clapstyx Posted March 30, 2007 Report Share Posted March 30, 2007 I was wondering if anyone in the forum was aware of any individual on the planet that was attempting to unite all people and nations..well ...because...to put it simply I would like to unite with them. Now I dont know if there is such a person out there so I am trying to work this out backwards from what their strategy might theoretically be for achieving that. For me I think I would be more inclined to unite on the basis of a positive goal that requires unity rather than a negative one simply because of the mindset dynamics that would be in play. For that matter I dont think "Saving the Planet" for instance will work because there is so much arguing about whether it needs any effort on that front or not and then to what degree. So I am going to take a gamble and choose from the other angle and presume that to create unity you would need a positive path headed in some commonly favourable direction. If that person is you and you are now reading this then we are at least thinking along similar conceptual lines so I will aim for perfect harmony and I hope you are with me on that. If you and I are happy to pursue perfect harmony with a goal that is commonly beneficial to us both and to everybody else that seeks to unite the world in a positive pursuit then I will take it a step further. For me it needs to be in tune with an ultimate that if achieved I would have no reason to have regrets when it is achieved...and something that I cant ever imagine myself changing my mind on so that that common goal stays relevent. Is that making sense? OK so I am going to suggest a universal goal that I hope is perefect enough to unite the world for I am able to imagine myself being satisfied with this one. But..and this is important..I am not claiming ownership of it because ultimately we must have an equal sens of entitlement to its creation. Lets just say it was a made up person by the name of David Clastraphyx who was a misconception vaguely remembered and barely forgotten in the annals of pre-history or something and the idea was scratched on a cave wall. So the goal suggested by Him was "to exist within a divine reality". Now would any other person on the planet agree to use that as one of their ultimate goals and keep that consciously in mind and in perfect harmony with their other goals? Thats the question I have for the person out there who is trying to unite the planet. That is of course if that person with that goal exists at all. Now maybe that person has another strategy in mind and I would be quite happy to hear it. If we can unite our imaginations to imagine what might be required obviously the sense and probability of that goal being achieved should incrementally compound because with each perfection more people should logically agree and be in tune. Now if there were 5 things that lead a person to think "Yes well I would like to achieve this" and they were not contradictory to each other and helped fulfil whatever that singular overall objective was ... and did not eliminate the support of any pre-existing "members" then the concept should be in a position to organically grow. Beacuse then we can imagine collectively how to raise the standard of the ultimate goal of mankind to such a point where we have 100% support for that pursuit. As I see it even the Pope would find it illogical not to support the goal of "to exist within a divine reality" so that would mean we should automatically have all of the Catholics. Mohammed was a virtuous man and I am sure that he would have no great disagreement. The Dalai Lama I dont think would take too much issue. George W Bush would probably struggle to make a negative argument, The Queen surely couldnt be against the concept because no doubt she would claim some sense of monarchy over the bringing of it to fruition. That gets us past the conceptual 50% of the population needing then only the Jewish Community and I am sure they have plenty of other things to grizzle about without including this, and of course China who perhaps dont acknowledge the concept of divinity but we might define it as the ultimate state of simbiotic harmony including the element of love so that they may get a handle on the expression we are aiming to create. One point of common agreeance is all we need for global harmony to be expressed for the first time. After that it will be easy because we will have broken the conceptual barrier and created the super structure for its creation into different forms. A positive post first off would be nice :doh::eek2: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaurieAG Posted March 31, 2007 Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 I was wondering if anyone in the forum was aware of any individual on the planet that was attempting to unite all people and nations..well ...because...to put it simply I would like to unite with them. Hello clapstyx, There are many people around the world who share your concerns and exhibit your hope for the true unity of humanity. Getting there without one uniting factor (that could be subverted by political considerations) is another thing. Whatever the solution is it must be above all religions (but common to all), something like an external threat to the world (not 'terrorism' but more like 'terra-ism) posed by space rocks or the like (global warning etc) which will force the people of the world to unite to fight a common foe intent on destroying us all. If you read Homers 'Iliad', 'the Odyssey', the Koran and the old testament (to mention a few) they all refer to firey messengers/punishments from 'god' or the 'gods'. Comets have been regarded as omens of death from cultures extending from ancient mesopotamia to the Australian Aboriginals. Even Julius Caesar reported that the Celts were more afraid of the sky falling in than they