Debate the Logic of a World Order.

[TransmutingSoul]

So you aren't in the US, huh? It's so barking crazy here I'm going to file for Irish citizenship once they open the Foreign Birth Registry Office (closed since the pandemic started).

Yes you and America are indeed facing challenging times as the United States. I wish you and all, all the best.

America and its people will sort itself out and it will lead the world to continue to assist in the implimentaion of the mandate needed for a world body.

There has been much advice given on this in the writings of my Faith.

Regards Tony

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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?

At the end of the day, we are ONE single species. Surely, then, there are some things that unite us irrevocably. The question becomes, then, how do we decide what it is that we all agree on?

I think history tells us (for anybody who has read it) that religion is not it. Philosophy doesn't seem to have done the trick, either -- even my own philosophy of Humanism.

We will have to answer such questions as:

• Who rules, and who is ruled -- and who gets to decide, and how?
• What is permitted, what is not permitted -- and why?
• What do we owe to each other, members of our species, and are we allowed to default?
• Can we understand that -- even though we are one species -- individuals may be very different from one another. And IF THEY ARE, how much difference can we tolerate?

And a whole lot of other questions...

 

[TransmutingSoul]

At the end of the day, we are ONE single species. Surely, then, there are some things that unite us irrevocably. The question becomes, then, how do we decide what it is that we all agree on?

I think history tells us (for anybody who has read it) that religion is not it. Philosophy doesn't seem to have done the trick, either -- even my own philosophy of Humanism.

We will have to answer such questions as:

• Who rules, and who is ruled -- and who gets to decide, and how?
• What is permitted, what is not permitted -- and why?
• What do we owe to each other, members of our species, and are we allowed to default?
• Can we understand that -- even though we are one species -- individuals may be very different from one another. And IF THEY ARE, how much difference can we tolerate?

And a whole lot of other questions...

I would only offer that religion to date has not, but the potential is still contained within Faith.

Regards Tony

 

[Truthseeker]

Sounds like a blank cheque for dictators to do what they want free of international interference.

In my opinion.

That's not my intention. There is the right to protect:

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P or RtoP) is a global political commitment which was endorsed by all member states of the United Nations at the 2005 World Summit in order to address its four key concerns to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

1. Pillar I: The protection responsibilities of the state – "Each individual state has the responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity"
2. Pillar II: International assistance and capacity-building – States pledge to assist each other in their protection responsibilities
3. Pillar III: Timely and decisive collective response – If any state is "manifestly failing" in its protection responsibilities, then states should take collective action to protect the population.

Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia.

It has been observed so far very well, but it could be binding instead of voluntary in the future.

 

[Truthseeker]

Step 1: Take out all Religions/Atheism
Step 2: Appoint world leader(s)

BUT: First step = Choose Dharmic Leader(s)
(and this is impossible IMO)

Sai Baba: IF God had to kill the Adharmic people then none would be spared

It's Kali Yuga (worst of the worst of times), we need a Divine miracle to turn Adharmic leaders into Dharmic leaders. Who to choose: Kimmy, Putin, Xi, Biden, Trump, Dutch King, Macron, Tedros? (Just to mention a few). I don't trust none for being able to rule Dharmic

I see the world heading towards a global Big Brother, Big Tech, Big Pharma fully controlled, imposed, dominated China2.0 (using, misusing covid)

At least they made the Big Brother part to be a fact, more than obvious, calling themselves Big Pharma, Big Tech, Big Egos

To end on a good note:
I know that Heaven on earth is possible on an individual level, but I do not believe this will happen on a global level any time soon

We don't need a perfect world, just a functioning one. Nations need to recognize that a global order is in their common interest. You're right, though, it will not happen any time soon. If we don't come together in our mutual interest, we run the danger of destroying ourselves in this dangerous world of nuclear proliferation, climate change. As to Covid 19 a danger still remains if some nations remain at low vaccination. See Johns Hopkins data on international vaccinations:

Understanding Vaccination Progress by Country - Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center

If the low vaccination rates stay this way, the virus will mutate further, and all nations will be at risk. This underlies the fact that we need a order that recognizes that already we are one world, one area inevitably affects the other.

We can wait until there is complete disaster from Covid 19, climate change, and/or nuclear proliferation or come together now to fend off disaster, or wait for disaster to come and recognize we are one world and come together after things get much worse, and come together in order to starkly survive.

