contemporary Lithuania demands from Russia to pay for damage inflicted on Lithuanian economy by Soviet occupation, and interwar Lithuania did demand the same form Weimar Germany in 1922–1923. However, while interwar Lithuania did ask to pay only direct occupation damage, contemporary Lithuania demands to compensate also the indirect damage. The main part of this damage is the loss of the national income which Lithuania did not receive in 1940–1990 because the efficient capitalist economic system was replaced by the less productive state socialist system during this time. However, the calculations of the indirect damage incorrectly assume that all varieties of capitalism are more efficient in the developing countries in comparison with command administrative system. The assumption that the variety of capitalism which existed in Lithuania by 1940 (state cooperative capitalism) was not less efficient than Stalinist Soviet socialism is politically correct one, as much as the expectation that under this system independent Lithuania would become advanced technological frontier country ("second Finland") by 1990. Nevertheless, the counterfactual development path of the independent capitalist Lithuania in 1940–1990 would include critical conjunctures and crossroads, which could end with Lithuania entering "low road" development path. Tellingly, Latin American capitalist country Uruguay (similar to Lithuania and other Baltic culture by its size and economc structure) had higher GDP per capita level than Lithuania in 1940, but by 1990 this level was lower than in Soviet Lithuania. Importantly, Uruguay never was under Soviet Russian occupation, did not construct socialism or suffered war damage.
The paper compares the political economic systems under German (1915–1918) and Soviet (1940–1941, 1944–1990 m.) occupations in Lithuania. During the World War I, Lithuania was part of the German occupation zone Ober Ost, ruled by the higher commando of the German Eastern front (Oberbefehlshaber Ost). The German military command of Eastern front under Paul Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff used Lithuania as a laboratory for large scale social experiment, creating the first planned command administrative economy in the world. After they were promoted to the higher commando of all German armed forced and established in 1917–1918 de facto military dictatorship over Germany, they made the attempt to establish the Ober Ost system in the metropole. Although the realization of the complete "Hindenburg programme" did fail, by 1917 Germany lived under military socialism (Kriegssozialismus) and coercive economy, which became the example and source of inspiration for Bolsheviks constructing Soviet model of state socialism. In 1940, this model came back to Lithuania, history making the full circle. This means that the market transition in 1990–1992 was second restoration of capitalism in Lithuania, because in 1918–1922 the capitalist economic system also was restored here jointly with the establishment of national state. Contemporary Lithuania demands from Russia to pay for damage inflicted on Lithuanian economy by Soviet occupation, and interwar Lithuania did demand the same form Weimar Germany in 1922–1923. However, while interwar Lithuania did ask to pay only direct occupation damage, contemporary Lithuania demands to compensate also the indirect damage. The main part of this damage is the loss of the national income which Lithuania did not receive in 1940–1990 because the efficient capitalist economic system was replaced by the less productive state socialist system during this time. However, the calculations of the indirect damage incorrectly assume that all varieties of capitalism are more efficient in the developing countries in comparison with command administrative system. The assumption that the variety of capitalism which existed in Lithuania by 1940 (state cooperative capitalism) was not less efficient than Stalinist Soviet socialism is politically correct one, as much as the expectation that under this system independent Lithuania would become advanced technological frontier country ("second Finland") by 1990. Nevertheless, the counterfactual development path of the independent capitalist Lithuania in 1940–1990 would include critical conjunctures and crossroads, which could end with Lithuania entering "low road" development path. Tellingly, Latin American capitalist country Uruguay (similar to Lithuania and other Baltic culture by its size and economc structure) had higher GDP per capita level than Lithuania in 1940, but by 1990 this level was lower than in Soviet Lithuania. Importantly, Uruguay never was under Soviet Russian occupation, did not construct socialism or suffered war damage.
Summary The object of the master thesis paper is the political attitudes and activities of Bronys Raila who was a famous Lithuanian intellectual, former third front line solder who joined the left–wing campus after the World War II, during the 4th decade of the 20th century. This theme has not received any attention from the researchers of historiography yet. The research has been conducted on the basis of vast historical resources. After it has been conducted, it emerged that Bronys Raila was a controversial personality of Lithuanian history of the 20th century who had not any clear ideological attitudes and who was distinguished by his radical views and activities, especially during the 4th decade of the mentioned century. Early in life, Bronys Raila was influenced by the leftist ideas and, for some time, he collaborated in the social–democratic press; further, during the period of 1930 and 1931, he worked in the journal "Trečiasis frontas" (The Third Front) of the leftist procommunist Lithuanian writers. He was one of its ideological leaders, which he himself never fancied to admit. After the Lithuanian government prohibited its printing, the third front line solders dispersed. However, Bronys Raila's retreat was influenced not by his ideological motives but by the external factors. The most influential ones were the severe critic of the Lithuanian communist party towards the third front line solders, constant attacks (even curses) of Bronys Raila in the communist press, which influenced Bronys Raila's backslide from the "left–wing" and presumably from the evolution to the communist regime. It is fairly important to note that Bronys Raila could no longer publish after "Trečiasis frontas" was closed. After he joined the nationalists, Bronys Raila became a severe opponent of his former congenial, the leftists. He constantly criticized his former friends in the nationalist press. A true critical action took place in 1936 when Bronys Raila openly and ruthlessly criticized the leftist journal "Literatūra" (Literature), the very core of which consisted of the third front line solders. At the age of twenty seven, in several articles, Bronys Raila openly criticized its editor Vincas Krėvė and accused its employees of the propaganda of cultural bolshevist ideas in Lithuania. In this case, he was unerring. As he was in the Lithuanian Nationalist League, he was perpetually publishing, collaborated in several periodical nationalist publications simultaneously, and worked in the state radio. During the short period in the 4th decade, Bronys Raila became one of the ideological leaders of nationalists. The future minister of pro–German LAF propaganda, in the middle of the 4th decade, Bronys Raila was incredulous at the social, economical achievements of Nazi Germany and the very ideology of National Socialism due to the openly demonstrated expansionism of Germany. However, at the end of the mentioned decade, the Nazi state order became appropriate for him due to the implementation of the "stepped–up nationalism" in Lithuania. In the middle of the 4th decade and during its second half, the reflections of Bronys Raila on the political order disclosed his sympathies solely to the national state that was ruled by a strong, dynamic and strict power. According to him, the power of the authoritarian regime of Antanas Smetona was a "mild one". Bronys Raila's sympathies to the cult of a leader and the total execution of opposition were enhanced by the establishment of total regimes in Europe at the end of the decade. At this time, his articles reflected the ideal of the "Lithuanian Lithuania" that excluded Poles, Germans and Jews as its full citizens.
Summary The object of the master thesis paper is the political attitudes and activities of Bronys Raila who was a famous Lithuanian intellectual, former third front line solder who joined the left–wing campus after the World War II, during the 4th decade of the 20th century. This theme has not received any attention from the researchers of historiography yet. The research has been conducted on the basis of vast historical resources. After it has been conducted, it emerged that Bronys Raila was a controversial personality of Lithuanian history of the 20th century who had not any clear ideological attitudes and who was distinguished by his radical views and activities, especially during the 4th decade of the mentioned century. Early in life, Bronys Raila was influenced by the leftist ideas and, for some time, he collaborated in the social–democratic press; further, during the period of 1930 and 1931, he worked in the journal "Trečiasis frontas" (The Third Front) of the leftist procommunist Lithuanian writers. He was one of its ideological leaders, which he himself never fancied to admit. After the Lithuanian government prohibited its printing, the third front line solders dispersed. However, Bronys Raila's retreat was influenced not by his ideological motives but by the external factors. The most influential ones were the severe critic of the Lithuanian communist party towards the third front line solders, constant attacks (even curses) of Bronys Raila in the communist press, which influenced Bronys Raila's backslide from the "left–wing" and presumably from the evolution to the communist regime. It is fairly important to note that Bronys Raila could no longer publish after "Trečiasis frontas" was closed. After he joined the nationalists, Bronys Raila became a severe opponent of his former congenial, the leftists. He constantly criticized his former friends in the nationalist press. A true critical action took place in 1936 when Bronys Raila openly and ruthlessly criticized the leftist journal "Literatūra" (Literature), the very core of which consisted of the third front line solders. At the age of twenty seven, in several articles, Bronys Raila openly criticized its editor Vincas Krėvė and accused its employees of the propaganda of cultural bolshevist ideas in Lithuania. In this case, he was unerring. As he was in the Lithuanian Nationalist League, he was perpetually publishing, collaborated in several periodical nationalist publications simultaneously, and worked in the state radio. During the short period in the 4th decade, Bronys Raila became one of the ideological leaders of nationalists. The future minister of pro–German LAF propaganda, in the middle of the 4th decade, Bronys Raila was incredulous at the social, economical achievements of Nazi Germany and the very ideology of National Socialism due to the openly demonstrated expansionism of Germany. However, at the end of the mentioned decade, the Nazi state order became appropriate for him due to the implementation of the "stepped–up nationalism" in Lithuania. In the middle of the 4th decade and during its second half, the reflections of Bronys Raila on the political order disclosed his sympathies solely to the national state that was ruled by a strong, dynamic and strict power. According to him, the power of the authoritarian regime of Antanas Smetona was a "mild one". Bronys Raila's sympathies to the cult of a leader and the total execution of opposition were enhanced by the establishment of total regimes in Europe at the end of the decade. At this time, his articles reflected the ideal of the "Lithuanian Lithuania" that excluded Poles, Germans and Jews as its full citizens.
