Disturbing Headlines

[dduckwessel]

Please explain your conception of "equality and justice for all"

 

I'm not the one pushing for a one world government!

 

I am all for advocating local government programs where the wealthy do not have 'tax shelters' thus reclaiming government from big business and equalizing the economy for everyone else.

 

What's your plan?

 

The UB is the best model because it is epochal revelation and provides the detailed analysis as well as the long term solution as well as the inevitable positive result to the problem.

 

Like I said...

[Deepwater6]

The more unrest there is in Arab the countries, the more China cracks down on government critics. If China is destined to be the next, and eventually only superpower we are going to be in trouble. China wants all the benefits of a superpower, but they don't act like one. OK China hates Japan and they didn't help with the tsunami I can understand that, but where has China been for the earthquakes in New Zealand, South America, Haiti, etc? When is the last time China helped any country with aid, resources or anything else except for North Korea.

 

China wants to be considered a superpower but doesn't want to live up to the responsibilities and only takes what it wants from being called a superpower. They want to manipulate their currency to help their own companies, they are buying or making deals with any country that has resources it's going to need, and they are holding most of the US debt.

 

Why is it we never hear from our media what China does for the greater good? Granted our media is biased and skewed and owned by a select few like Rupert Murdoch. Regardless when is the last time we saw China's navy delivering aid to a crisis? When is last time we saw a Chinese helicopter dropping off food or medical supplies to a disaster?

 

I think it is safe to assume that when China becomes the the only superpower the world is going to be a less hospitable planet. Like a quote I heard after 911 -

" after 911 the world got to see what the world would look like for a few days without America and nobody liked it"

 

 

 

 

 

 

The one world currency would just naturally be a product of a one world government!

 

Islam appears bent on filling the religion space (not so scary when tempered by democracy, but untempered by it...frightful!):

 

(quote from Wickipedia) According to Guinness World Records, which is a reliable unbiased source claims, “Islam is the world’s fastest-growing religion. In 1990, 935 million people were Muslims and this figure had escalated to around 1.2 billion by 2000, meaning that around one in five people follow Islam. Although the religion began in Arabia, by 2002 80% of all believers in Islam lived outside the Arab world. In the period 1990-2000, approximately 12.5 million MORE people CONVERTED to Islam than to Christianity” (Guinness World Records 2003, pg 102)

 

 

 

 

Yes but at what cost?

 

 

 

 

Sounds like utopian ideology but is it realistic and in this regard you show a naive understanding of the political mindset and the lure of power. Governments always begin well with a lot of promise and deteriorate from there as ruthless leaders decide they do not want to share power.

 

I'm all for balancing the worlds economy so that poverty is drastically reduced but a one world government seems reckless to me. It's too easy for something to go wrong.

 

 

 

Yes and the U.S. and Canada were democratic nations at one time but capitalism is driving the political wheels now. And its citizens only give a damn when it's too late.

 

 

 

I don't say that all of science is benevolent but the driving force behind much of science has often been to 'make things easier for humanity'. They try to remain impartial and make judgments based on evidence instead of conjecture. How can that negatively affect anything!!

 

Granted when science becomes political that's not good but handing over the reins carte-blanche to potential madmen is just not smart.

 

 

 

Just what government do you have in mind Majeston, the UB model?? If so then you are biased but the world needs an unbiased view, one not based on emotion but common sense where equality and justice for all prevails.

 

That was the principles on which democracy was founded in the U.S. and Canada until the large corporations took over America. Now it's a downhill slide. It seems the only alternative now is to consider a one world government but I fear we will just be opening a BIGGER can of worms.

[dduckwessel]

The more unrest there is in Arab the countries, the more China cracks down on government critics.

 

What does the unrest in Arab countries have to do with China's crackdowns on critics?

 

China wants to be considered a superpower but doesn't want to live up to the responsibilities and only takes what it wants from being called a superpower. They want to manipulate their currency to help their own companies, they are buying or making deals with any country that has resources it's going to need, and they are holding most of the US debt.

