Is World Peace Possible

I was wondering if peace was possible.

To me, it seems like so long as there are differences between people- whether physical, ideological, personal, etc- then world peace is never a viable option.

Is this accurate?

 

I read somewhere once that in the thousands of years since the first recorded Human history was made, there have only been about 200 years of peace. The US, only has about 4 years of peace total in its 200+ year history.

 

As long as people feel compelled to stick their noses in other people's business to save them, "enlighten" them, or punish them, then the answer is no.

 

I do not see any way that it is possible. For world peace to happen all of humanity would have to be guided by the same morality and as morality is relative and not universal I do not see this ever happening. For any universal morality to work, all humanity would have to bow to a single authority (person or governing body) that wields absolute power and has the ability to penalize any who stepped out of line. Makes for a good Sci Fi movie but that is about it.

 

I was thinkng something much like that.

World peace could only be brought about through force and maintained by force. Where there is force, though, there is no peace.

 

A man, that the Bible refers to as the antichrist, the beast, 666, etc., will be able to achieve world peace - that is until God destroys it and WWIII will follow.

 

Obviously not.

 

Anything is possible.
But I agree, as long as you have ethnic differences with strong opinions, there will be strife/conflict. No peace.

 

This is the 2nd time I've seen you post this.
So once humanity becomes peaceful and loving. God will destroy the world? Say what?

I thought God was loving and peaceful?

 

The Economic Theory of War suggests ...yes.

The theory being that a nation-state where the citizens are relatively prosperous...almost never engages in aggression or sees the rise of leadership that promotes aggression or expansionism.

In modern times, we see the widespread poverty and food shortages of the Czar which lead to Lenin and Stalin....or the economic collapse of the Weimar which led to Hitler.....or the oligarchic Middle Eastern countries (Saudi Arabia, pre-Ayatollah Iran) where a large underclass leads to the leadership using war to "distract" the poor or focus their anger on some other group or nation.

So, by that theory, if "universal prosperity" occurred....say some form of nano-technological "instant abundance"......the impetus for war from an aggressor would lessen or even be non-existant as fat, happy citizens wouldn't want to "invade Poland" or feel the need for "jihad against the infidels".

- - - Updated - - -

Rapture Ready.....a believer in a fundamentalist Christian theory that only emerged 160 years ago.

 

The first group that kills off all of its enemies might have a chance at world peace. Until then it's a constant struggle.

 

If you are referring to me,
1. I am NOT a fundamentalist
2. I do NOT believe in the Pre-Trib Rapture.

 

It is a peace brought on by Satan - another being that I am going to assume that you don't believe exists - and YES - God will destroy that peace. That period of time is not called the Apocalypse for nothing.
Then Jesus Christ will return and there will be ONE THOUSAND years of ACTUAL peace.

So why is a thread about world peace in a religion forum?

 

Yeah race would be one of many differences.

Another could be personality. Some people like to dominate...some like to hang loose...some like to be alone...and these differences create different ambitions. When one person's ambition interfers with another, you have conflict.

 

As long as religion exists .. never

 

It's Religion and Philosophy.

I always wondered about this Apacolypse story. There are many who claim that God does not intervene directly in the affairs of the world to, say, save starving children, because he wants us to make our own decisions. Yet, he is going to punish us for those decisions, meaning he did not want us to make our own decisions. He also handed down a set of laws that forbid us to make our own decisions.

Also, the use of overwhelming carnage to enforce peace is no peace. God's world of peace would be a security state where all transgressors get sent to the gulag.

 

The answer validated by the entire available history of mankind is an absolute, incontrovertible NO.

 

Do you believe in a Rapture of ANY sort? Mid-Trib? Post-Trib? Partial? Pre-wrath?

 

I am one of the rare Christians who is not obsessed with the Rapture. IF a Rapture happens, it will be Post-Trib - but by then, it would be pretty academic.
In my opinion, the Pre-Trib doctrine is a Satanic deception to fool people into believing that they will be spared from persecution and death. The ONLY thing that it does is prevent the people who believe in this doctrine from believing that the antichrist has arrived on the scene.
"So and so is NOT the antichrist because I am still here".
"So and so is NOT the antichrist because God PROMISED us that we would be gone when he arrived".
"Therefore, so and so is NOT the antichrist.
But Jesus Christ did say, when referring to the End Times, "many will be deceived" - and He was NOT talking about atheists or people of other religions.

 

Though I'm not saying it's possible I won't commit to saying it isn't. However the idea that everyone would have to share the same morality I'm not sure this is accurate. I think the more accurate thing to say is that all of humanity would have to be guided by certain laws and ideals. For example societies could differ on pornography or the legalization of certain drug use but still abide by international laws that prevent them from subjugating or physically harming their citizens. Education and fair resource management would solve a great many of the worlds problems. One of the morals countries would and should have to comply with would be the complete freedom of women. They should have access to all the opportunities as men world wide. Cultural differences would still persist the only difference would be more freedom.

In my opinion the morality we have today that is much improved from past civilizations was the work of the people rather than any controlling body. In fact most of it was taken by rejecting the supposed morality of those in power.

But I guess it depends on what we mean by world peace. If the idea is that crime would cease to exist than I highly doubt it but the elimination of war is certainly possible since they are usually the work of the few who manage to convince the masses to fight for some nonsensical reason. Education alone could end war.

 

There will never be any peace unless we rid ourselves of the deadliest disease man has ever known: gods and religion

 

IMO ideas are the basis of morality and morality is the basis for law and laws vary wildly from place to place. How do you get all to abide by a common set of laws and ideals? I see a high probability for conflict here.

But that is to assume that all people who disagree with porn and drugs would tolerate it rather than actively stand against it. When you apply religion to this equation the faithful would say that God supersedes the laws of man. This sets the stage for conflict.

Education requires one to recognize the educator as an authority which I do not see how you get 7 billion to agree on a single authority... again a source of conflict.

And how do you do that... ask nicely? I see a high probability this would cause the very conflict that we want to avoid.

 

Everyone of these things certainly cause conflict, every major advancement towards our current morality had to face it's fair share of conflict but it happened none-the-less.

My ideas were not presented as the way to achieve the goal but rather what the goal would look like and to show that it doesn't have to be a cookie cutter world where everyone agrees on everything all the time.

Education alone breaks down the barriers you speak of and it's obviously not going to happen overnight but with a continuous push in the right direction it is possible.

 

Yes, Stalin was such a pacifist!

 

Probably not. There are loads of people I have heated ideological discussions with, but I don't feel the slightest desire to kill them just because they don't share my opinion. Nor do I want to kill people just because they are stronger, weaker, blacker, whiter, nicer, nastier than me.

IMHO there can't be peace without justice and everybody's basic needs being cared for. And yes, I think it is theoretically possible to achieve that.