How do we solve global conflict ?

[judasmachine]

silly children, you obviously solve global conflict with superior firepower.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: casuality
This is a question that i personally sent to the owner of stevepavlina.com ( A pretty famous personal development website ) . Thought maybe some of you would be interested to read . How to solve global conflict .

Very interesting indeed. He is right. You solve global conflict, as much as it can be solved, by transcending your own violence. The big question is how to do that.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Jesus said much the same long time ago(not an attempt to proselytize(sp)). Not a new idea at all, but an oft overlooked one. Strangely these ideas should already be the norm, but we humans suck and have to always mold good ideas to our own Will, Good or Bad.

I'm not sure where Islam stands on the issue of Forgiveness/Justice/when/where/how, but at the base:

1) Judaism believes in Eye-for-an-eye. Pretty much what's going on now. Hasn't solved anything.

2) Christianity believes in Forgiveness, but you'd be hardpressed to find any amongst it's self-proclaimed followers. IMO, Christians should rip the Old Testament right out of their Bibles, it has unduly influenced them to follow foolishness. Make the Old Testament a separate book that can be used as a reference for the few issues where it is brought up in the New Testament. Why stop there though, make the New Testament the 4 Gospels only. If you are going to follow Jesus, why do you need anything other than his very words?

3) Islam, like I said I haven't a clue, but suspect it is one of the above or some variation on them.

Buddhism?

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: casuality
This is a question that i personally sent to the owner of stevepavlina.com ( A pretty famous personal development website ) . Thought maybe some of you would be interested to read . How to solve global conflict .

Very interesting indeed. He is right. You solve global conflict, as much as it can be solved, by transcending your own violence. The big question is how to do that.

The problem with the article, I find, relates to the forgiveness of attacks. That's fine and all, but when the attacks relentlessly continue to come after you've forgiven the first dozen or so, then such a solution only avails in your annihilation.

 

[lyssword]

"Those that the Muslims killed were not really killed by them. It was Allah who did the killing. 8:17"
wow.. just wow

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: replicator

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

3) Islam, like I said I haven't a clue, but suspect it is one of the above or some variation on them.

# Don't bother to warn the disbelievers. Allah has blinded them. Theirs will be an awful doom. 2:6

# Allah has sickened their hearts. A painful doom is theirs because they lie. 2:10

# A fire has been prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones. 2:24

# Disbelievers will be burned with fire. 2:39, 90

# For disbelievers is a painful doom. 2:104

# For unbelievers: ignominy in this world, an awful doom in the next. 2:114

# Allah will leave the disbelievers alone for a while, but then he will compel them to the doom of Fire. 2:126

# The doom of the disbelievers will not be lightened. 2:162

# They will not emerge from the Fire. 2:167

# Those who hide the Scripture will have their bellies eaten with fire. Theirs will be a painful doom. 2:174

# How constant are they in their strife to reach the Fire! 2:175

# "Fight in the way of Allah." 2:190, 2:244

# Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2

# War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216

# Those who die in their disbelief will burn forever in the Fire. 2:217

# Disbelievers worship false gods. The will burn forever in the Fire. 2:257

# Those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a heavy doom. 3:4

# Those who disbelieve will be fuel for the Fire. 3:10

# Those who disbelieve shall be overcome and gathered unto Hell. 3:12

# Those who disbelieve, promise them a painful doom. 3:21

# Theirs will be a painful doom. 3:77

# All non-Muslims will be rejected by Allah after they die. 3:85

# Disbelievers will be cursed by Allah, angels, and men. They will have a painful doom. 3:87-88

# Disbelievers will have a painful doom. And they will have no helpers. 3:91

# Disbelievers will have their faces blackened on the last day. They will face an awful doom. 3:105-6

# Those who disbelieve will be burnt in the Fire. 3:116

.....

there are 300+ more lines but i'll spare you the copy paste page flood.
rest here
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/Quran/cruelty/long.html

Doing a quick google search on violent quotes from the Christian bible. Do these mean the Bible/Christians are evil?

Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Exodus 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

2 John 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Romans 1 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


So what do you suggest for solving our global conflict? Your hatred runs deep.

It's a good thing Christianity went through major reforms hundreds of years ago, and no longer carry out crusades in the name of God. Unfortunately, Islam is several hundred years behind us, and seems to not want to change... hence the problem.

not to mention the bible is the work of diciples. it has multiple versions from different perspectives. so it can be interpreted. the koran is "perfect" and direct from god as it gets.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
not to mention the bible is the work of diciples. it has multiple versions from different perspectives. so it can be interpreted. the koran is "perfect" and direct from god as it gets.

It's still man made, unless one wishes to imply that man is god.

Anyways, Buddhism has it all right.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: straightalker
Islam is a disgusting Satanic moon worshipping deception.

Any practitioner of it who declares a jihad should be considered a homicidal maniac.

...next.

How is it Satanic?

As to the OP/link, the guy's right. However, he's right in the same way folks crying for fuel cell cars are right: there's a gian gap between knowing what must be done, and knowing how to implement it, or even finding those people that might have a chance of success. How do you get a person that has been programmed with knowledge-over-understanding fundamentalism to want to learn?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: casuality
Topic Title: How do we solve global conflict ?

What is this "We" you speak of?

Can you show me where in the United States Constitution where it says the U.S. is te World's Policeman and must "solve" global conflict?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: casuality
Topic Title: How do we solve global conflict ?

What is this "We" you speak of?

Can you show me where in the United States Constitution where it says the U.S. is te World's Policeman and must "solve" global conflict?

It is of the nature of the strong and the just to stop the oppression of the weak. But this can't happen properly with morons in charge. It is in the nature of morons to f@ck everybody in the ass, you, themselves, and everybody else. But as can be seen from reading the article I am at a stage of consciousness where my anger is directed at the level of consciousness that people like Bush are at. Naturally that is my problem because nothing in calling them morons changes their consciousness.

What makes the article truly interesting, I think, is the fact that it shows the necessity of people's reactions based on what they can understand.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: sandorski
Jesus said much the same long time ago(not an attempt to proselytize(sp)). Not a new idea at all, but an oft overlooked one. Strangely these ideas should already be the norm, but we humans suck and have to always mold good ideas to our own Will, Good or Bad.

I'm not sure where Islam stands on the issue of Forgiveness/Justice/when/where/how, but at the base:

1) Judaism believes in Eye-for-an-eye. Pretty much what's going on now. Hasn't solved anything.

2) Christianity believes in Forgiveness, but you'd be hardpressed to find any amongst it's self-proclaimed followers. IMO, Christians should rip the Old Testament right out of their Bibles, it has unduly influenced them to follow foolishness. Make the Old Testament a separate book that can be used as a reference for the few issues where it is brought up in the New Testament. Why stop there though, make the New Testament the 4 Gospels only. If you are going to follow Jesus, why do you need anything other than his very words?

3) Islam, like I said I haven't a clue, but suspect it is one of the above or some variation on them.

Buddhism?

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: casuality
This is a question that i personally sent to the owner of stevepavlina.com ( A pretty famous personal development website ) . Thought maybe some of you would be interested to read . How to solve global conflict .

Very interesting indeed. He is right. You solve global conflict, as much as it can be solved, by transcending your own violence. The big question is how to do that.

The problem with the article, I find, relates to the forgiveness of attacks. That's fine and all, but when the attacks relentlessly continue to come after you've forgiven the first dozen or so, then such a solution only avails in your annihilation.

Aren't you jumping levels of understanding here in an attempt to understand something Mr. Steve is saying occurs at a level of understanding you don't have? He says that your solution is appropriate for your level of understanding but that the whole dimensions of the nature of the problem change after forgiveness. You are still seeing your solution to the problem as it appears at your level of understanding, no. I think the proper answer is to be found in Islam where you fight evil with full force but the moment evil changes to good, if it does so, you stop.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

3) Islam, like I said I haven't a clue, but suspect it is one of the above or some variation on them.

# Don't bother to warn the disbelievers. Allah has blinded them. Theirs will be an awful doom. 2:6

# Allah has sickened their hearts. A painful doom is theirs because they lie. 2:10

# A fire has been prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones. 2:24

# Disbelievers will be burned with fire. 2:39, 90

# For disbelievers is a painful doom. 2:104

# For unbelievers: ignominy in this world, an awful doom in the next. 2:114

# Allah will leave the disbelievers alone for a while, but then he will compel them to the doom of Fire. 2:126

# The doom of the disbelievers will not be lightened. 2:162

# They will not emerge from the Fire. 2:167

# Those who hide the Scripture will have their bellies eaten with fire. Theirs will be a painful doom. 2:174

# How constant are they in their strife to reach the Fire! 2:175

# "Fight in the way of Allah." 2:190, 2:244

# Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2

# War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216

# Those who die in their disbelief will burn forever in the Fire. 2:217

# Disbelievers worship false gods. The will burn forever in the Fire. 2:257

# Those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a heavy doom. 3:4

# Those who disbelieve will be fuel for the Fire. 3:10

# Those who disbelieve shall be overcome and gathered unto Hell. 3:12

# Those who disbelieve, promise them a painful doom. 3:21

# Theirs will be a painful doom. 3:77

# All non-Muslims will be rejected by Allah after they die. 3:85

# Disbelievers will be cursed by Allah, angels, and men. They will have a painful doom. 3:87-88

# Disbelievers will have a painful doom. And they will have no helpers. 3:91

# Disbelievers will have their faces blackened on the last day. They will face an awful doom. 3:105-6

# Those who disbelieve will be burnt in the Fire. 3:116

.....

there are 300+ more lines but i'll spare you the copy paste page flood.
rest here
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/Quran/cruelty/long.html

Stop quoting verses out of context

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Aren't you jumping levels of understanding here in an attempt to understand something Mr. Steve is saying occurs at a level of understanding you don't have? He says that your solution is appropriate for your level of understanding but that the whole dimensions of the nature of the problem change after forgiveness. You are still seeing your solution to the problem as it appears at your level of understanding, no. I think the proper answer is to be found in Islam where you fight evil with full force but the moment evil changes to good, if it does so, you stop.

How do you judge the turning point between good and evil?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Aren't you jumping levels of understanding here in an attempt to understand something Mr. Steve is saying occurs at a level of understanding you don't have? He says that your solution is appropriate for your level of understanding but that the whole dimensions of the nature of the problem change after forgiveness. You are still seeing your solution to the problem as it appears at your level of understanding, no. I think the proper answer is to be found in Islam where you fight evil with full force but the moment evil changes to good, if it does so, you stop.

How do you judge the turning point between good and evil?

I doubt I am smart enough or moral enough always to be able to say. Surrender seems like it would be one time. For example, we did not butcher the Japanese after we defeated them, nor did we try to change their religion. We rebuilt Germany and Europe after the war, too. Seems to me we didn't do too bad a job in these cases.

 

[marvdmartian]

Kill off the entire human race. Every last one of us. No exceptions, no excuses. Only then will the earth enjoy peace. At least until the animals learn how to wage war.

Actually, it's been conjectured more than once in fiction that if the human race suffered a huge loss of life, either due to war or disease, that the remainder would learn to get along with each other. And I'm talking HUGE.......like 90-95 percent of the human race drops dead! Then (hopefully) the remaining people would have their eyes opened to just how foolish it is to fight over inconsequential things, like we have throughout history.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam


I doubt I am smart enough or moral enough always to be able to say. Surrender seems like it would be one time. For example, we did not butcher the Japanese after we defeated them, nor did we try to change their religion. We rebuilt Germany and Europe after the war, too. Seems to me we didn't do too bad a job in these cases.

Then you admit that for peace to ensure, for the warring parties to recognize the line between good and evil, they would require an latent instinct for civility and fairness?