 

China has a lot of poverty. By sheer numbers China looks successful but Mao's scourge of repression took its toll and China was a backwards nation for a long time. It's only in recent history that China has started to rebuild and that will simply take time although they're catching up quickly.

[Deepwater6]

You're right it was not a very good way to explain what I was trying to say about the two being connected. Although in the computer age I suspect the uprisings in Arab countries have some relation to the anti-government cause in China. I did hear on NPR that China had put a lot of artists, public activists, etc. in jail just in last few weeks. I suspect that the powers that be in China are trying to cut off any type of uprisings before it starts. I think the events in Arab countries are making the Chinese government very nervous. They don't want another Tienaman square on their hands.

[dduckwessel]

Although in the computer age I suspect the uprisings in Arab countries have some relation to the anti-government cause in China.

 

Both social medias, Facebook and Twitter, were instrumental in the recent Arab and China revolts:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/25/twitter-facebook-uprisings-arab-libya

 

I did hear on NPR that China had put a lot of artists, public activists, etc. in jail just in last few weeks.

 

And that's what I don't like about China, and one of the reasons why I'm so concerned because they're repressive. If they corner the market on science, what next?

 

I could definitely see China's nationalism as a future problem. Perhaps world leaders also foresee this and that a one-world government would completely diffuse any nationalism, thus averting control of the world by one nation.

 

A one-world government would alleviate some problems but create others. Did you happen to see the second Jurassic Park, The Lost World? In one clip everyone is oohhing and aahhing about the magnificent dinosaurs, and the character of Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) quips back:

 

"Oohh, Aahh, that's how all of this starts, but then later there's the running and screaming"

 

It seems to me that we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't.

[dduckwessel]

Here's an excellent link on this topic I found on a different thread:

http://civilization-overview.com/

 

I presume the book is speaking about a new world order! Trouble is it makes so darned much sense and much of it I agree with. How can one argue against such logic?

 

However, history reveals a different picture as civilizations always tend to decline.

 

I feel like a little kid standing at the edge of a swimming pool, hands poised for a dive but too scared to jump in. I must admit that something has to change and as much as I am wary, I am a realist and a new world order seems imminent in the (it seems) not too distant future.

 

As social media (like Twitter and Facebook) had a hand in the Arab and China revolts, no doubt they will play a large part in convincing the masses of the attractions and benefits of a new world order: no more need for visa's or passports. At no time in history has the world been connected like it is now. We are ripe for change.

 

The difficulty is that once begun there is no going back.

[dduckwessel]

Here's another disturbing headline:

 

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/laurilebo/4483/anti-science_bill_passes_tennessee_house__/?comments=view&cID=17418#c17418

[Maine farmer]

The religions I'm concerned with are the extremism ones. They do not respond to evidence or logic or even self-protection (suicide bombers, martyrs). People who've never been involved in religion may not truly understand what a formidable opponent it can sometimes be. They may try to converse with an extremist religious person but in the end, shake their heads and walk away. It's going to take something BIG to shake those people out of their supposed utopia.

 

I for one am all for religions demise but then there's the practical people who bring up a really good point. If religion is gone, who's going to take care of officiating weddings and funerals (comforting the bereaved) and the other spiritual comforts? It would leave a huge void and how would society fill it?

 

Is it selfish of me to want religion gone when it's such a comfort to so many others? Just because I feel a certain way, isn't that narcissistic? Granted I certainly would like to see religious extremism gone, but just to be devil's advocate (yes I do mean it literally because religion is not God's idea), is religious moderation really so bad?

Yes, religious extremism is very frightening, and many have used religion to justify horrible actions, but the very concept of American liberty is rooted in the Bible, and we have much to be thankful for in that regard. We are born with our rights granted us by a power higher than the government. We would not likely have had the civil rights movement without religion. I know many people take offense at others religious beliefs, but it is important to remember that in America, we are supposed to have freedom of religion, but are not granted freedom FROM religion. If we eliminate religious freedom, we will be throwing out the good, but I don't think we will eliminate the bad. People with evil intent will always find justifications for their actions. I think we all have narcissistic tendancies, but if you were a complete narcissist, you would not be concerned with weather or not you were narcissistic.

