Kaiser01 Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 most of you are familiar with the tower of bable and of course its lunacey, for those of you not familiar it goes like this. a united humanity tries to biuld a tower to get to the heavens and is stoped by a god who is scared they will reach him. god defeats their efforts by mixing up their launguages so they could not work on the tower. now notice the word "United", why is it to chiristans that a united world is so horrible? why is it that a world where there are no wars where people die for petty difrences, a world where people can work together to biuld better lives? a unified people with direct access to heaven seems like it would be a dream come true for their god i mean with no laungauge barriers and direct acces to "his will". but instead he divides people culturaly allowing for violence and conflicting identitys. what is it with christians and the threat of a one world goverment? persoanyl i think it would be a good thing for humanity to be united so it would be easier for us to solve our problems and end our difrences. i was in Model United Nations in highshcool and i saw that a one world goverment would really allow us to foccus on some of the many social problems effectivly with out having to worry about steping on a goverments toes. what do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabula Rasa Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 From a strictly non religious point of view, one concern is if there's a one world government, what if it becomes a dictatorship? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Christians are afraid of a one-world government because it would not leave them in control. If the one-world govt. gave them authority over all of us, they would be in favor of it. As it is, they look for the rapture and return of god to wipe out humanity and leave them in charge of creation as god-kings of earth (once raptured they are changed into powerful demigods for their righteousness-don'tchaknow?). If Christians fear a one-world govt. then they have no real faith in their own beliefs of becoming invisible superfriends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Before we could become a one-world govt. under a dictatorship, there would have to be a significant die-off in the human race in order for the rest of the population to bow down to a one-world govt. dictator. There are way too many people on this planet with plans of their own, and no super power govt. we have now, can achieve that much control over an entire planet and each and every person. An event would have to happen that would drastically reduce the population of the earth first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noggy Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Funny, because I did Model UN and realized how bullshit the entire process was. Nothing ever fucking happens, and all resolutions are "non-binding". UN is a joke. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser01 Posted August 28, 2011 Author Share Posted August 28, 2011 Funny, because I did Model UN and realized how bullshit the entire process was. Nothing ever fucking happens, and all resolutions are "non-binding". UN is a joke. i agree 100% once i figured that out i just prety much stoped participating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser01 Posted August 28, 2011 Author Share Posted August 28, 2011 From a strictly non religious point of view, one concern is if there's a one world government, what if it becomes a dictatorship? it would need to be a republic like the united states with a representitive democracey. could be sorta like the US articals of the confederation but with a stronger central power but nothing similar to a dictatorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AC Skeptic Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Yeah, that story is just ridiculous. I thought so even when I was a "The Bible is the inerrant Word of God" believer. Its clearly a bad parable to explain why there is different languages even as it is clear language naturally diverges, combines, shifts over time all be itself. And the reasoning . . . that if humans can do this then they can do anything makes absolutely no sense (nor the idea that it could reach heaven, though back then they didn't understand that the sky never ended up there, so it was plausible within their understanding of cosmology. As for the one world government, I think it is more then fear of this prediction in the end times (or at least that is there interpretation) and that this one world government would necessarily persecute Christians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 1. There is no reasoning in morontheism, thus all questions along the line "Why do they think that..." are futile. 2. As has been said already, morontheists love a united world government. They absofuckinglutely want one. But if there's no cross in its flag (or maybe a crescent, for the "other side" of morontheism) then they'll not be the supreme rulers and they can't have that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagan Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 It's a stupid story. Even in context. Way back in the time it was written down Jews didn't believe God was all-powerful and all-knowing. He was just kind of a giant genocidal dick. Like the other storm gods they ripped off with their Yahweh character. The point of the story in context, I think, is to show how man should not presume to be like god, and how god will make your life really suck if you defy him. Fear. It's how the other religions worked, makes sense to think that the Jewish religion - which copied other religions - would be the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Funny, because I did Model UN and realized how bullshit the entire process was. Nothing ever fucking happens, and all resolutions are "non-binding". UN is a joke. The biggest problem with the UN is it wasn't United. Three superpowers with self interest had vetto power over anything and anyone else. All it took was one of them to vetto. Its not the concept that's flawed, its the implementation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 True that. Whoever came up with the idea to allow specifically those nations which will be responsible for most problems to be dealt with by the UN the power to veto everything they don't like can only have had one interest... ...when back in Soviet times the first East German dictator-to-be, W. Ulbricht, had his planning sessions with his co-criminals he supposedly said "It's crystal clear. It needs to look democratic but we must be in full control of everything". To paraphrase that, the interest of the above-mentioned party must have been "It must look like a world government but the superpower nations must retain all power". The idea is okay. It has just never really been implemented like it should have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 And yet this seems such a difficult concept to explain to people. Not referring to anyone here but I've argued so many times with another person regarding the UN and he always points out the failings he doesn't like then complains that the US shouldn't be in it because of that. More often than not I point out that the US was the one that either proposed what he didn't like or vetto'ed what he did. Didn't stop his complaining though. Mind you this guy also complains about the IMF and that the USA needs to get out of it because it puts in the most and its a waste bla bla bla...yeah...they put in the most because if they put in over 15% they can block any major decision the IMF makes and they are the only ones that can do that. He complains that others should put in more, except they offered and were rejected to keep majority. Doesn't change his mind though. Oh, and he want less tax on the super rich so they can give him a job...Sometimes I just want to band my head against a wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts