Imagine all the people living life in peace ....

[ecco]

Yes, you're right but my point was that if religion didn't exist, we'd still find excuses to go to war because we arrogant humans have the need to prove ourselves superior to people who belong to other groups.

Don't be so down on us humans. Wars are fought by other species of primates as well.

 

[ecco]

Looking at the last century of world conflict, I see political ideology, conservatively, at least as much to blame for those conflicts as religions, if not arguably far more so. I'm not sure what religion being allegedly from a divine source has to do with it.

As I stated earlier, you can get the troops to fight for country or you can get them to fight for GodAndCountry. The latter is a much more powerful cry.

The Croats fought the Serbs but it was really about the Christians trying to get rid of the Muslims.
The Japanese fought for their country and their divine Emporer. The German leaders used the teachings of Martin Luther to inflame the citizenry against Jews and believed Gott Mitt Uns. In the post-invasion chaos of Iraq believers in Allah (Sunnis) killed believers in Allah (Shiites). In fact, most of the tension in the region is religiously based.



ETA: Admittedly, the Russians and the Americans wanted oil and pipelines.

 

[ecco]

I believe every word he says in his teaching. I have no doubt in him as who he says he is.

Dare I ask WHY?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Dare I ask WHY?

Because I cultivate the teaching he has given, and I see the result within my self. So why would I doubt something that is unfolding right in front of me?

 

[Left Coast]

As I stated earlier, you can get the troops to fight for country or you can get them to fight for GodAndCountry. The latter is a much more powerful cry.

The Croats fought the Serbs but it was really about the Christians trying to get rid of the Muslims.
The Japanese fought for their country and their divine Emporer. The German leaders used the teachings of Martin Luther to inflame the citizenry against Jews and believed Gott Mitt Uns. In the post-invasion chaos of Iraq believers in Allah (Sunnis) killed believers in Allah (Shiites). In fact, most of the tension in the region is religiously based.



ETA: Admittedly, the Russians and the Americans wanted oil and pipelines.

The cry against religion and for country/ideology can also be as powerful, though. Communism demonstrates that as clearly as anything. And religion can be a powerful motivator for good, and act as a counterweight to destructive political goals and ideas. You're right that in many places, religion and politics are impossibly intermixed. That's why placing blame in one camp vs. another seems incredibly simplistic to me.

 

[ecco]

Because I cultivate the teaching he has given, and I see the result within my self. So why would I doubt something that is unfolding right in front of me?

OK

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It always amuses me when I hear religious people singing Imagine. Don't they understand that the song says that you can't have world peace if you have religion(s)?

The lyrics can be understood in different frames of reference. The no religion aspect to me, is that man made division is vanquished.

In the end when the song intent is realised, that is unity and peace, it will be faith in the oneness of our humanity that will enable it to happen and it will happen.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Imagine all the people living life in peace, you
You may say I'm a dreamer

It is more than a dream, as a Baha'i it is our life, trying to demonstrate to the world, that it is not only possible, that it is inevitable.

The Key is the oneness of humanity, one of the events to come is the disarmament of the nations.

Regards Tony

 

[Stevicus]

With aforesaid data in the background, I ask readers to enquire into and discuss if possible four questions: 1) Is it correct to say that religion is the main cause of war and killings?

The main cause? Not really. I think people will kill each other no matter what. Religion might be used as a vehicle or a pretext, just like politics or economics might also be used. Some people kill for some rather petty reasons, like some imaginary slight or even because someone might be snoring too loud.

In a world like that, a lot of people are afraid that other people might try to kill them. In the context of religion, people won't necessarily kill each other because of the religion, in and of itself. They might say "We're not killing them because they have a different religion. We're killing them because they're planning to kill us, so we want to kill them so they can't kill us."

In that sense, it's not the religion to blame as much as it's the fear and hatred which generates from it.

2) Is it correct to say that Islam is the main cause of conflicts in the world?

