History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedGlobalism

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Poll Question: Would you be in favor of a unified, global, state?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
6 [26.09%]
15 [65.22%]
2 [8.70%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Scaevola View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jan-2008
Location: Washington D.C.
Status: Offline
Points: 27
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Scaevola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2008 at 23:31
Originally posted by vulkan02 vulkan02 wrote:


I think Pinguin is closer to the idea of Globalism here. Why must we think of Globalism necessarily as it being a State? As we know from history we have seen that many governments simply serve the upper classes (or despots) while transmitting the pains of war and inequality to the masses under their control.

So for a more complete world "unification" to take place, it would mean the destruction of the myths and lies of history that have served to pit people against one another. This conveys the destruction of governments, structured religions, ideology, culture and even the belief of ethnic identity. Surely we are witnessing today the decay of many of these starting to take place, but others; such as ethnic identity will take longer to be disappear from human consciousness. In other words "Globalism", in this definition, is when everyone seems him/herself as everyone else with the same beliefs, thoughts, goals etc.
 
 
Many governments simply serve the upper classes and are a burden on the masses because they are badly run, but any government is better than no government at all so long as it is functional. It is a good testament to the neccessity of government that all societies of men have them. Yes, there is capacity for bad government, and no government has been ideal by any means, but that does not mean that government is superfluous or that it is inherently destructive or oppressive.
 
Global government, like any other social or technological advance, has the capacity for both good and evil. The important thing is that if structured the right way, in which the worse aspects of human nature could be protected from impairing or corrupting the system as the American and British constitutions, among others, attempt to do. It is interesting, though, that the results of this poll is definitively negatiive; it seems that a majority are against the idea of global government even given the vast benefits a unity of mankind would offer to us. I cannot say I fully understand that position; it simply is beyond my ability to comprehend.
SPQR| Alea Iacta Est
Back to Top
Adalwolf View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 08-Sep-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1232
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Adalwolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2008 at 05:27
Originally posted by Scaevola Scaevola wrote:

Originally posted by vulkan02 vulkan02 wrote:


I think Pinguin is closer to the idea of Globalism here. Why must we think of Globalism necessarily as it being a State? As we know from history we have seen that many governments simply serve the upper classes (or despots) while transmitting the pains of war and inequality to the masses under their control.

So for a more complete world "unification" to take place, it would mean the destruction of the myths and lies of history that have served to pit people against one another. This conveys the destruction of governments, structured religions, ideology, culture and even the belief of ethnic identity. Surely we are witnessing today the decay of many of these starting to take place, but others; such as ethnic identity will take longer to be disappear from human consciousness. In other words "Globalism", in this definition, is when everyone seems him/herself as everyone else with the same beliefs, thoughts, goals etc.
 
 
Many governments simply serve the upper classes and are a burden on the masses because they are badly run, but any government is better than no government at all so long as it is functional. It is a good testament to the neccessity of government that all societies of men have them. Yes, there is capacity for bad government, and no government has been ideal by any means, but that does not mean that government is superfluous or that it is inherently destructive or oppressive.
 
Global government, like any other social or technological advance, has the capacity for both good and evil. The important thing is that if structured the right way, in which the worse aspects of human nature could be protected from impairing or corrupting the system as the American and British constitutions, among others, attempt to do. It is interesting, though, that the results of this poll is definitively negatiive; it seems that a majority are against the idea of global government even given the vast benefits a unity of mankind would offer to us. I cannot say I fully understand that position; it simply is beyond my ability to comprehend.


There were societies, and still are some societies, without government. Those people seem to be some of the happiest and most free in the world.

Also, I just cannot wrap my brain around the idea that anyone would actually support a One World Government.  Every thought I have on the subject is negative.
Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail.
     Edward Abbey
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 2424
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2008 at 05:29
Quote
Your are talking more about race rather than ethnic identity which is a very different issue.


I believe Black (or African-American if you prefer) is an ethnicity unto itself, separate from say a Somali-American or a Nigerian-American. Also Chinese is not a race, I do agree they are separate issues, as race is a subjective concept whereas ethnicity is objective.