As this will be a situation if things get worse inevitably nations will want to come together in a common agreement, and each nation will want to safeguard the world order from any tyranny so that their nation will not be tyrannized.

None of this requires altruistic motives, just enlightened self interest.

 

[Truthseeker]

People can't even get on with their neighbours. Anyway, the sixth great extinction and global warming will put paid to any such fantasy.

Global warming and the prospect of the sixth extinction will be a driving force, along with the danger of nuclear proliferation, and Covid 19 mutating because of low vaccination in some countries to bring the nations together in a common interest to prevent complete disaster for each nation because in the final analysis this all shows we are already one world.

 

[Truthseeker]

Personally I think unity in humanity are not to be seen as everyone become totally agree with each others, or that there will be a one government ruling the world.

But spiritually it might be that we come to a unity from within our heart and realizing that fighting each other is not the solution. So we become more accepting toward other human beings. And hate ends

We don't have to totally agree with each other. In my opinion, it is too early for people to be accepting of each other. Each nation just needs to realize we live in one world already. Covid 19 already demonstrates that. Climate change shows that too. Ditto for nuclear proliferation. These have the potential to destroy many of us. Realizing that will bring us together not in an altruistic way, but in a enlightened self interest way.

Accepting of each other will come over time, and will have a chance to flourish in a world where there is no outward war. Peace we both know is not just the absence of war, but if there is a absence of outward war, real peace with each other can grow.

 

[Truthseeker]

I think the logic is obvious for such - given that we are likely to face existential threats from without and possibly from within our planet - and having a unified stance as to resolving any of these, if such was possible, is likely to be the only way we could do so. In what form it took would no doubt be a problem for many, but faced with existence or no existence which option would you think most would choose, if you could convince them of the true nature for whatever it was? Our global response to this latest pandemic might indicate as to how our attitudes might change when presented with sufficient dangers.

But I am a bit pessimistic, and only see such happening after and if we do survive something a lot worse than pandemics.

You're on the right track, in my opinion.

 

[Truthseeker]

A quick glance at the politics of today around the world makes it plain that there is always tension between the efficiencies of common standards, rules and methods of governance on the one hand and, on the other, the need to keep governance local so that it is felt to be accountable to local people. This is why we have federal systems, divisions between central and local government, changing associations between nations and above them all, global forums whose deliberations are only advisory expressions of global opinion.

The time will come when there will be a necessity for global federal government, just as in nations the US has a federal system. Already we are one world that needs federal rules between nations. Look at Covid 19, climate change, and nuclear proliferation.

 

[rational experiences]

Father said today a correct answer to a poorer life that I lived.

I gained a better life. To my life I am rich. So I ponder life. Never would I take from a rich man.

They however don't comply.

My poorer Family given what I have like me they would feel rich and cared for.

Change has to begin its beginning.

So I would not take your rich man life. I would ask you to raise the life of the poor man so eventually the status rich man diminishes naturally.

So first I would put all elderly men women as culture or tribe DNA represented family to begin caring for us. In group meetings of our human family.

They own hard work already.

The rest of us need to accept real change once and for all as the rich are rich based on human suffering of the past.

It has to stop if you say family and not business first.

Family can apply a strategy for better business trade by a non ability to trade earth as a resource in false ownership to grant self hierarchy.

Resource is not money it belongs to invention that was given to family to assist a better life style.

If money was not traded then resource ideals would support earths health and ours based on keeping invention needing an energy supply but not greed by new invention.

New resource was for greed as if we can use earths natural state and not alter it...money should not even be involved.

Saving of life should state no money will ever supplement it's loss.

I think many inventors inventions ignored as it would not capitalise on humans greed for monetary gains.

 

[oldbadger]

Debate the Logic of a World Order.
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.

No. Not good. World Order sucks.
Why?

Because The Scots want rule within Scotland. And the Welsh want rule within Wales......
........... and it goes on, all around the World.

We (the majority of us) in the UK did not want a European Order, so we definitely wouldn't want a world order.

The Taliban would like a World Order, Tony.
Bahai would like a World Order.

World Order sucks, because it would not be our idea of what order should be.

 

[Truthseeker]

As long they stay away from military force. But honestly i do not believe in government.

There needs to enforcement in any government. The threat of military intervention if that is needed to enforce a decision for a world body will actually prevent war because the nation will realize that they cannot win if the system is properly set up.

Without government there is anarchy, chaos, and violence, in my opinion.