were of his roman legions. The answer to humanities future is in our past. Learn as much as you can about human history, with an open mind, and you will be able to contribute to the present and the future of humanity in a positive way, as much as any individual or group of individuals can. This world needs more intelligent and human humans, regardless of our mutual hopes and common fate. Regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InternationalSpaceAgency Posted April 16, 2007 Report Share Posted April 16, 2007 Your concers are real and so are the many pit falls. Those who control the peoples of the world due not want such positive interactions, as it unifies people and take power away from those who hold the power. Human cooperation must happen off Earth, in space, were it can have a chance to develop out side the power blocks and secret societies of our present Earth. Otherwise, this will never happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted April 16, 2007 Report Share Posted April 16, 2007 Expanding economic interests might very well achieve it. If you think about it, would the unification of the US, the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand be an earth-shattering event for individuals living in those states? Sure - animosity exist between US citizens and Canadians, for instance, or between Australians and Brits, but so too does internal animosity exist in the US. For someone living in New York, a person from Montana is the butt of their jokes, and everybody from Louisiana are hillbillies and rednecks. Obviously, I'm exaggerating, but you get the idea; countries aren't even internally homogenous, so why would the merger of countries with aligned economic policies and comparable per capita GDP be such a train-smash? Same thing happening in Europe, with the footprint of the economic zone becoming larger as more countries join in this mutually beneficial union. You'll always have people trying to seccede from the Union, but you already have seperatist movements in most countries - Quebec comes to mind in Canada, the Scottish Independence movement in the UK. So, whether countries merge or not, the seperatist dynamics already exist in the current setup. I think that in the next 100 years, we'll probably see a united North America, a bigger and stronger Europe, and the East having a single currency as their economies become more aligned and China's centrist policies make way for a more dynamic system. Also in Africa, the intention was made clear for the Southern States to adopt a single currency by 2020. Whether it'll happen is anybody's guess, but the mere fact that this was stated, makes the intention clear of political evolution in Southern Africa. We might end up with 5 or 6 World Currencies by 2100, and that will inevitably result in closer and tighter political union. Smaller countries will have a big incentive to join those currency unions, because as history showed us, those that stay outside, are left in the cold, economically speaking. I agree fully with you. I'd support such a movement any day. And also, advanced communication makes the issue rather moot, already. I spend 90% of my working day communicating with people not sharing my history or physical borders on all levels - professionally and private, and also for entertainment. People such as yourself, in forums such as these, make up most of my interaction with other people. The fact that we're not from or in the same country, never even came up as a reason why not to interact. So why would political and economic union be such a big deal, a few years down the line, if communication increases as it's currently doing? DougF 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles brough Posted April 25, 2007 Report Share Posted April 25, 2007 Clapstyks wrote:""I was wondering if anyone in the forum was aware of any individual on the planet that was attempting to unite all people and nations..well ...because...to put it simply I would like to unite with them."" Never in human history, I think, have so many people acquired the desire for all people to unite. Before, societies were scattered and no one could even imagine a united world. Now, it is not only possible but a dire necessity! We are increasingly at risk until we do! What we need is a new world-view and way of thinking which, as Clapstyk so astutely observed, needs to provide a common goal or set of goals. We need to have goals in place of the old “purpose” which the old religions provided (and which were just goals that “the gods” were supposed to have for us). We have “free will” and by figuring out what we need, develop our own goals and they will then provide our own “purpose.” But there are other answers this now world-view needs. One is a common origin to us all, not one that we, as a Semitic tribe, were “created” but, of course, an evolutionary origin. Another answer this world-view needs is how to achieve the goals. That is the needed new moral system---not the some six hundred obsolete Biblical injunctions! The last one is “what stands in our way.” It would not be “the devil” or “the capitalists” but superstition, obsolete doctrines, and destructive “isms.” I see the future for just such a system and a rather dismal future if we fail to ever get it. In my web-page I am working on the subject and anyone is invited to have a look. . . charles, HOME PAGE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clapstyx Posted July 23, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2007 Is aware of the concept of symbiotoxiclisation..because I would like to know if the matter is already in hand. Get back to me ASAP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles brough Posted July 23, 2007 Report Share Posted July 23, 2007 Is aware of the concept of symbiotoxiclisation..because I would like to know if the matter is