Would you actively participate?

[Eve]

A current musing .. I will go into why later.

 

If a definitive way to live life and achieve total peace was found but it contradicted your world view in a highly significant way, would you participate in bringing about peace for all or would you continue with your world view?

 

Presently the question is open to individual thought but later will become quite particular.

 

What do you think?

 

Regards,

Eve xx

[TaraMaiden]

Well, this is difficult with out more specific detail, but permit me to see if I can supply at least one answer....

 

If a definitive way to live life and achieve total peace was found but it contradicted your world view in a highly significant way, would you participate in bringing about peace for all or would you continue with your world view?

 

I think I would participate providing it did not go against my ethics and morals.

For example, if this definitive way to live life and achieve total peace involved somebody else suffering or dying as a result of implementation, I would then have to say no....

 

I am also unclear as to what you mean by "world View".....

Do you mean the way we live within this world, or how the world exists around us?

[Ariadne]

If a definitive way to live life and achieve total peace was found but it contradicted your world view in a highly significant way, would you participate

 

No.

 

Because the most important things for actions to turn good is the intention.

 

If you do something good with the wrong reason, the results will be bad.

[TaraMaiden]

Good, Ariadne, yes.

You put it very well!

 

better than I did, certainly.

I must say though, Eve has aroused my curiosity.

[Ariadne]

Thank you.

 

Yes, the problem is that she'd be doing something good, but throwing tons of negative energy into it.

[TaraMaiden]

Well.... it's not so much the negative Energy, but the intention, the motivation.

You were right.... for example, this is what I meant in my post:

if we had the opportunity of permanently removing Robert Mugabe from Zimbabwe by killing him, the ultimate result might be beneficial for those citizens, but the action of killing still accrues a negative result....

It is an end to a means, but one which violates my personal morals.

 

I think we are probably dancing around the same fire here though.....

 

_/l\_

[Ariadne]

removing Robert Mugabe from Zimbabwe by killing him, the ultimate result might be beneficial for those citizens, but the action of killing still accrues a negative result....

 

True......

[Trialbyfire]

Until there are more details, it's difficult to say. If it meant the entire world came under the rule of someone like Hitler or the Khmer Rouge, then no, I wouldn't participate.

 

Peace isn't synonymous to quality of life. Life isn't worth living, shrouded in fear and hatred.

[Kamille]

I can think about many scenarios where this kind of moral dilemma could occur: what if I was an Afghan woman and someone told me that going against my beliefs would ensure peace? What if, as an occidental woman, someone told me that accepting the gendered division of labor, and accepting a more "traditional" role as a woman would ensure more stability in our society?

 

What if the neoliberals are right, and free-markets is the only way to acheive world peace, when I believe it will only accentuate inequalities?

 

I still couldn't go through with any of it, for the simple reason that I build my world-view based on an ethical understanding of the world. I'm open to hearing other's point of views. Dialogue and the recognition of different world views is, according to me, the first step towards acheiving any kind of peace. Forcing consensus to avoid differences and conflict would be phony.

[Enema]

Impossible question to answer without more details.

[Moose]

If a definitive way to live life and achieve total peace was found but it contradicted your world view in a highly significant way, would you participate in bringing about peace for all or would you continue with your world view?

There already is in my mind, it does alter my world view, (daily), and yes I will be participating in bringing about world peace.

[Lovelybird]

If there is a definite way to achieve world peace, I believe that is the time that Lord rein the world

 

Otherwise, there isn't a "if", because that is impossible, human is imperfect. I've heard someone said the wars are manifestation of person's inner world. People are not in peace in their heart. Lust, pride, strife, jealous, hatred, covetness.....you name it. IF there achieve certain "world peace", I'd worry WHO and what group is on the top, what if someone claim to be chasing world peace, and later show himself isn't, only hunger for power. we know that how easily human can be corrupted by power, money and beauty

 

If World Peace can be achieved, it should start from human's heart, and is that possible every human has peace and perfection in their heart?

[Moose]

If World Peace can be achieved, it should start from human's heart, and is that possible every human has peace and perfection in their heart?

I agree. And no it isn't possible for EVERY human to achieve peace and perfection in their heart.

