• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Debate the Logic of a World Order.

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
This topic is dear to my heart, as this is what I live for, a day when as a citizen of the World we all work together for the common good for all humanity.

This is not about your faith verse my faith, or faith verse atheists.

In the big picture I see faith teaches about the possibility and inevitability of a united humanity and I would assume many people of no faith long for a day when they an live in peace with equal opportunities in life.

Way back in the 1800's, just as the world was considering the smallness of our part in the universe it was said that peace would only come in one way, that path is to the extent we choose to submit to given laws, that will need to be establish by a world tribunal.

So this is the wisdom to be considered and debated, is this what we need, will it be what we need?

"... The time must come when the imperative necessity for the holding of a vast, an all-embracing assemblage of men will be universally realized. The rulers and kings of the earth must needs attend it, and, participating in its deliberations, must consider such ways and means as will lay the foundations of the world’s Great Peace amongst men. Such a peace demandeth that the Great Powers should resolve, for the sake of the tranquillity of the peoples of the earth, to be fully reconciled among themselves. Should any king take up arms against another, all should unitedly arise and prevent him. If this be done, the nations of the world will no longer require any armaments, except for the purpose of preserving the security of their realms and of maintaining internal order within their territories. This will ensure the peace and composure of every people, government and nation. We fain would hope that the kings and rulers of the earth, the mirrors of the gracious and almighty name of God, may attain unto this station, and shield mankind from the onslaught of tyranny."

In this debate, even though this is a teaching of my faith, remember it will not be the Baha'i that will do this, if it is to happen. So will it and does it need to happen?
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
A World Order might lead to a One World Dictatorship at this chaotic point in time.

I do not see how that would be possible, as all Nations would have to attend.

The League of Nations and then the United Nations were put together to achieve this outcome, but the willingness to hand over a level of power to a world body is yet to be implemented.

Also vetoing can not be allowed to happen, a stance must be recorded.

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I imagine it might happen after Bezos has bought everything.

Money does indeed drive many people's decisions.

In case you are not aware, in my Faith Baha'u'llah has already suggested that will be a motivation that will come to pass, but will not work.

Regards Tony
 

an anarchist

Your local anarchist.
This topic is dear to my heart, as this is what I live for, a day when as a citizen of the World we all work together for the common good for all humanity.

This is not about your faith verse my faith, or faith verse atheists.

In the big picture I see faith teaches about the possibility and inevitability of a united humanity and I would assume many people of no faith long for a day when they an live in peace with equal opportunities in life.

Way back in the 1800's, just as the world was considering the smallness of our part in the universe it was said that peace would only come in one way, that path is to the extent we choose to submit to given laws, that will need to be establish by a world tribunal.

So this is the wisdom to be considered and debated, is this what we need, will it be what we need?

"... The time must come when the imperative necessity for the holding of a vast, an all-embracing assemblage of men will be universally realized. The rulers and kings of the earth must needs attend it, and, participating in its deliberations, must consider such ways and means as will lay the foundations of the world’s Great Peace amongst men. Such a peace demandeth that the Great Powers should resolve, for the sake of the tranquillity of the peoples of the earth, to be fully reconciled among themselves. Should any king take up arms against another, all should unitedly arise and prevent him. If this be done, the nations of the world will no longer require any armaments, except for the purpose of preserving the security of their realms and of maintaining internal order within their territories. This will ensure the peace and composure of every people, government and nation. We fain would hope that the kings and rulers of the earth, the mirrors of the gracious and almighty name of God, may attain unto this station, and shield mankind from the onslaught of tyranny."

In this debate, even though this is a teaching of my faith, remember it will not be the Baha'i that will do this, if it is to happen. So will it and does it need to happen?

I think in searching for a path towards this world order, it is important to analyze humanity’s capacity to morally run government.
As it stands now, humanity uses government as a system of destruction, as we are immoral creatures. How then can a one world government come to be, and if it were to come to pass, how would it be good? Would it not be corrupted as it is now?
Government is made up of people. So I think in order to achieve a global government, humanity first must become moral creatures.
I think the moral choice right now would be to embrace an anarchist society. I think an anarchist society would help propagate morality among the world and people. It would at the very least eliminate the moral corruption that government causes.
As oxymoronic as this may seem, I think in order to achieve the Baha’i goal of a one world government, humanity first must become an anarchist society. Or at least a portion of humanity. Because there, humanity would become more moral creatures as generations pass. And future generations would have the capacity to know how to morally implement a world government.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
I can't see any sort of democratic process that would work, and I can't think of any leader selection process that would work.

Only fascism could hold the entire world in a global government, and I don't think I'm comfortable with that. I'd prefer what we have now to trying for a single global government.

:neutral:
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
The OP with its mention of kings, reminded me of the ideals behind the League of Nations and the United Nations after that to a lesser extent.

As we see humanity today, it's not possible and maybe not desirable. The EU is a case in point about how hard it is even with a limited context.

When people become more, call it mature, I wonder if it would be necessary.