[Deepwater6]

I would agree with you Polymath a one world government would not have to be a one party system. On the other hand can you imagine the logistics fiasco involved on a global vote? Also if candidates were running from everywhere on the planet I would think China would always get their candidate in because of the sheer volume of their population. Unless there were some kind of redistricting of nations which would be another fiasco.

 

 

 

 

 

I guess the only constant in this world is change. I believe that the new world order some promote will give each country a specific role in that order. For some it may be their finaincial services, for others it may be technology. For the USA however it seem's to be the military. As someone once said, "No the USA is not the policeman of the world, but when somebody needs a cop who do they call"?

 

 

Why would a world government have to be a 'one party' government?

[dduckwessel]

Yes, religious extremism is very frightening, and many have used religion to justify horrible actions, but the very concept of American liberty is rooted in the Bible, and we have much to be thankful for in that regard. We are born with our rights granted us by a power higher than the government. We would not likely have had the civil rights movement without religion.

 

True but unfortunately today's Christian Fundamentalism is not the religion of the civil rights movement. They teach love and unity but that means follow blindly along telling your leaders how great they are until the Pastor runs off with his secretary (seen it happen!). It's a political hierarchy, all of the big religions are.

 

If we eliminate religious freedom, we will be throwing out the good, but I don't think we will eliminate the bad. People with evil intent will always find justifications for their actions.

 

We cannot have a democracy without religious freedom. However, when you have reasonably intelligent people believing hokum it actually lowers IQ, which creates bad.

 

Religious thought used to be more philosophical now it's just dogmatic. The prosperity gospel teaches that nothing bad can happen to the true child of God. God help you if something bad happens to you or a member of your family. They'll feel sorry for you at first and then behind your back they'll whisper that 'you or your loved ones must have done something wrong to incur God's wrath' (seen it happen many times to different people!). Women spend hours 'pleading the blood' over their family so that nothing untoward happens - not realizing they just as well might carry a talisman around their necks (actually most do, the cross).

 

Then there's the 'give joyfully to God' (which really means to the church). The newest craze, tithing (Lev. 27:30, give a tenth of your income, off the top, to God, again which really means 'the church'), has caught on really well because it ensures the head Pastor doesn't have to keep reminding people to give and the collection plate is always filled up. Talk about narcissistic - when people give it's because they believe 'God will give abundantly back to them'. Even still the Pastor always has to remind people to give sacrificially (till it hurts) all the while telling people 'you can't out-give God', and 'whatever you give, God will multiply it back to you one-hundred-fold' but most of the people are poor. Everyone's waiting for God to 'open the floodgates' but it never comes. The rich sit complacently in their pews thinking they must really be something for God to bless them so, and the poor sit there wondering about how and when God's going to bring their windfall.

 

It's a sham. Unfortunately such teachings really take hold where the people are very poor:

 

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/antheabutler/4492/american_prosperity_gospel_makes_south_sudan_

[Maine farmer]

True but unfortunately today's Christian Fundamentalism is not the religion of the civil rights movement. They teach love and unity but that means follow blindly along telling your leaders how great they are until the Pastor runs off with his secretary (seen it happen!). It's a political hierarchy, all of the big religions are.

 

 

 

We cannot have a democracy without religious freedom. However, when you have reasonably intelligent people believing hokum it actually lowers IQ, which creates bad.

 

Religious thought used to be more philosophical now it's just dogmatic. The prosperity gospel teaches that nothing bad can happen to the true child of God. God help you if something bad happens to you or a member of your family. They'll feel sorry for you at first and then behind your back they'll whisper that 'you or your loved ones must have done something wrong to incur God's wrath' (seen it happen many times to different people!). Women spend hours 'pleading the blood' over their family so that nothing untoward happens - not realizing they just as well might carry a talisman around their necks (actually most do, the cross).