 

Therefore, many will be judged, and ultimately sentenced for eternity. Many will be redeemed and will also be judged / sentenced for eternity.

 

Those who are redeemed will be those who will ultimately live in total peace....(We're still in individual thought mode, correct?)

[Lovelybird]

I agree. And no it isn't possible for EVERY human to achieve peace and perfection in their heart.

 

Therefore, many will be judged, and ultimately sentenced for eternity. Many will be redeemed and will also be judged / sentenced for eternity.

 

Those who are redeemed will be those who will ultimately live in total peace....(We're still in individual thought mode, correct?)

I believe so

[TaraMaiden]

Well, given that Eve has left us all waiting under the balcony for the next instalment....I for one am waiting to see what all this is about.

 

(If she mentions something like "The secret" I think I shall scream!! )

 

_/l\_

[disgracian]

If a definitive way to live life and achieve total peace was found but it contradicted your world view in a highly significant way, would you participate in bringing about peace for all or would you continue with your world view?

Somewhere along the way "contradicting your world view in a significant way" has somehow become hitched to the bandwagon of compromising our morals. I don't think this is implied. I think it's asking just how open we really are to the idea that we are wrong about anything or everything.

 

That said, the premise is shaky to begin with because I think "total peace" is, like "perfection", one of those terms that's bandied about far too casually and without any understanding of what it might mean.

 

Whether it addresses the topic or not, I can only say that when it comes down to reality versus my views, reality really ought to win.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Eve]

Well, given that Eve has left us all waiting under the balcony for the next instalment....I for one am waiting to see what all this is about.

 

(If she mentions something like "The secret" I think I shall scream!! )

 

_/l\_

 

Ha! Too funny! No I am not on one of my 'The Secret is GREAT type rants'.. Not today... maybe tomorrow;)

 

Thanks for at least considering my very vague initial post.

 

Ok, I have come across a group called 'The Zeitgeist Movement' and as yet, I cannot fault their aims. They speak of a 'global system' whereby the scientific view dominates and advocate a 'resource based system' which essentially means out growing the present monetary system. Instead the focus would be on nurturing individuals instead of individuals being caught up in at its base a pretty dodgy system which only benefits the rich.. All pretty high order thinking.

 

My current musing has settled on (from what I have read so far), the basis of such an agenda would be that religion would not be part of this system. Spirituality would, but not religion as such. I was therefore caught up in thinking how much I do in fact value science and how in fact the system could actually work because we would all be starting from one point instead of many conflicting points.

 

Further, the values of this proposed system do mirror much of what I esteem to be good from my faith.. so would the system in fact be a big fat act of plagiarism if religion was to be devalued?

 

Anyhow, I am still reading about the above mentioned movement and the link is below. So in effect the questions are -

 

1. Would you live without money in order to partake in such a system? Think of yourself with loads of money.. Could you really give it all up for the process of world peace to take effect?

 

2. Would you be wiling to relearn how you perceive the world and thus take on a scientific view of the world? (This question really is probably more relevant to people of faith)

 

No one can argue that religion can in fact be very flawed by way of how people live out the meanings.. Maybe if there were definite globalised standards set, the human race would naturally/eventually embrace a level of faith in each other rather than individualised versions of faith?

 

There is a lot of information in the link below. I have found it all highly interesting.. But most pertinent to this section of the board is probably chapter 8 - functional spirituality. I would be interested in any thoughts on this matter.

 

Anyhow the link..

 

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/The%20Zeitgeist%20Movement.pdf

 

 

Take care,

Eve xx

[Moose]

1. Would you live without money in order to partake in such a system? Think of yourself with loads of money.. Could you really give it all up for the process of world peace to take effect?

As a Christian, I'm content with or without money. Christians are simply stewards of what God entitles us to have.

2. Would you be wiling to relearn how you perceive the world and thus take on a scientific view of the world? (This question really is probably more relevant to people of faith)

I'd be open to the, "theories" these scientists conjur up. Science to a Christian isn't anything but a window to God's creation.

[TaraMaiden]

1. Would you live without money in order to partake in such a system? Think of yourself with loads of money.. Could you really give it all up for the process of world peace to take effect?