This is precisely the reason why peace cannot last when one party is a fanatic. They cannot accept surrender, they cannot see that line between evil and good. For fanatics, evil is whatever which compels defeat , surrender or compromise. So the only option for the other is to keep fighting.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam


I doubt I am smart enough or moral enough always to be able to say. Surrender seems like it would be one time. For example, we did not butcher the Japanese after we defeated them, nor did we try to change their religion. We rebuilt Germany and Europe after the war, too. Seems to me we didn't do too bad a job in these cases.

Then you admit that for peace to ensure, for the warring parties to recognize the line between good and evil, they would require an latent instinct for civility and fairness?

This is precisely the reason why peace cannot last when one party is a fanatic. They cannot accept surrender, they cannot see that line between evil and good. For fanatics, evil is whatever which compels defeat , surrender or compromise. So the only option for the other is to keep fighting.

Every child is born perfect and in harmony with himself, a harmony that flowers in to love, harmony, and beauty. But every child can be turned into a monster by the monsters who come before. Everybody yearns for that harmony. Were this not so there would be no anger or hate. When you declare the other unredeemable you make that your own fate for how you see the other is the you you hide from yourself.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Every child is born perfect and in harmony with himself, a harmony that flowers in to love, harmony, and beauty. But every child can be turned into a monster by the monsters who come before. Everybody yearns for that harmony. Were this not so there would be no anger or hate. When you declare the other unredeemable you make that your own fate for how you see the other is the you you hide from yourself.

Moral relativism cannot be applied in all cases. I do admit that in the majority of situations, such relativism can be used justifiably. But in certain cases, such an analysis and actions based upon it is a folly.

You can reform a barbarian, for a barbarian can indeed recognize and assimilate into a superior culture. So can a barbarian accept civilized conduct in war. But one cannot reform a fanatic, a fanatic is a man with a closed mind. He would fail to recognize humanity, civility and morals due to the weight of his ideology. While dealing with fanatics, sadly moral relativism fails.

Tell me, do you think such moral relativism would have worked with fanatical Nazis during WW2?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Every child is born perfect and in harmony with himself, a harmony that flowers in to love, harmony, and beauty. But every child can be turned into a monster by the monsters who come before. Everybody yearns for that harmony. Were this not so there would be no anger or hate. When you declare the other unredeemable you make that your own fate for how you see the other is the you you hide from yourself.

Moral relativism cannot be applied in all cases. I do admit that in the majority of situations, such relativism can be used justifiably. But in certain cases, such an analysis and actions based upon it is a folly.

You can reform a barbarian, for a barbarian can indeed recognize and assimilate into a superior culture. So can a barbarian accept civilized conduct in war. But one cannot reform a fanatic, a fanatic is a man with a closed mind. He would fail to recognize humanity, civility and morals due to the weight of his ideology. While dealing with fanatics, sadly moral relativism fails.

Tell me, do you think such moral relativism would have worked with fanatical Nazis during WW2?

You bring up an interesting point with the Nazis. It's true, reasoning or reforming a fanatic is difficult...if not impossible. But it's a grave mistake to assume that all your enemies are fanatics. Chances are that only a few of them are beyond redemption, failing to recognize this fact means that you'll spend your entire life trying to wipe them out when a simpler solution would work.

Consider this. The Nazis had FAR more people fighting for them than do Islamic fanatics, many of whom helped perform very evil things. Yet we ended up able to make peace with most of them. Why assume that our current crop of enemies are different?

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

You bring up an interesting point with the Nazis. It's true, reasoning or reforming a fanatic is difficult...if not impossible. But it's a grave mistake to assume that all your enemies are fanatics. Chances are that only a few of them are beyond redemption, failing to recognize this fact means that you'll spend your entire life trying to wipe them out when a simpler solution would work.

Consider this. The Nazis had FAR more people fighting for them than do Islamic fanatics, many of whom helped perform very evil things. Yet we ended up able to make peace with most of them. Why assume that our current crop of enemies are different?

I never said all muslims are fanatics. Many of them are non violent and peaceful, until they are exposed to Islamist propoganda.