Quote Belief in nationalism, ethnic superiority etc is quickly succumbing to the power of critical reasoning we have given superiority to, rather than emotional impulses.


Nationalism and feelings of Ethnic Superiority aren't what keep ethnicities separate. People are by nature tribal beings, we seek to define ourselves to have an identity and I cannot see the world en masse giving up their identities even if it is for a seemingly better cause. Also, why can't we adopt a worldwide policy of pluralism where we take pride in our differences and recognize that no culture is inferior to any other.

Quote People are simply losing belief and connections to their similar breathen - this is the century of the self.


No wonder Pope John Paul II called this era, "The Culture of Death"....
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
vulkan02 View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Termythinator

Joined: 27-Apr-2005
Location: U$A
Status: Offline
Points: 1840
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote vulkan02 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2008 at 06:55
Originally posted by Scaevola Scaevola wrote:

Originally posted by vulkan02 vulkan02 wrote:


I think Pinguin is closer to the idea of Globalism here. Why must we think of Globalism necessarily as it being a State? As we know from history we have seen that many governments simply serve the upper classes (or despots) while transmitting the pains of war and inequality to the masses under their control.

So for a more complete world "unification" to take place, it would mean the destruction of the myths and lies of history that have served to pit people against one another. This conveys the destruction of governments, structured religions, ideology, culture and even the belief of ethnic identity. Surely we are witnessing today the decay of many of these starting to take place, but others; such as ethnic identity will take longer to be disappear from human consciousness. In other words "Globalism", in this definition, is when everyone seems him/herself as everyone else with the same beliefs, thoughts, goals etc.
 
 
Many governments simply serve the upper classes and are a burden on the masses because they are badly run, but any government is better than no government at all so long as it is functional. It is a good testament to the neccessity of government that all societies of men have them. Yes, there is capacity for bad government, and no government has been ideal by any means, but that does not mean that government is superfluous or that it is inherently destructive or oppressive.
 
Global government, like any other social or technological advance, has the capacity for both good and evil. The important thing is that if structured the right way, in which the worse aspects of human nature could be protected from impairing or corrupting the system as the American and British constitutions, among others, attempt to do. It is interesting, though, that the results of this poll is definitively negatiive; it seems that a majority are against the idea of global government even given the vast benefits a unity of mankind would offer to us. I cannot say I fully understand that position; it simply is beyond my ability to comprehend.


Global government is simply not an option right now because of the divisions of people but also like you say a global state could succumb to human nature and be capable of extreme oppression. Anymore though, the role of government in these times is simply to regulate big business.

Janus...you are entitled to your opinion but I generally accept white, black, asian, hispanic etc as separated races. I suspect most people do as well since this is what we usually see in different (listed as optionalWink) application forms.  Of course there is no denying that there are separate tribes and ethniticies is Africa as there are say in Europe. Those genocides we hear every once in a while don't happen for no reason.

I don't know why would John Paul call this era the "Culture of Death" when his own institution has been preaching (and practicing) death for centuries to the terrified masses under their authority.
Much of what has happened is simply the result of the information age. People are constantly being bombarded by information eventually destroying all social context and shrinking reality to the absolute minimum - solipsism.
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao
Back to Top
Scaevola View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jan-2008
Location: Washington D.C.
Status: Offline
Points: 27
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Scaevola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2008 at 11:14
Originally posted by Adalwolf Adalwolf wrote:



There were societies, and still are some societies, without government. Those people seem to be some of the happiest and most free in the world.

Also, I just cannot wrap my brain around the idea that anyone would actually support a One World Government.  Every thought I have on the subject is negative.
 
No, there really aren't any I think, but I challenge you to name them, and I'll explain to you how they do in fact have government. And I seriously doubt you would be able to call them 'the happiest and most free in the world'. Empty rhetoric.
 
Global government would mean the cooperation of all humanity if instituted correctly. How could that be a negative thing?
SPQR| Alea Iacta Est
Back to Top
Voice of Reason View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 09-Jan-2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 95
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Voice of Reason Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2008 at 14:21
Originally posted by Scaevola Scaevola wrote:

Originally posted by Adalwolf Adalwolf wrote:



There were societies, and still are some societies, without government. Those people seem to be some of the happiest and most free in the world.

Also, I just cannot wrap my brain around the idea that anyone would actually support a One World Government.  Every thought I have on the subject is negative.
 
No, there really aren't any I think, but I challenge you to name them, and I'll explain to you how they do in fact have government. And I seriously doubt you would be able to call them 'the happiest and most free in the world'. Empty rhetoric.
 
Global government would mean the cooperation of all humanity if instituted correctly. How could that be a negative thing?
 
The Bushmen of Africa... Sorry i cant quite think of the tribe name or anything, but i saw a documentary on them, it was old though.
 
If Globalism is instituted correctly and some way to keep all humans in line (without having the non-emotion pills and all that movie junk) then i dont believe it would be a bad thing...
Einstein said, "God does not play dice." He was right. God plays Scrabble. - Philip Gold
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 2424
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2008 at 16:23
Quote Global government would mean the cooperation of all humanity if instituted correctly. How could that be a negative thing?


Well if cooperation meant that say oil tycoons should forfeit all of their money and hand out all of their fortunes to the rest of the world because 99% of the rest of the world aren't oil tycoons, I think that wouldn't be hard to get a majority vote on. Or does every decision have to be unanimous in this fantasy one-nation world.

Quote
Janus...you are entitled to your opinion but I generally accept white, black, asian, hispanic etc as separated races.


That's funny because I seriously find it difficult to believe that hispanic is a race and not a culture. Perhaps if you said that the four races were caucasoid (white), negroid (black), mongoloid(East Asian) and austroloid (or indonesoid)(Aboriginees) then it would make sense, however race theory disregards the fact that the division of races isn't that clear cut due to interbreeding in various "border regions" also there is no such thing as a "pure race" so you don't really have anything to base a "race" on, if anything any designations based on race are nebulous at best.

Quote
I don't know why would John Paul call this era the "Culture of Death" when his own institution has been preaching (and practicing) death for centuries to the terrified masses under their authority.


Prove this or I'm going to call it religious bashing. Give me just one instance where the Catholic church has had death as a policy in it's entire history.

I'll help you out even on this one before I receive the same tired examples, the Crusades did not sponsor killing of anyone. They were a call of arms to defend the Holy Land and to ensure the protection of pilgrims visiting the holy shrines, also there was probably a bit of a leaning towards weakening the Orthodox Byzantine Empire. No where was it stated that bloodshed was warranted, the Church's teachings can not be held responsible for the actions of it's followers.

Also I don't want to hear examples of the Inquisition, because historically the religious prisons/trials were far more lenient in their day to the secular authorities, the Church contrary to popular belief never used torture. In fact the Inquisition was more like a crash course in Sunday school than the sadist depictions in popular culture. Also the Church if found a person to remain in error would never take action against that person but leave his punishment to the secular ruler.

I mean it's a far cry to state that a religion that preaches peace, tolerance and understanding to be guilty of mass murder, I mean the Catholic church is nothing like say the Jihadists who actively preach death to infidels.

Quote People are constantly being bombarded by information eventually destroying all social context


I would doubt that applications such as myspace, facebook and even internet forums are destroying any social contexts, in fact those seem to be using information to build upon social contexts that all ready exist, thus the information revolution seems to be fostering "tribalism" rather than destroying it.
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
Scaevola View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jan-2008
Location: Washington D.C.
Status: Offline
Points: 27
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Scaevola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2008 at 16:52
Originally posted by JanusRook JanusRook wrote:

Quote Global government would mean the cooperation of all humanity if instituted correctly. How could that be a negative thing?


Well if cooperation meant that say oil tycoons should forfeit all of their money and hand out all of their fortunes to the rest of the world because 99% of the rest of the world aren't oil tycoons, I think that wouldn't be hard to get a majority vote on. Or does every decision have to be unanimous in this fantasy one-nation world.
 