It sounds incorrect on its face, especially for conflicts which don't involve Islam at all. When it comes to conflicts in the Middle East, I'm not sure if it's religion that's the cause or if it's just ancient tribal feuds or maybe pan-Arab nationalism. My guess is that it's probably some variation of nationalism which appears to be the cause of conflicts in the world.

3) What worldview drives the materialistic motivation of maximising profit from war economies for the companies and countries?

Greed and a lust for power, I suppose. It doesn't seem to have any real "worldview" beyond "he who dies with the most toys wins." Just after WW2, the countries of the world got together and formed a United Nations and emphasized peace, human rights, and international cooperation. That was a positive worldview, and it was against that backdrop that nations and even companies conducted themselves.

Even when it came to war, our position was that we didn't like war, we didn't want to start any wars, and we had no designs on any extraterritorial expansion or annexation. Supposedly, we weren't out for plunder or booty, and we respected the independence and sovereignty of other nations. Our only purpose was to protect other nations or bring freedom to other people fighting against tyranny. At least, that's what a lot of politicians and many patriotic Americans have told us over the years.

As for the manufacturers, the people who make the weapons and munitions to carry out all this killing, they might say they're just fulfilling a need created by others and that "if they didn't do it, someone else would." Casino operators, drug dealers, and porn merchants probably use the same argument. They might make money from it, but they don't see themselves as the cause or creating the need in question.

4) What peaceful loving individuals can do to mitigate the demonic power of private merchants of death?

Well, all the workers of the world could unite, overthrow their capitalist oppressors, and form a worldwide workers government and implement a socialist society of peace and love all around the world.

That would be my suggestion. Oh wait, you said "peaceful." There may not be any peaceful way of doing it.

and 5) What scientists can do to minimise damages from potential misuse of scientific and technological advances?...

I think it ultimately comes down to whoever holds the political power. Whoever built the machine is not so much an issue as to who controls the levers and switches. Scientists, as well as the weapons manufacturers, are citizens within whatever political jurisdiction they're living, and they're subject to the laws and edicts from whatever government they're subject to.

If we don't want factories that build weapons, we need only pass a law against them. If we don't want misuse of scientific and technological advances, then we can pass a law against that - and hope that the people obey such a law.

But whoever holds the political power holds the key. And for that reason, there are a lot of people competing with each other and vying for political power - and all too often, people are disinclined to play nice. Politics is a dirty business, and it is said that "war is the continuation of politics by other means."

I don't think we'll ever be able to do away with war, but perhaps there might be certain methods of war which can minimize civilian casualties and collateral damage. If there's a dispute between two governments, maybe they can have some sort "trial by combat" between two champions. Leave the innocents and the rest of the population out of it. I saw a movie where countries would have their champions inside these giant robots where they'd fight it out.

Also, war is not just a matter between countries, but it seems that in the future, wars won't happen much between established nations and governments as much as it will be a matter of governments at war with their own people. Sometimes it's class based, or sometimes it might be based in ethnic tensions or religious. Some governments are so incompetent or corrupt that the people revolt, and then they need to buy weapons to quell the disturbance. But some other weapons dealer might sell to the rebels, thinking that if they win, then they would have a friendly government in their debt. It depends on what resources are available in a country - or it might be in a strategic position.

 

[atanu]

The main cause? Not really. I think people will kill each other no matter what. Religion might be used as a vehicle or a pretext, just like politics or economics might also be used. Some people kill for some rather petty reasons, like some imaginary slight or even because someone might be snoring too loud.

In a world like that, a lot of people are afraid that other people might try to kill them. In the context of religion, people won't necessarily kill each other because of the religion, in and of itself. They might say "We're not killing them because they have a different religion. We're killing them because they're planning to kill us, so we want to kill them so they can't kill us."

In that sense, it's not the religion to blame as much as it's the fear and hatred which generates from it.



It sounds incorrect on its face, especially for conflicts which don't involve Islam at all. When it comes to conflicts in the Middle East, I'm not sure if it's religion that's the cause or if it's just ancient tribal feuds or maybe pan-Arab nationalism. My guess is that it's probably some variation of nationalism which appears to be the cause of conflicts in the world.



Greed and a lust for power, I suppose. It doesn't seem to have any real "worldview" beyond "he who dies with the most toys wins." Just after WW2, the countries of the world got together and formed a United Nations and emphasized peace, human rights, and international cooperation. That was a positive worldview, and it was against that backdrop that nations and even companies conducted themselves.

Even when it came to war, our position was that we didn't like war, we didn't want to start any wars, and we had no designs on any extraterritorial expansion or annexation. Supposedly, we weren't out for plunder or booty, and we respected the independence and sovereignty of other nations. Our only purpose was to protect other nations or bring freedom to other people fighting against tyranny. At least, that's what a lot of politicians and many patriotic Americans have told us over the years.

As for the manufacturers, the people who make the weapons and munitions to carry out all this killing, they might say they're just fulfilling a need created by others and that "if they didn't do it, someone else would." Casino operators, drug dealers, and porn merchants probably use the same argument. They might make money from it, but they don't see themselves as the cause or creating the need in question.


Well, all the workers of the world could unite, overthrow their capitalist oppressors, and form a worldwide workers government and implement a socialist society of peace and love all around the world.

That would be my suggestion. Oh wait, you said "peaceful." There may not be any peaceful way of doing it.


I think it ultimately comes down to whoever holds the political power. Whoever built the machine is not so much an issue as to who controls the levers and switches. Scientists, as well as the weapons manufacturers, are citizens within whatever political jurisdiction they're living, and they're subject to the laws and edicts from whatever government they're subject to.

If we don't want factories that build weapons, we need only pass a law against them. If we don't want misuse of scientific and technological advances, then we can pass a law against that - and hope that the people obey such a law.

But whoever holds the political power holds the key. And for that reason, there are a lot of people competing with each other and vying for political power - and all too often, people are disinclined to play nice. Politics is a dirty business, and it is said that "war is the continuation of politics by other means."

I don't think we'll ever be able to do away with war, but perhaps there might be certain methods of war which can minimize civilian casualties and collateral damage. If there's a dispute between two governments, maybe they can have some sort "trial by combat" between two champions. Leave the innocents and the rest of the population out of it. I saw a movie where countries would have their champions inside these giant robots where they'd fight it out.

Also, war is not just a matter between countries, but it seems that in the future, wars won't happen much between established nations and governments as much as it will be a matter of governments at war with their own people. Sometimes it's class based, or sometimes it might be based in ethnic tensions or religious. Some governments are so incompetent or corrupt that the people revolt, and then they need to buy weapons to quell the disturbance. But some other weapons dealer might sell to the rebels, thinking that if they win, then they would have a friendly government in their debt. It depends on what resources are available in a country - or it might be in a strategic position.

An excellent post, especially on the last point. I wonder whether it is ever possible in a democracy to elect an honest and straight person. In my opinion, Obama might have been an exception, yet such a person would work under constraints.

 

[atanu]

It is more than a dream, as a Baha'i it is our life, trying to demonstrate to the world, that it is not only possible, that it is inevitable.

The Key is the oneness of humanity, one of the events to come is the disarmament of the nations.

Regards Tony

That is true. My teacher asks "To protect your feet do you wear shoes or do you pave the whole world?" I fully agree that the key is oneness -- and I add that the knowledge and certainty of oneness must begin with oneself.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I'm not sure I'm following. Looking at the last century of world conflict, I see political ideology, conservatively, at least as much to blame for those conflicts as religions, if not arguably far more so. I'm not sure what religion being allegedly from a divine source has to do with it. People can be just as dogmatic when it comes to their political ideology as they can with any religious doctrine...examples of that are legion. And as someone who spends an inordinate amount of time on a religious discussion and debate forum, I'd say pretty much everything in religion is up for discussion and debate. But the same can be said for politics. There are close-minded and open-minded people in both categories.

I know there are so many things that can cause division, and do, and religions are not necessarily the most prominent of these, but religion tends to be in a special category of belief in that there is no highest level to turn to for arbitration - since a religious belief deals with the most fundamental of issues, whether truthfully, factually, or not. Often a belief allows for no criticism, other than in certain prescribed ways, and where such is seen as particularly offensive (such as a cartoon) then it leads to the worse that could happen - the taking of lives.

So my criticism is not that religions have been so prominent as causes of conflict over so many others but the differences are inbuilt. Every new religion is a division within humanity rather than bringing us all together. The differences that exist anyway - language, national borders, culture, national ambition, etc., might cause conflicts, but reasonable debate often resolves such differences. Many religious beliefs are not so amenable to such resolution, especially if any feel their very foundation is under attack.

Of course most religious beliefs don't make it beyond cult status, but a handful have and presumably because the messages from such ring true for so many. But perhaps we could have had such without the attachment to a religion. We can't unfortunately rerun history to know this.

 

[atanu]

I'm not sure I'm following. Looking at the last century of world conflict, I see political ideology, conservatively, at least as much to blame for those conflicts as religions, if not arguably far more so. I'm not sure what religion being allegedly from a divine source has to do with it. People can be just as dogmatic when it comes to their political ideology as they can with any religious doctrine...examples of that are legion. And as someone who spends an inordinate amount of time on a religious discussion and debate forum, I'd say pretty much everything in religion is up for discussion and debate. But the same can be said for politics. There are close-minded and open-minded people in both categories.

I wrote the OP primarily for a few of my Indian friends who are indoctrinated with right-wing ideology on one side and burning hatred for the Muslims on the other. This is very disturbing but currently this the only opinion that works in India for most of 80% Hindu Indians. The powers that rule benefit by spreading two lies: that socialistic policies have been the bane for the economy of India and that the Muslims are blameworthy for violence all over the world and in India. Anyone daring to point the falsities of the leader will be shouted down by an army of trolls employed for this purpose. They create fake news, fake videos and spread the poison. People who oppose are dragged to court and in some cases liquidated. Essentially there is no counter to their narrative.

The common people of India seem not to ponder as to how India can live with a divided population, each hating the other.

So, I prepared this post documenting as to who the death merchants are. For me, there is no bias against American or European people, who I feel have been equally misled by false propaganda.

...

 

[Left Coast]

I know there are so many things that can cause division, and do, and religions are not necessarily the most prominent of these, but religion tends to be in a special category of belief in that there is no highest level to turn to for arbitration - since a religious belief deals with the most fundamental of issues, whether truthfully, factually, or not. Often a belief allows for no criticism, other than in certain prescribed ways, and where such is seen as particularly offensive (such as a cartoon) then it leads to the worse that could happen - the taking of lives.

So my criticism is not that religions have been so prominent as causes of conflict over so many others but the differences are inbuilt. Every new religion is a division within humanity rather than bringing us all together. The differences that exist anyway - language, national borders, culture, national ambition, etc., might cause conflicts, but reasonable debate often resolves such differences. Many religious beliefs are not so amenable to such resolution, especially if any feel their very foundation is under attack.

Of course most religious beliefs don't make it beyond cult status, but a handful have and presumably because the messages from such ring true for so many. But perhaps we could have had such without the attachment to a religion. We can't unfortunately rerun history to know this.

It's true that some religious beliefs allow for no criticism or debate to resolve issues. But many religious beliefs do. Don't let fundamentalism cloud your whole perception of all the expressions of religion out there. Progressive expressions of faith are not so close-minded.

Again, I see politics as much the same. Some people are completely dogmatic about their political beliefs and would enforce them all by law, with no allowance for political dissent. And every new political party or movement is a kind of division in humanity. But they can also be powerful vehicles for unifying people.