I have many friends of muslims and I cannot dream of thinking them as fanatics. However that should not prevent me from recognizing the dangers of Islamist ideology (which is simply the pure form of Mohammed's teachings)

Islamism is not dangerous because of a few wackos killing and bombing people. Islamism is dangerous because it inspires harmless people to become fanatics and terrorists.

 

[EmoshBZ]

nuke em all!! problem solved! lol!

 

[BBond]

How do we solve global conflict ?

We could start by NOT being the largest arms supplier on the entire planet!

U.S. arms exports

Almost HALF of all arms exported on the entire planet are from the USA.

It looks like we're exporting something other than "freedom and democracy". :roll:

 

[Atsoca]

Originally posted by: BBond

How do we solve global conflict ?

We could start by NOT being the largest arms supplier on the entire planet!

U.S. arms exports

Almost HALF of all arms exported on the entire planet are from the USA.

It looks like we're exporting something other than "freedom and democracy". :roll:

Seems like many people are in Steve's (or Mr. Hawkin's) level of Fear.

This was an interesting article. I use to think there where just two levels of people, those who understand and those who don't. I also use to think that "personal education" will solve more problems while violence and wars will create more problems or just temporarily solve them. But I think the author?s perspective is better organized and more accurate then mine? He must be at a higher level of conscience then me.

Thanks for sharing this article OP.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: casuality
Topic Title: How do we solve global conflict ?

What is this "We" you speak of?

Can you show me where in the United States Constitution where it says the U.S. is te World's Policeman and must "solve" global conflict?

It is of the nature of the strong and the just to stop the oppression of the weak. But this can't happen properly with morons in charge. It is in the nature of morons to f@ck everybody in the ass, you, themselves, and everybody else. But as can be seen from reading the article I am at a stage of consciousness where my anger is directed at the level of consciousness that people like Bush are at. Naturally that is my problem because nothing in calling them morons changes their consciousness.

What makes the article truly interesting, I think, is the fact that it shows the necessity of people's reactions based on what they can understand.

Stop oppression? Through what means? Violence? I thought we were talking about how to bring about peace.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: casuality
Topic Title: How do we solve global conflict ?

What is this "We" you speak of?

Can you show me where in the United States Constitution where it says the U.S. is te World's Policeman and must "solve" global conflict?

It is of the nature of the strong and the just to stop the oppression of the weak. But this can't happen properly with morons in charge. It is in the nature of morons to f@ck everybody in the ass, you, themselves, and everybody else. But as can be seen from reading the article I am at a stage of consciousness where my anger is directed at the level of consciousness that people like Bush are at. Naturally that is my problem because nothing in calling them morons changes their consciousness.

What makes the article truly interesting, I think, is the fact that it shows the necessity of people's reactions based on what they can understand.

Stop oppression? Through what means? Violence? I thought we were talking about how to bring about peace.

There is more than one kind of peace, no? There is a peace that comes from enlightenment and a peace that comes from law enforcement, no? If the first is better than the second, the second is better than mass psychosis I would think.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: casuality
Topic Title: How do we solve global conflict ?

What is this "We" you speak of?

Can you show me where in the United States Constitution where it says the U.S. is te World's Policeman and must "solve" global conflict?

It is of the nature of the strong and the just to stop the oppression of the weak. But this can't happen properly with morons in charge. It is in the nature of morons to f@ck everybody in the ass, you, themselves, and everybody else. But as can be seen from reading the article I am at a stage of consciousness where my anger is directed at the level of consciousness that people like Bush are at. Naturally that is my problem because nothing in calling them morons changes their consciousness.

What makes the article truly interesting, I think, is the fact that it shows the necessity of people's reactions based on what they can understand.

Stop oppression? Through what means? Violence? I thought we were talking about how to bring about peace.

There is more than one kind of peace, no? There is a peace that comes from enlightenment and a peace that comes from law enforcement, no? If the first is better than the second, the second is better than mass psychosis I would think.

Law enforcement is ironic in that if you try to protect others, you must force it. The end result of force, should lesser force fail, is violence against the violent.