Invalid argument. No existing state that I've heard of requires unanimous support to take action. Global unity doesn't mean fantasy utopia, it means a political consolidation that is entirely pragmatic from my point of view.
SPQR| Alea Iacta Est
Back to Top
Scaevola View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jan-2008
Location: Washington D.C.
Status: Offline
Points: 27
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Scaevola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2008 at 16:55
Originally posted by Voice of Reason Voice of Reason wrote:

Originally posted by Scaevola Scaevola wrote:

Originally posted by Adalwolf Adalwolf wrote:



There were societies, and still are some societies, without government. Those people seem to be some of the happiest and most free in the world.

Also, I just cannot wrap my brain around the idea that anyone would actually support a One World Government.  Every thought I have on the subject is negative.
 
No, there really aren't any I think, but I challenge you to name them, and I'll explain to you how they do in fact have government. And I seriously doubt you would be able to call them 'the happiest and most free in the world'. Empty rhetoric.
 
Global government would mean the cooperation of all humanity if instituted correctly. How could that be a negative thing?
 
The Bushmen of Africa... Sorry i cant quite think of the tribe name or anything, but i saw a documentary on them, it was old though.
 
If Globalism is instituted correctly and some way to keep all humans in line (without having the non-emotion pills and all that movie junk) then i dont believe it would be a bad thing...
 
Aye, thank the dystopian novel / film genre for that paritcular brand of pessimism. There are points to be taken from 1984, Brave New World, and Equillibrium, such as the importance of civil liberties. What it is not wise to take from these works is that a more centralized or powerful government is in all cases a bad thing.
 
The Bushmen of Africa, as with every hunter-gatherer society, tribe, or family group, have some sort of government. A chieftan, a council of elders, some sort of institution or concentration of power. If a group of human beings exists it must have direction to maintain a degree of cohesiveness and functionality.
SPQR| Alea Iacta Est
Back to Top
vulkan02 View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Termythinator

Joined: 27-Apr-2005
Location: U$A
Status: Offline
Points: 1840
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote vulkan02 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2008 at 17:21
Originally posted by JanusRook JanusRook wrote:




That's funny because I seriously find it difficult to believe that hispanic is a race and not a culture. Perhaps if you said that the four races were caucasoid (white), negroid (black), mongoloid(East Asian) and austroloid (or indonesoid)(Aboriginees) then it would make sense, however race theory disregards the fact that the division of races isn't that clear cut due to interbreeding in various "border regions" also there is no such thing as a "pure race" so you don't really have anything to base a "race" on, if anything any designations based on race are nebulous at best.



Well you get the point, the average person considers negroid and caucasoid as two separate races.

Quote

Prove this or I'm going to call it religious bashing. Give me just one instance where the Catholic church has had death as a policy in it's entire history.

I'll help you out even on this one before I receive the same tired examples, the Crusades did not sponsor killing of anyone. They were a call of arms to defend the Holy Land and to ensure the protection of pilgrims visiting the holy shrines, also there was probably a bit of a leaning towards weakening the Orthodox Byzantine Empire. No where was it stated that bloodshed was warranted, the Church's teachings can not be held responsible for the actions of it's followers.

Also I don't want to hear examples of the Inquisition, because historically the religious prisons/trials were far more lenient in their day to the secular authorities, the Church contrary to popular belief never used torture. In fact the Inquisition was more like a crash course in Sunday school than the sadist depictions in popular culture. Also the Church if found a person to remain in error would never take action against that person but leave his punishment to the secular ruler.

I mean it's a far cry to state that a religion that preaches peace, tolerance and understanding to be guilty of mass murder, I mean the Catholic church is nothing like say the Jihadists who actively preach death to infidels.



I wasn't going to mention the Crusades but they started as a direct result of Pope Urban II
preaching the capture of the holy land through military conflict, even though he might have not directly stated it that way. Also there are many many instances where the inquisition used torture and brutal ways of executing "criminals"  such as burning at the stake not only against people but animals too!
However I wasn't referring to actions taken by the Church to maintain political control when I said christianity has preached death. I was pointing out its ideology of viewing life as a preparation for Death because really thats what it was all about. Stay straight, pay your tithe, obey your landlord, fear God and church authorities from excommunicating you and your path to Heaven is ensured. The Christian worldview of life is the opposite of a more scientific view which seeks to improve it here, it only views life as a preparation for death.