already in hand. Get back to me ASAP I hope you did not come up with that 19 letter word just to impress me! If you do like to impress me, please explain what it means and what you mean when you use it! I do like to be impressed, but such words are only great for use in academic doubletalk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nasgul Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Mohammed was a virtuous man and I am sure that he would have no great disagreement.This apparently natural remark seems a bit exceeded in my opinion. Not to sabotage any Islamic purists, but I have read many books on the subject and can fairly state that Mohammed (or Muhammad) was not as peaceful as many people would think. Unfortunately, as we have also experienced with the Christian faith, religion doesn't necessarily always focus on peace, especially not in conjunction with other religions. In his life, Mohammed organized none less than 86 'expeditions' against infidels who didn't follow his 'new way'. He organized mass murder, in the name of god. In Nakhla, end of January 623 AD, during the 'holy month' of islam (Rejeb), four tradesmen from Mohammed's tribe were murdered. At the well of Badr, in March of the same year (Ramadan that year), 70 tradesmen were killed and eventually also the army of Quraysh (local authority of that time) who came to protect its citizens. Still in the same month, the two most famous poets of Medina, who criticized Mohammed's ways, were put to death. Jews, too, suffered greatly from his rise. At the siege of Banu Qaynuqa a month later, 900(!) men of the Jewish tribe were killed mercilessly and their possessions stolen, while women and children were sold as slaves. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea. I would also post some links as a reference, but am not permitted to do so according to the forum rules, as not having posted 10 messages yet. Please don't see this as an attack on the Islamic people. I'm sure there are a very many Muslims who love peace and would applaud your wonderful idea. Still, I don't think historic facts should be neglected. It is not because someone is called a prophet and heads a religious movement, that he/she is automatically inclined towards peace. Peace,nasgul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Not to sabotage any Islamic purists, but I have read many books on the subject and can fairly state that Mohammed (or Muhammad) was not as peaceful as many people would think.Certainly the Prophet Mohammad was not exactly a pacifist the way Jesus Christ was. His doctrine of Jihad contemplated and explicitly discussed the use of weapons, against those things that he perceived as injustices. These included speculative trade and lending money at interest, which he considered an unjust exploitation of people's needs. The Jewish traders and moneylenders in particular had always been rivals, not to say enemies, of the Arabic ones; he considered them all dishonest. This part of his doctrine might be paralleled with things like the story of Robin Hood or the Marx-Engels proletarian expropriation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nasgul Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 I'd doubt to put a comparison between Jewish traders in ancient Arabia and the folktale of Robin Hood. Jews (and Christians for that matter) were graded as dhymmies (second-rated citizens) among the local Arab population, who had to pay extra taxes and were considered as 'less'. Maybe you're trying to say he was jealous, and exploiting his new-found religion for his 'economic needs'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted July 28, 2007 Report Share Posted July 28, 2007 Uhm, I'm not so sure you understood. Maybe I wrote in in a hurry and didn't even want to be more prolix, but the comparison wasn't between "Jewish traders in ancient Arabia" and the other two things. I did say that Jews and Arabs have long been in antagonism due to trade rivalry. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles brough Posted July 28, 2007 Report Share Posted July 28, 2007 I might add to this discussion that most Muslims are not Arabs. Probably about one third are Indonesian, Indian and Malaysian. Another third are Berbers, Egyptians and Persians. That leaves the Arabs a minority. The nation with the largest number of Muslims is Indonesia. Their women do not wear the veil there and they do no impose extra taxes on Christians. It is of note, however, that I could never have lived there (3 years) if I had admitted to being an atheist! I had to tell them I was a Christian, and I actually am. I follow most of the 10 commandments, the Christian Ethic, the Christian callender, observe its holidays, its marital system and identify with the civilization it built. I even call out to Christ when I feel frustration or hurt myself. . . ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nasgul Posted July 28, 2007 Report Share Posted July 28, 2007 Thanks for the addition. Your information is very true.Of course, the taxes I mentioned that were imposed on Christians and Jews don't take place today anymore, but did so until a few centuries ago. Glad to hear you enjoy your faith. I must say, although Indonesia has a majority of Sunni 'moderates', they still have fundamentalist groups residing in their country, such as the Majelis Mujahiden and the infamous Jamaah Islamiyah. Also the political party Partai Keadilan Sejahtera is considered quite anti-Western and anti-Semitic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigD Posted July 29, 2007 Report Share Posted July 29, 2007 [Mohammad’s] doctrine of Jihad contemplated and explicitly discussed the use of weapons, against those things that he perceived as injustices. These included speculative trade and lending money at interest, which he considered an unjust exploitation of people's needs. The Jewish traders and moneylenders in particular had always been rivals, not to say enemies, of the Arabic ones; he considered them all dishonest.Mentions of business rivalry between Muslim and non-Muslims bring to my mind a conversation I had on the subject of usury with an Egyptian-born Muslim coworker and friend. According to him, a fundamental and profound difference exists between the Muslim concept of investment and lending and that of other cultures, including Jewish and present-day Christian. In most modern business cultures, a loan is a contract in which a lendee agrees to repay the lender more than the amount lent. Although a prudent lender carefully considers what the lendee intends to do to be able to fulfill this contract, in general he is unconcerned how the lendee manages to do it. The lendee being barely successful enough in a venture to repay the loan, or being very successful and easily repaying it, has no impact on the amount repaid. If the lendee is unable to repay the loan, regardless of reason, he must suffer a penalty as specified by the contract and common law, such as forfeiting property put up as collateral, or even jail. In a Muslim business culture, a lender is more of what we would call an investor than a traditional lender. If the lendee is very successful, their contract will usually call for the lender to be repaid a greater amount than if the lendee is only slightly successful – and often to be paid for as long as the lendee’s venture continues to be successful. If, however, the venture fails, the lendee is not subject to continuing dept or penalty. Lender and lendee are seen as having shared risk, and both lost as a result of the venture’s failure. My friend has lived in the US and had little experience with business outside of them since his mid teens, so his explanations may be somewhat inaccurate and out-of-date. Interestingly, this business practice appears to me to resemble the prohibition against profit-making lending prohibited in Europe through the 16th century by the Roman Catholic church as a commission of the sin of usury, a prohibition that had at earlier times been enforced by Jewish relegious authorities. History notes that medieval Christians circumvented the prohibition via a sort of loophole procedure known as the contractum trinius, or by borrowing from Jewish moneylenders and arguing somehow that only the Jewish participant in the business transaction was sinning. Known in Islamic law (Sharia) as riba, lending money for interest is in principle prohibited to present day Muslims, though, according to the contractum trinius wikipedia article linked above, some believe that the riba prohibition is being circumvented by modern Islamic banking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nasgul Posted July 29, 2007 Report Share Posted July 29, 2007 According to the Jewish religion, usury is indeed a sin and is called ribbis in Hebrew (probable origin of the Arabic word).However, if this is the concept of one's business (e.g. banking) , than it is permitted. CraigD 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Thanks for the addition. Your information is very true.Yes, very true, only not pertinent to a reply to your post about battles led by Muhammed, during his lifetime and in Arabia, against other Arabs and also Jews. In a Muslim business culture, a lender is more of what we would call an investor than a traditional lender. If the lendee is very successful, their contract will usually call for the lender to be repaid a greater amount than if the lendee is only slightly successful – and often to be paid for as long as the lendee’s venture continues to be successful. If, however, the venture fails, the lendee is not subject to continuing dept or penalty. Lender and lendee are seen as having shared risk, and both lost as a result of the venture’s failure.This simply boils down to it not being lending at all, but instead participation in capital venture. Of course what Islam is against is not the lending but doing it for interest. (probable origin of the Arabic word)More probably common roots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles brough Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Thanks for the addition. Your information is very true.Of course, the taxes I mentioned that were imposed on Christians and Jews don't take place today anymore, but did so until a few centuries ago. Glad to hear you enjoy your faith. I must say, although Indonesia has a majority of Sunni 'moderates', they still have fundamentalist groups residing in their country, such as the Majelis Mujahiden and the infamous Jamaah Islamiyah. Also the political party Partai Keadilan Sejahtera is considered quite anti-Western and anti-Semitic. I don't have any faith, but thanks anyway! One of the Indonesian political parties you mention above might be the one I had a dramatic experience with! I was driven to work by our driver and two other Western guests were with us including my wife. Around the corner ahead came a political election convoy demonstration. It was a stream of stake trucks packed with young men in green clothes, many without shirts. They were even packed on the roof of the trucks. The men were waving huge green flags. Also, there was a train of motorcycles each with from two to four men on it and with the big flags. The convoy was going slowly and as they rode by, they all gunned their engines to make the sound of a drum roll. It was unimaginably intimidating. I was not afraid at all because I knew I could "talk" to them if they stopped. But the other Westerners were almost in shock, including my wife. No one would talk about it later, but I noticed that the newly arrived fellow Westerner decided not to accept his job and went back to the States a few days later! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.