Fragmentation of the society and poverty existed in Latin America both before the 15th century when the Europeans colonized this region, as well as in the second half of the 20th century when liberation theology came into existence. Liberation theologians maintained that the Church cannot stay aside of the oppression that envelops the region but should rather condemn it and seek to transform the existing order through social and political means. The theologians perceived a division of the society into different classes and oppression both on the national and internationals levels, while maintaining that Christian love of one's neighbor is incapable of uniting the polarized classes. Liberation theology employed Marxist methodology to explain the present situation. Liberation was reduced to a political and socio-economic level, while interpretations of the Scripture highlighted the political aspect of liberation. Theologians judged society structures to be sinful and sought to liberate people from socio-economic oppression through a social revolution. Modern social teaching of the Catholic Church emerged in 1891 with Pope Leo XIII 's encyclical letter Rerum Novarum – On Capital and Labor. Catholic social teaching is based on ethics, theological anthropology and the conception of human salvation. Viewing human work from an anthropological perspective, the dignity of human work and his participation in the work of the Creator is emphasized. An important principle of Catholic social thought is solidarity; it indicates people's duty to help those in need both on the national and international level. The Church also stresses the principle of subsidiarity, according to which nothing should be done by more complex organizations which can be done by the people, communities or associations. The Catholic Church maintains that socialism is opposed to justice, whereby no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist. It suggests improving the capitalist order not politically but rather in the light of the Gospel, whereby human society can heal by a return to Christian life and institutions. In 1984 and 1986 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which oversees the doctrine of the Catholic Church, condemned the liberation theology for employing Marxist methodology, since the latter is inseparable from atheist ideology. The liberation theology's view of ongoing class struggle is incompatible with the Christian idea of unity. The Church maintained that the notion of liberation used by the liberation theologians was erroneously reduced to political and socio-economic aspects, without taking into account the most important form of slavery – slavery to sin. Also corrupting was the liberation theologians' interpretation of the Scripture which highlighted the political rather than religious aspect of liberation. Although the liberation theologians claimed they could produce new structures of the society through a social revolution, the Church views evil of the structures as a consequence of man's actions, so evil will remain until people's hearts are transformed by the grace of Jesus Christ.
Fragmentation of the society and poverty existed in Latin America both before the 15th century when the Europeans colonized this region, as well as in the second half of the 20th century when liberation theology came into existence. Liberation theologians maintained that the Church cannot stay aside of the oppression that envelops the region but should rather condemn it and seek to transform the existing order through social and political means. The theologians perceived a division of the society into different classes and oppression both on the national and internationals levels, while maintaining that Christian love of one's neighbor is incapable of uniting the polarized classes. Liberation theology employed Marxist methodology to explain the present situation. Liberation was reduced to a political and socio-economic level, while interpretations of the Scripture highlighted the political aspect of liberation. Theologians judged society structures to be sinful and sought to liberate people from socio-economic oppression through a social revolution. Modern social teaching of the Catholic Church emerged in 1891 with Pope Leo XIII 's encyclical letter Rerum Novarum – On Capital and Labor. Catholic social teaching is based on ethics, theological anthropology and the conception of human salvation. Viewing human work from an anthropological perspective, the dignity of human work and his participation in the work of the Creator is emphasized. An important principle of Catholic social thought is solidarity; it indicates people's duty to help those in need both on the national and international level. The Church also stresses the principle of subsidiarity, according to which nothing should be done by more complex organizations which can be done by the people, communities or associations. The Catholic Church maintains that socialism is opposed to justice, whereby no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist. It suggests improving the capitalist order not politically but rather in the light of the Gospel, whereby human society can heal by a return to Christian life and institutions. In 1984 and 1986 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which oversees the doctrine of the Catholic Church, condemned the liberation theology for employing Marxist methodology, since the latter is inseparable from atheist ideology. The liberation theology's view of ongoing class struggle is incompatible with the Christian idea of unity. The Church maintained that the notion of liberation used by the liberation theologians was erroneously reduced to political and socio-economic aspects, without taking into account the most important form of slavery – slavery to sin. Also corrupting was the liberation theologians' interpretation of the Scripture which highlighted the political rather than religious aspect of liberation. Although the liberation theologians claimed they could produce new structures of the society through a social revolution, the Church views evil of the structures as a consequence of man's actions, so evil will remain until people's hearts are transformed by the grace of Jesus Christ.