Quote

I would doubt that applications such as myspace, facebook and even internet forums are destroying any social contexts, in fact those seem to be using information to build upon social contexts that all ready exist, thus the information revolution seems to be fostering "tribalism" rather than destroying it.


I don't think Myspace, Facebook etc create social context at all, they do however create social contacts. I mean by context a set of beliefs in society regarding a number of paths or ways in which life should be lived. Today the information continually bombarding us has lead to countless ways of reality interpretation - in effect destroying context turning us into floating atoms.

The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 2424
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2008 at 18:21
Quote Invalid argument. No existing state that I've heard of requires unanimous support to take action. Global unity doesn't mean fantasy utopia, it means a political consolidation that is entirely pragmatic from my point of view.


I was merely highlighting the fact though that there will be disenfranchised groups in this seemingly pragmatic society. Eventually these disenfranchised groups will "rebel" against the government and create their own government unless it's some kind of fascist empire there's no way this one-world government will be able to keep this independence movements in check. Thus it is a fantasy to think a government can be worldwide and benevolent.

Quote Also there are many many instances where the inquisition used torture and brutal ways of executing "criminals"  such as burning at the stake not only against people but animals too!


Always done at the hands of the secular authorities, why do you think after the Reformation there were a lot less heretic executions, because after being released to the secular authorities they did nothing about it.

Quote However I wasn't referring to actions taken by the Church to maintain political control when I said christianity has preached death.


Sorry then I misunderstood you. However I would argue with your terminology. Christianity sees life as a preparation for the afterlife. Since we believe that faith in Jesus will grant us everlasting life why should we trade 70 years of immoral living for an eternity of happiness?

Quote Today the information continually bombarding us has lead to countless ways of reality interpretation - in effect destroying context turning us into floating atoms.


Damn my lazy reading skills . I still believe that the group mentality is strong, after all no one in history has ever thought alike since we have had vastly different experiences and brain chemistry. Also rivalry is a fact of life, and without those "others" to compare ourselves too we can't maintain the illusion of superiority that is required to maintain a high level of self-esteem. I mean even now you believe your ideas are superior to mine, even if they aren't and vice-versa for me as well.
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
vulkan02 View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Termythinator

Joined: 27-Apr-2005
Location: U$A
Status: Offline
Points: 1840
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote vulkan02 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Feb-2008 at 05:46
Competition is indeed a fact of life; with that I agree with you completely. It is simply a matter of viewing truth that differs between the two of us. I would assume by what you said about Jesus, that you do believe He will grant you everlasting life and eternal happiness. I would like that as well (even though an eternal life is a problem in my thinking), but I am not convinced that he ever existed in the way the Church  portrays him - as the Son of God, who was crucified, died and then was reborn and floated back to the Father in the sky.

The whole point of this is whether one believes in faith or not - I don't.
Discussing religions is another topic not belonging here, but if each of them claim to be the true one, then why do we still have so many?  Their very existence highlights the others inconsistencies, at least thats the way I see it.


The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Feb-2008 at 14:28
Our society is extremely complex and though some assertions can be made about the future the fact is that such a system is far too complicated to be predictable. A global goverment is a good idea but the problem lies in making it at least economical and effective. Though many have expressed their opinions against such a goverment I doubt that they  will manage to counter the actual tendency. The power is aggregating nowadays and the the new communications age is actually leveling the differences. Global issues like global warming, energy crisis, AIDS, etc. will need global approach in dealing with them. Those would create the basics of a world goverment which eventually will be oficially instaurated.
Of course, our species has managed to offer itself the choice of self destruction but I still hope we might make it.
So, yes for Empire Earth!
Back to Top
Voice of Reason View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 09-Jan-2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 95
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Voice of Reason Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Feb-2008 at 14:30
Originally posted by vulkan02 vulkan02 wrote:

I would assume by what you said about Jesus, that you do believe He will grant you everlasting life and eternal happiness. I would like that as well (even though an eternal life is a problem in my thinking), but I am not convinced that he ever existed in the way the Church  portrays him - as the Son of God, who was crucified, died and then was reborn and floated back to the Father in the sky.
 