 

[Left Coast]

I wrote the OP primarily for a few of my Indian friends who are indoctrinated with right-wing ideology on one side and burning hatred for the Muslims on the other. This is very disturbing but currently this the only opinion that works in India for most of 80% Hindu Indians. The powers that rule benefit by spreading two lies: that socialistic policies have been the bane for the economy of India and that the Muslims are blameworthy for violence all over the world and in India. Anyone daring to point the falsities of the leader will be shouted down by an army of trolls employed for this purpose. They create fake news, fake videos and spread the poison. People who oppose are dragged to court and in some cases liquidated. Essentially there is no counter to their narrative.

The common people of India seem not to ponder as to how India can live with a divided population, each hating the other.

So, I prepared this post documenting as to who the death merchants are. For me, there is no bias against American or European people, who I feel have been equally misled by false propaganda.

...

Right-wing faux populism seems to be having the same effect everywhere it spreads.

 

[ecco]

The lyrics can be understood in different frames of reference. The no religion aspect to me, is that man made division is vanquished.

In the end when the song intent is realised, that is unity and peace, it will be faith in the oneness of our humanity that will enable it to happen and it will happen.

Regards Tony

The lyrics are very clear. Your attempt at changing what Lennon intended is ridiculous nonsense.

No Religion does not mean one big all-encompassing religion as much as you would like Bahai to meet that criterion.

 

[ecco]

It is more than a dream, as a Baha'i it is our life, trying to demonstrate to the world, that it is not only possible, that it is inevitable.

The Key is the oneness of humanity, one of the events to come is the disarmament of the nations.

Regards Tony

We currently have a pandemic that equally affects Republicans and Democrats. Do you see any unity?

There is not even unity within Bahai...

Baháʼí divisions - Wikipedia
The Baháʼí Faith has had challenges to its leadership, usually at the death of the head of the religion.[1][2] The vast majority of Baháʼís have followed a line of authority from Baháʼu'lláh to ʻAbdu'l-Bahá to Shoghi Effendi to the Custodians to the Universal House of Justice.[3][4] Sects diverging from this line of leadership have failed to attract a sizeable following.[5] In this sense, there is only one major branch of the Baháʼí Faith,[6] represented by at least 5 million adherents, whereas the groups that have broken away have either become extinct with time, or have remained very small in number, representing far less than 0.1% of all Baháʼís.[2][5][7] Globally the Baháʼí community has maintained its unity.[7]

Baháʼí scriptures define a Lesser Covenant regarding succession which is intended to keep the Baháʼís unified.[8] Claimants challenging the widely accepted successions of leadership are shunned by the majority group as Covenant-Breakers.[7]
​

Your dream is a fantasy.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The lyrics are very clear. Your attempt at changing what Lennon intended is ridiculous nonsense.

No Religion does not mean one big all-encompassing religion as much as you would like Bahai to meet that criterion.

It is good you can choose to speak for John and put your view to it as well.

What did John say it meant? I wonder what John thinks now?

I am positive he now knows, many sing that song with full unity in mind.

RegardsTony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Your dream is a fantasy.

Baha'u'llah's vision for a united humanity is a realisation that is all encompassing.

The foundations have been poured by the blood of tens of thousands of martyrs.

The building is being placed brick by brick, soon the building resources will multiply.

Regards Tony

 

[ecco]

It is good you can choose to speak for John and put your view to it as well.

What did John say it meant? I wonder what John thinks now?

I am positive he now knows, many sing that song with full unity in mind.

RegardsTony

That's funny. You mock me for allegedly speaking for Lennon and then you say you are positive about what he knows now that he is dead.

I based my comments on research. What did you base your comments on? Your knowledge of what heaven is like?


Currently, John knows nothing. John does not exist.

When he did exist ...

Imagine (John Lennon song) - Wikipedia

When asked about the song during one of his final interviews, Lennon said he considered it to be as strong a composition as any he had written with the Beatles.[11] He described the song's meaning and explicated its commercial appeal: "Anti-religious, anti-nationalistic, anti-conventional, anti-capitalistic, but because it is sugarcoated it is accepted ... Now I understand what you have to do. Put your political message across with a little honey."​