Buddhist monks do this already. I see no problem....

 

2. Would you be wiling to relearn how you perceive the world and thus take on a scientific view of the world? (This question really is probably more relevant to people of faith)

Buddhism already does this. The Dalai Lama has said quite openly and often, that id anything in Science contradicts something in Buddhism, naturally, we would all have to reconsider. So far, nothing has....

 

The Quantum and the Lotus

 

No one can argue that religion can in fact be very flawed by way of how people live out the meanings.. Maybe if there were definite globalised standards set, the human race would naturally/eventually embrace a level of faith in each other rather than individualised versions of faith?

Or let's just take up Buddhism!!

 

There is a lot of information in the link below. I have found it all highly interesting.. But most pertinent to this section of the board is probably chapter 8 - functional spirituality. I would be interested in any thoughts on this matter.

"While there are endless scientific and superstitious opinions about who we are and where we have come from, the most important issue at hand exists in the here and now."

 

Buddhist.

 

Take care,

Eve xx

 

I wish you well also.

 

_/l\_

[Trialbyfire]

Eve, I wouldn't participate in this movement. It's socialism at its height.

 

From a purely selfish perspective, I won't work 80 hours/week for the same return, as someone who's willing or capable of only working 5 hours/week.

 

A capitalistic society encourages high productivity, technology, out of the box thinking, competitive edge, etc. A socialistic mentality encourages laziness. Why bother doing more, if you can get away with doing less? Refer to the collapse of the USSR.

[disgracian]

From a purely selfish perspective...

That's all capitalism is.

A capitalistic society encourages high productivity, technology, out of the box thinking, competitive edge, etc. A socialistic mentality encourages laziness. Why bother doing more, if you can get away with doing less? Refer to the collapse of the USSR.

This is the silliest thing I've read in weeks.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Trialbyfire]

That's all capitalism is.

 

This is the silliest thing I've read in weeks.

 

Cheers,

D.

How about you rebutt my statement v. just calling it silly. I doubt you're capable of doing so.

 

To add to my original post, refer to the People's Commune which failed miserably.

 

Cheers ,

T.

[Ariadne]

I have come across a group called 'The Zeitgeist Movement'... They speak of a 'global system' whereby the scientific view dominates and advocate a 'resource based system' which essentially means out growing the present monetary system.

 

No system implemented by man at this point is going to have any effect on the situation on earth.

 

Only nature will have to take care of this mess.

[DutchGuy]

Eve, I wouldn't participate in this movement. It's socialism at its height.

 

From a purely selfish perspective, I won't work 80 hours/week for the same return, as someone who's willing or capable of only working 5 hours/week.

 

A capitalistic society encourages high productivity, technology, out of the box thinking, competitive edge, etc. A socialistic mentality encourages laziness. Why bother doing more, if you can get away with doing less? Refer to the collapse of the USSR.

 

Regarding your views on socialism I take it you're American?

 

May I point out that you live in a country were a person that works 80 hours a week and gets injured could face paying thousands of dollars to a system that is run by people that work 5 hours a week (aside of their real job) although they were initially insured?

 

By the way, former USSR inhabitants (though as hell) are definately thinner than Americans so who's the lazy bunch really?

 

And last but not least, capitalist America is currently falling apart yet communist China is flourishing.

 

...and no, I'm not a communist.

[Trialbyfire]

Regarding your views on socialism I take it you're American?

 

May I point out that you live in a country were a person that works 80 hours a week and gets injured could face paying thousands of dollars to a system that is run by people that work 5 hours a week (aside of their real job) although they were initially insured?

 

By the way, former USSR inhabitants (though as hell) are definately thinner than Americans so who's the lazy bunch really?

 

And last but not least, capitalist America is currently falling apart yet communist China is flourishing.

 

...and no, I'm not a communist.

No, I'm not American but am currently a swing vote, where in the past, my voting track record was solidly Libertarian.

 

There are levels and periods of time, where there needs to be the whole considered over the individual. It's to what level, the hive mentality permeates, that ensures for my support or non-support. Communism and worse, aren't my thing.

 

Once again, if I want to bust my arse, I expect a return for it. Lazing around does nothing for me.