 

[rational experiences]

Hitler idealism never stopped and humans everywhere paid the price for dictatorships by the millions.

We all fought on some side in that war.

Still we don't listen to our own advice.

In war we shared a common purpose against expressed human cruelty.

To say let's regain a balanced trade as that war was because of imbalanced trade and corruption.

We are human first. Our own teaching said all humans owned the same two equal exact human first parents

Our teaching says human first.

It is about time we all used our family motto....human first.

 

[Truthseeker]

Hasn't the UN been trying to do this since 1945? Do you think the UN has been successful at achieving such a balance?

Absolutely not. The UN has no teeth. They have the veto for permanent members of the security country which in effect means usually the security council cannot effect hardly anything. The security council is the only body that can do anything, and it is not representative of the nations of the world. The only armed people sent are sent to keep the peace, and not interfere with the affairs of the world, which would need to be done to have a real world order. The world court has no teeth in deciding disputes between nations. Nations can ignore their decisions. This is like if a criminal was convicted, they had the choice to place themselves in jail.

 

[Truthseeker]

• Who rules, and who is ruled -- and who gets to decide, and how?

• What is permitted, what is not permitted -- and why?

• What do we owe to each other, members of our species, and are we allowed to default?

• Can we understand that -- even though we are one species -- individuals may be very different from one another. And IF THEY ARE, how much difference can we tolerate?

All nations need to send representatives from each nation to decide what principles we need to bring about this world order. From there, there needs to be representatives from each nation to rule as one body.

 

[rational experiences]

Our fathers advice is human and historic. Our own spirituality.

That taught us science sin of man irradiated our consciousness in a conversion of earth mass against God.

We taught we condemned ourselves consciously to bad behaviours.

Based on the radiation metal effect which led to the idea of weaponry.

Previously to harm life was not even considered. We loved honoured all natural presence.

As science metal machine was used in conjunction with stone. Gods body. Our minds changed by metal conditions. The human warning.

We knew why our spiritual behaviours changed and said God science was the original criminal. As it had waged a war against the nature of God. One. Spirituality. Admiration. Love. Honour.

A world tribunal said law implementation was spiritually a one cause. To deal with the imbalanced caused human mental emotional imbalances.

Why one as an agreement had been reached in our past which humanity today have forgotten. The agreement of upholding one cause.

One cause honoured diversity. Nation was always naturally God earth owned by genesis. Your countries DNA body.

The reason of change was heavy metal brain dementia Alzheimer which is proof we are losing a stable behaviour. Consciousness.

If you address the history of human inherited problems is the place to begin.

Without embarrassing or causing force to instigate force. Self control is our highest human spiritual status

Too many of us no longer even try.

 

[Spirit of Light]

There needs to enforcement in any government. The threat of military intervention if that is needed to enforce a decision for a world body will actually prevent war because the nation will realize that they cannot win if the system is properly set up.

Without government there is anarchy, chaos, and violence, in my opinion.

I know government is needed i do not trust political system or government or any military

 

[Truthseeker]

No. Not good. World Order sucks.
Why?

Because The Scots want rule within Scotland. And the Welsh want rule within Wales......
........... and it goes on, all around the World.

We (the majority of us) in the UK did not want a European Order, so we definitely wouldn't want a world order.

The Taliban would like a World Order, Tony.
Bahai would like a World Order.

World Order sucks, because it would not be our idea of what order should be.

World order would be a federated system. The British didn't realize it would have been in their own benefit. In the future, I expect with the challenges the world has, and potential for complete disaster which I have outlined elsewhere if we don't come together, we will come together. See my other posts. All would have a say of what the world order would be.

 

[Truthseeker]

I know government is needed i do not trust political system or government or any military

The world body would not decide according to everybody's taste, and could make bad decisions but this would be better than the complete disaster we would have otherwise. We have to accept and obey even though what is decided is wrong. The alternative is worse, in my opinion. Think of how economically we are already one world. In facing Covid 19 we are one world. In facing climate change we are one world. In facing the still possible nuclear war we are one world.

 

[Spirit of Light]

The world body would not decide according to everybody's taste, and could make bad decisions but this would be better than the complete disaster we would have otherwise. We have to accept and obey even though what is decided is wrong. The alternative is worse, in my opinion. Think of how economically we are already one world. In facing Covid 19 we are one world. In facing climate change we are one world. In facing the still possible nuclear war we are one world.

If we are as you say, so United already, why is there so many wars going on