Of course there will be international institutions to deal with common questions, but a lot of what we see today as a need is due to the emotional and spiritual immaturity of humanity.

We'll see what is needed once that changes.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think in searching for a path towards this world order, it is important to analyze humanity’s capacity to morally run government.
As it stands now, humanity uses government as a system of destruction, as we are immoral creatures. How then can a one world government come to be, and if it were to come to pass, how would it be good? Would it not be corrupted as it is now?
Government is made up of people. So I think in order to achieve a global government, humanity first must become moral creatures.
I think the moral choice right now would be to embrace an anarchist society. I think an anarchist society would help propagate morality among the world and people. It would at the very least eliminate the moral corruption that government causes.
As oxymoronic as this may seem, I think in order to achieve the Baha’i goal of a one world government, humanity first must become an anarchist society. Or at least a portion of humanity. Because there, humanity would become more moral creatures as generations pass. And future generations would have the capacity to know how to morally implement a world government.

I will reply to this later this afternoon, my lunch break is ending. ;)

Lots of good points, Regards Tony
 

Regiomontanus

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.
This topic is dear to my heart, as this is what I live for, a day when as a citizen of the World we all work together for the common good for all humanity.

This is not about your faith verse my faith, or faith verse atheists.

In the big picture I see faith teaches about the possibility and inevitability of a united humanity and I would assume many people of no faith long for a day when they an live in peace with equal opportunities in life.

Way back in the 1800's, just as the world was considering the smallness of our part in the universe it was said that peace would only come in one way, that path is to the extent we choose to submit to given laws, that will need to be establish by a world tribunal.

So this is the wisdom to be considered and debated, is this what we need, will it be what we need?

"... The time must come when the imperative necessity for the holding of a vast, an all-embracing assemblage of men will be universally realized. The rulers and kings of the earth must needs attend it, and, participating in its deliberations, must consider such ways and means as will lay the foundations of the world’s Great Peace amongst men. Such a peace demandeth that the Great Powers should resolve, for the sake of the tranquillity of the peoples of the earth, to be fully reconciled among themselves. Should any king take up arms against another, all should unitedly arise and prevent him. If this be done, the nations of the world will no longer require any armaments, except for the purpose of preserving the security of their realms and of maintaining internal order within their territories. This will ensure the peace and composure of every people, government and nation. We fain would hope that the kings and rulers of the earth, the mirrors of the gracious and almighty name of God, may attain unto this station, and shield mankind from the onslaught of tyranny."

In this debate, even though this is a teaching of my faith, remember it will not be the Baha'i that will do this, if it is to happen. So will it and does it need to happen?

The key is going to be getting rid of capitalism. Without doing that there can be no truly united, global governance. IMO
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I can't see any sort of democratic process that would work, and I can't think of any leader selection process that would work.

Only fascism could hold the entire world in a global government, and I don't think I'm comfortable with that. I'd prefer what we have now to trying for a single global government.

:neutral:

There may be a process available, which makes me consider that we have a lot of world issues to face before we sit down to the Table.

Why I say that is in my Faith a lot of detail has been given, but no timing on its implementation. Part of that details says the world will try to do away with religion and when that fails the world as a whole will search the Faiths for answers.

Thus it is then I see they may find the strucuture required to build that World Order.

I would offer that is the given electoral process that the Baha'i currently use. It will not be the Baha'i using it in this case.

Regards Tony
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
This topic is dear to my heart, as this is what I live for, a day when as a citizen of the World we all work together for the common good for all humanity.

This is not about your faith verse my faith, or faith verse atheists.

In the big picture I see faith teaches about the possibility and inevitability of a united humanity and I would assume many people of no faith long for a day when they an live in peace with equal opportunities in life.

Way back in the 1800's, just as the world was considering the smallness of our part in the universe it was said that peace would only come in one way, that path is to the extent we choose to submit to given laws, that will need to be establish by a world tribunal.

So this is the wisdom to be considered and debated, is this what we need, will it be what we need?

"... The time must come when the imperative necessity for the holding of a vast, an all-embracing assemblage of men will be universally realized. The rulers and kings of the earth must needs attend it, and, participating in its deliberations, must consider such ways and means as will lay the foundations of the world’s Great Peace amongst men. Such a peace demandeth that the Great Powers should resolve, for the sake of the tranquillity of the peoples of the earth, to be fully reconciled among themselves. Should any king take up arms against another, all should unitedly arise and prevent him. If this be done, the nations of the world will no longer require any armaments, except for the purpose of preserving the security of their realms and of maintaining internal order within their territories. This will ensure the peace and composure of every people, government and nation. We fain would hope that the kings and rulers of the earth, the mirrors of the gracious and almighty name of God, may attain unto this station, and shield mankind from the onslaught of tyranny."

In this debate, even though this is a teaching of my faith, remember it will not be the Baha'i that will do this, if it is to happen. So will it and does it need to happen?