I do understand where you come from, and I myself am not one to sit in a church or participate in organized religion for many of the reasons you mention. The way organized religions are set up, they become all about power all too often, which is why the Roman Catholic Church put people to death in mideaval times for translating the bible into common language. (PBS recently aired a program about this topic) I personally tend not to believe in too literal an interpretation of the Bible, especially considering how many times it has been translated. It is when we are not able to study the writings for ourselves and come to our own understanding that our ignorance can be exploited. It happens too frequently. As for "hokum", well, there is much we will never comprehend in our ultimate insignificance. As scientists learn more, they often find more questions than answers, and established facts have come to be disproven. My mother was taught in school that the atom could not be split.

Then there's the 'give joyfully to God' (which really means to the church). The newest craze, tithing (Lev. 27:30, give a tenth of your income, off the top, to God, again which really means 'the church'), has caught on really well because it ensures the head Pastor doesn't have to keep reminding people to give and the collection plate is always filled up. Talk about narcissistic - when people give it's because they believe 'God will give abundantly back to them'. Even still the Pastor always has to remind people to give sacrificially (till it hurts) all the while telling people 'you can't out-give God', and 'whatever you give, God will multiply it back to you one-hundred-fold' but most of the people are poor. Everyone's waiting for God to 'open the floodgates' but it never comes. The rich sit complacently in their pews thinking they must really be something for God to bless them so, and the poor sit there wondering about how and when God's going to bring their windfall.

 

It's a sham. Unfortunately such teachings really take hold where the people are very poor:

 

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/antheabutler/4492/american_prosperity_gospel_makes_south_sudan_

[dduckwessel]

Farming Guy,

 

I do understand where you come from, and I myself am not one to sit in a church or participate in organized religion for many of the reasons you mention. The way organized religions are set up, they become all about power all too often, which is why the Roman Catholic Church put people to death in mideaval times for translating the bible into common language. (PBS recently aired a program about this topic) I personally tend not to believe in too literal an interpretation of the Bible, especially considering how many times it has been translated.

 

How much is too literal of an interpretation? Why would you even give credence to something you couldn't nail down to a specific meaning?

 

It is when we are not able to study the writings for ourselves and come to our own understanding that our ignorance can be exploited.

 

Don't you think this is the whole problem? Everyone is arriving at their own understanding, creating their own dogmas and theologies. Don't you think that God is big enough to clarify the meanings so there is no confusion? We need to know what the writings mean from 'Gods perspective' - exactly what he meant to say. This is not something we can guess about, it's just too important. If we're going to say 'God said' we very well better know what he said.

 

As for "hokum", well, there is much we will never comprehend in our ultimate insignificance.

 

We're capable of comprehending quite a bit: look what we already know and our knowledge is always growing. An example of real scientific progress are robots that 'look and talk like real humans':

 

http://www.google.ca/#q=robot+looks+human&hl=en&biw=994&bih=645&prmd=ivnsu&source=univ&tbm=vid&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=oaCoTY-0HYuusAO967n6DA&ved=0CE0QqwQ&fp=53f12566189b2308

http://news.yahoo.com/video/tech-15749651/human-robot-22448736

 

The problem with religion is when it can't explain something, it uses that cop-out phrase: 'it's just too big for our finite minds to comprehend'.

 

As scientists learn more, they often find more questions than answers, and established facts have come to be disproven. My mother was taught in school that the atom could not be split.

 

You appear to be saying two opposing things: (1) established facts have come to be disproven (2) science was proven correct (they did split the atom) - and didn't your mother's instructors get a surprise!!

[Maine farmer]

Okay, this is straying a bit from your original post, but I'll make one last post regarding religion and god here. How boring would it be if there was a God who revealed himself clearly to us in no uncertain terms? I believe we are here to learn for ourselves, and I interpret the Bible for myself in allegorical terms. For example, I feel that "God" could never have intended for us to live forever in Eden any more than any parent intends to keep their kids in their homes forever. The only problem with our interpreting the bible for ourselves comes when we try to force others to believe as we do. We face the same peril if we try to force disbelief. Force is often counter-productive. As one who cherishes liberty, I would defend anyone's right to their beliefs.

[dduckwessel]

How boring would it be if there was a God who revealed himself clearly to us in no uncertain terms?

 

You mean it would be boring if we could most definitely say 'God said this' and 'God said that'?

 

It would stop a lot of fighting.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you've quoted the Bible at various times on this forum, why would you quote from something if you didn't think it was right?

 

I believe we are here to learn for ourselves, and I interpret the Bible for myself in allegorical terms.

 

I already said it was allegorical and showed examples for it. Can I ask then what method you use?

 

For example, I feel that "God" could never have intended for us to live forever in Eden any more than any parent intends to keep their kids in their homes forever.

 

Dying and the spirit ascending to Eden is considerably different from kids staying at home all their lives!!

 

So what do you think happens after death?

 

So The only problem with our interpreting the bible for ourselves comes when we try to force others to believe as we do.

 

I answered this on the theology forum.

[Donk]

Going back to the OP, I believe it's partly about birthrate.

 

When you have a large family, unless you have a very large income you won't be able to give them all a good education. The Chinese "one child" policy has been running for over thirty years now. Is it surprising that the children of that policy have had a lot of care & attention lavished on them by their parents? Or that they have a considerable drive to succeed in whatever they do?

[Maine farmer]

Thank you, Donk, for bringing us back to the original topic. No doubt the Chinese have tremendous drive to succeed. Also, we in America, and I believe other developed Western nations, have gotten too fat and comfortable. We have come to believe we are entitled to our nice, easy lives, and have forgotten how to work. I know another farmer who was trying to get his crops harvested with local workers, but as the years went by, the workers became harder to find and less reliable. He now depends on migrant workers while locals complain of not being able to find a job!

[Deepwater6]

The problem I have with the Bible is that religions change and evolve in different ways. I don't think anyone of this age fully understands what Bible writers were trying to send. Religion continues to change and has been altered in my life time alone, so in 2000 yrs I'm sure we don't look at Yah-weh the same way they did. Religion is still changing today, for example the Catholic church has reversed many things which were conerstones in their religion. in an effort to attract and maintain worshippers. and priests. The Catholic church is starting to loosen up from their strict resolve toward God. The church has come out and changed their view on other worlds with other inhabitants. They have changed their fasting practices, and changed the way we observe the sabbath. They sometimes have been forced to change for example, the sexual abuse scandal that has erupted. This crime went unchecked for hundreds of years before people said enough, because saying something went against God in the churches view.

 

The longer we go without a miracle the more we move away from God and form religions our prolific Pastor's and priest tell us to. The strict resolve we have drifted from could be reset if God were to come down and part the Pacific ocean or feed all of Africa bread out of nothing. The Christian church I used to attend went through different and costly change in attendance. when the elders of the church agreed to start playing modern Christian music during worship. Many of the "old timers" decided to leave because they didn't sing the low and depressing songs anymore. With electric guitars and amplifiers the older worshippers thought their God wouldn't approve of the more upbeat and appealing Christian songs. My point is if things have changed so much during our lifetime, how much has it changed since monotheism started, and how has the translation of the Bible changed?

 

None the less the ancient words give us a fascinatiing and rare look at our beginning. Jesus, Muhammad, and other prominent figures could have been messagers from God or they could have been the rage of their era. Maybe the Beatles or Elvis of their day.

 

Deepwater

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You mean it would be boring if we could most definitely say 'God said this' and 'God said that'?

 

It would stop a lot of fighting.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you've quoted the Bible at various times on this forum, why would you quote from something if you didn't think it was right?

 

 

 

I already said it was allegorical and showed examples for it. Can I ask then what method you use?

 

 

 

Dying and the spirit ascending to Eden is considerably different from kids staying at home all their lives!!

 

So what do you think happens after death?

 

 

 

I answered this on the theology forum.