Yes, this is what many people think about Jesus, but He was just as great as the Bible portrays him to be (which is where the church gets it from). Josephus, the historian, comments on him as being perhaps more than human..
 
18:3:3, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
 
It's historical that He did die on a cross through crucifiction, and that the body was gone from the tomb, the only question that was asked is how did it dissapear? The Romans had guards at the tomb (on the request of the Pharisees) to watch for anyone who would try adn seize the body and to try and prevent just this... Someone stealing his body and then him being hailed as a risen Christ... The Jews didn't want that.
 
Roman guards couldn't fail at their duty, if they did they'd be executed. These guards were risking failure on death if someone were to come and take the body away. The Pharisees also agreed it was gone, because they said that someone had taken the body. (If it was moved, buried somewhere they would have merely pointed out where it was, and then poffered the evidence of the body to show that he was not risen).
 
500 recorded witnesses of his death help attest to that he was around after his seen death by crucifiction.
Einstein said, "God does not play dice." He was right. God plays Scrabble. - Philip Gold
Back to Top
vulkan02 View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Termythinator

Joined: 27-Apr-2005
Location: U$A
Status: Offline
Points: 1840
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote vulkan02 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Feb-2008 at 05:26
Originally posted by Voice of Reason Voice of Reason wrote:



500 recorded witnesses of his death help attest to that he was around after his seen death by crucifiction.


LOL
Where is this stated in the bible? How do you know that this is accurate?






The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao
Back to Top
Voice of Reason View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 09-Jan-2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 95
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Voice of Reason Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Feb-2008 at 14:48
Well, i can find it in the bible, because i know that it was written by Paul and i'll find it tonight for you!
 
But after it being stated in the Bible, logic tells you it must be true as the writings have been dated to up to 20-30 years after the death of Jesus, this means that many of the people who had seen Jesus in jerusalem were still alive and there were many witnesses. When Paul states that in his writing he says that many of the 500 are still alive and they can be asked. If it wasn't a true statement, being so early a writing, it would have been denounced as a lie and with un-true writings no one would have followed Christianity if it wasn't being written accurately and truthfully.
Einstein said, "God does not play dice." He was right. God plays Scrabble. - Philip Gold
Back to Top
vulkan02 View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Termythinator

Joined: 27-Apr-2005
Location: U$A
Status: Offline
Points: 1840
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote vulkan02 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Feb-2008 at 15:53
Hmmm you are claiming that a 2000 year old document and the supposed witnesses in it are all assumed to have existed exactly as written down. Maybe if you interpret it that way and truly believe in it then Jesus might have indeed risen from the dead.
The problem is, ever since time immemorial, every living thing has been born and died including people - just like every other lifeforms.
Now based on that, let's ask ourselves which is more possible:

1. That Jesus was crucified, died and then physically resurrected, escaped his tomb, met with his followers and then went back in the sky.

2. That Jesus was a figure far different as presented to us by an historical document. He was a wise man - perhaps more deluded than other "holy" men before him, whose fame was turned into legend and finally propelled to mythical status as the centuries went by.

...You decide


The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao
Back to Top
Voice of Reason View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 09-Jan-2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 95
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Voice of Reason Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2008 at 15:00
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
1Corinthians 15 is where it is found.
 
On your comment of legend. Being written within 20 years of his death, almost all mythology researchers do agree that 20 years is an impossibly short time for a legend to wipe out a core of truth.
Einstein said, "God does not play dice." He was right. God plays Scrabble. - Philip Gold
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Feb-2008 at 12:54

Is Jesus the first recorded Globalist? Or is Christianity a crude form of Globalism?

Back to Top
Voice of Reason View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 09-Jan-2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 95
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Voice of Reason Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2008 at 14:09
Lol, if saying that we got a bit off topic.. yes we did Smile
 
But if a serious question, yes, he will be (If what the Bible says would come to be true) - Bible says that Jesus will come and defeat Antichrist and then take the world under one form of govornment for 1,000 years. After that Satan is released again, defeated again, and then everything is re-made again anew.
 
Einstein said, "God does not play dice." He was right. God plays Scrabble. - Philip Gold
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.