Sorry for the pessimism but I think we will destroy ourselves long before anything like that can happen.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The OP with its mention of kings, reminded me of the ideals behind the League of Nations and the United Nations after that to a lesser extent.

As we see humanity today, it's not possible and maybe not desirable. The EU is a case in point about how hard it is even with a limited context.

When people become more, call it mature, I wonder if it would be necessary.

Of course there will be international institutions to deal with common questions, but a lot of what we see today as a need is due to the emotional and spiritual immaturity of humanity.

We'll see what is needed once that changes.

Yes, kings have been diminished. I do see that they may be reinstated in the future.

I also agree it is time to step up and take a mature look at what is required. War and division have not worked.

Sorry, must get back to work.

Regards Tony
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Personally, I favor a balance of power.

Not everyone has the same vision of what is “good” for humanity. “Good” is a human concept that can be quite subjective.

If you disagree with this, just take a look as some of the political and COVID-19 discussion and debates we’ve had recently right here on this very forum.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Sorry for the pessimism but I think we will destroy ourselves long before anything like that can happen.

Great thing is I am very optimistic that we have a great future, these are lessons we will not forget, the future will look at these days and wonder why it was so hard for us to work together.

Materialism I see is the issue, it is the opposite of what is needed.

Regards Tony
 
Last edited:

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Personally, I favor a balance of power.

Not everyone has the same vision of what is “good” for humanity. “Good” is a human concept that can be quite subjective.

If you disagree with this, just take a look as some of the political and COVID-19 discussion and debates we’ve had recently right here on this very forum.

Do you see that balance will be set by a Union of Nations?

Regards Tony
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
This topic is dear to my heart, as this is what I live for, a day when as a citizen of the World we all work together for the common good for all humanity.

This is not about your faith verse my faith, or faith verse atheists.

In the big picture I see faith teaches about the possibility and inevitability of a united humanity and I would assume many people of no faith long for a day when they an live in peace with equal opportunities in life.

Way back in the 1800's, just as the world was considering the smallness of our part in the universe it was said that peace would only come in one way, that path is to the extent we choose to submit to given laws, that will need to be establish by a world tribunal.

So this is the wisdom to be considered and debated, is this what we need, will it be what we need?

"... The time must come when the imperative necessity for the holding of a vast, an all-embracing assemblage of men will be universally realized. The rulers and kings of the earth must needs attend it, and, participating in its deliberations, must consider such ways and means as will lay the foundations of the world’s Great Peace amongst men. Such a peace demandeth that the Great Powers should resolve, for the sake of the tranquillity of the peoples of the earth, to be fully reconciled among themselves. Should any king take up arms against another, all should unitedly arise and prevent him. If this be done, the nations of the world will no longer require any armaments, except for the purpose of preserving the security of their realms and of maintaining internal order within their territories. This will ensure the peace and composure of every people, government and nation. We fain would hope that the kings and rulers of the earth, the mirrors of the gracious and almighty name of God, may attain unto this station, and shield mankind from the onslaught of tyranny."

In this debate, even though this is a teaching of my faith, remember it will not be the Baha'i that will do this, if it is to happen. So will it and does it need to happen?
The fate of humanity.

It takes a new leader in human life to ensure new old ideas for family and extended family to be cared for in life on God earth.

So a single individual gives the advice. The status is needed advice. History advice already pre stated totally ignored.

So they impress a new title so that maybe humans might listen to the same human advice.

Technology weapons was science our life destroyer changed our consciousness. Earth reattacked was by old science causes. We knew.

Yet if we lay blame we know the human ego retaliates. As it is embarrassed about its non intelligence when science claimed highest intelligence.

So Baha'i said let's ignore science satanism and teach our needs.

Lots of humans agree. Natural separation occurs in causes of a held believed teaching.

A new group owning the same human spiritual motivation.

Yet the old teaching always said one human delivers the message and advice for everyone by life in a sacrifice.

I know I lived the experience of advice. My psychic advice from a baby began with an NDE. A recording that continued to advise me spiritually bodily and psychic all my life via humans suffering losing their spiritual existence.

So I can personally relate to the Baha'i message an updated Jesus advice.

And know what it is like to be harmed and spiritually ignored and even belittled by the egos of other humans without the experienced advice.

Reasoned why. Motivation for life's experiences to be its highest inheritance family love kindness care mutual admiration and trade always was needed.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
If human rights ever become universal then we would have sufficient common values to unite under, but until some of the basic ideas of what constitutes a human right are shared I can't see any advantage to not fighting off external sources that would seek to impose their own ideas upon us.

What do you think, would you agree to peace if it meant covering your women in a burka and forcing them to stay indoors and out of school? If it meant silencing intellectuals who have scientific disagreement with your beliefs? I think a degree of disunity is justified until some basic issues can be sorted out.

In my opinion.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
@Tony Bristow-Stagg

Am I right in thinking that what the JWs would see as a sign of end times (a global government) would likewise be seen by Baha'i as a positive step in our evolution as a species?
 
Top