Joy to the world

[shubi]

Constitution for whole Earth.

Charter. All individual are equal regardless of birth, region race, religion, gender

Once we define the charter we must define the individual TASK, to complete our work one by one.

Task one, all children under 8 must be taken care of by individual family member. the family individual will be paid for 8 years, a social worker will be paid reasonable amount of money The business man who will carefully keep the position open for the employee will also be paid reasonable amount.

Now who is going to pay for this, the central figures will UNITED Nations. they will the collect money from their country 1 unite per month or 12 unit a year to save the enormous administration costs. the total costs 48 bullion a year. the 48 billion figure, the world has650 billion people. i excluded 250 billion as optional Donners

 

the second project. taking care of person above 58 years and more, one at a time.

The money making aspect is not so hard, later if its seems worth while i am sure many well to do individual will donate open handed.

[BebopKid]

Constitution for whole Earth.

Charter. All individual are equal regardless of birth, region race, religion, gender.

 

Okay. But you won't get most of the population to agree with religion and gender.

 

And a constitution should be approved by 3/4 or so.

 

Once we define the charter we must define the individual TASK, to complete our work one by one.

Task  one,  all children under 8 must be taken care of by  individual family member. the family individual will be paid for 8 years, a social worker will be  paid reasonable amount of money The business man who will carefully keep the position open for the employee will also be paid reasonable amount.

Now who is going to pay for this, the central figures will UNITED Nations. they will the  collect money  from their country 1 unite per month or 12 unit a year to save the enormous administration costs. the total costs 48 bullion a year. the 48 billion figure, the world has650 billion people. i excluded 250 billion as optional Donners.

 

the second project. taking care of person above 58 years and more, one at a time.

The money making aspect is not so hard, later if its seems worth while i am sure many well to do individual  will donate open handed.

 

In the United States there was a good experiment from the 1600s until the 1920s. The government didn't overtax people and families could live on one salary. In the 1920s the United States instituted an income tax by adding a Constitutional Amendment.

 

Elimination of taxes and allowing charities and churches to care for under privileged people is the only plausible solution.

[TimG]

under privileged people

Is that a politically correct euphemism for something?

[Gerben42]

The business man who will carefully keep the position open for the employee will also be paid reasonable amount.

 

This is so not going to happen. 8 years is an eternity in business. After that, everything has changed and you must learn lots of things from the start again.

 

the second project. taking care of person above 58 years and more, one at a time.

 

In Germany working age is going to be until 67. In other countries, 58 is higher than life expectancy.

 

Let's get real. North America and Europe are not going to pay for all this.

 

Elimination of taxes and allowing charities and churches to care for under privileged people is the only plausible solution.

 

And you think enough people are going to pay for this?

[Gerben42]

I'd like to bring your attention to a small problem. There are too many of us. 6700 million. If you try to make everyone as happy as the Western world, soon NO ONE will be happy at all.

 

The more resources we spend now, the steeper the fall will be. Unless of course we finally start getting serious about space travel. Earth is the cradle of mankind. To expand, we must leave the cradle.

[Al_U_Card]

The bacterial infection that is mankind on the petri-dish of earth has almost completed its growth. Infect the stars? More likely that we will just die out and hopefully not leave the planet so devastated that another, better experiment can take place, flourish, prosper and then evolve to the next level. We certainly didn't.

[Gerben42]

What on earth is "the next level"? Evolution does not take place on the timescale you are thinking about. Since the bronze age there have only been around 200 generations, which is negligible.

 

More likely that we will just die out and hopefully not leave the planet so devastated that another, better experiment can take place, flourish, prosper and then evolve to the next level.

 

This sounds extremely pessimistic. It is not in our power to destroy life on Earth, or make even the slightest dent in the planet itself. We cannot even reduce the number of humans on the planet to 0 even if we wanted to.

 

The 21st century is not going to be a lot of fun for the majority of mankind. In fact it's going to suck big time. But for those in the 22nd century, let's hope that the population of the Earth in 2100 is smaller, not larger than in 2000.

[Al_U_Card]

What on earth is "the next level"? Evolution does not take place on the timescale you are thinking about. Since the bronze age there have only been around 200 generations, which is negligible.

 

More likely that we will just die out and hopefully not leave the planet so devastated that another, better experiment can take place, flourish, prosper and then evolve to the next level.

 

This sounds extremely pessimistic. It is not in our power to destroy life on Earth, or make even the slightest dent in the planet itself. We cannot even reduce the number of humans on the planet to 0 even if we wanted to.

 

The 21st century is not going to be a lot of fun for the majority of mankind. In fact it's going to suck big time. But for those in the 22nd century, let's hope that the population of the Earth in 2100 is smaller, not larger than in 2000.

Hi Gerben

 

Pessimism is just realism recognized. Wherever we are "headed" that hoped for reduction that you are referring to involves a lot of death and destruction if it is to be of any impact......

 

The next level will depend on the consciousness raising of those who will survive and continue...if any. We are in ***** up to our eyeballs and everyone is trying to find ways to convince us that there is no bad smell......

[shubi]

1 sentense,business will get reasonable amount say 3 weeks expense.

[the hog]

Better still, why not push for the abolition of religion? You would solve a lot of the world's problems in one hit.

[BebopKid]

Better still, why not push for the abolition of religion? You would solve a lot of the world's problems in one hit.

I that Christians, Muslims, and Hebrews would fight that.

 

All three religions' people would die before forsaking the God.

 

I know I would, anything else would be a sin for me.

[uday]

"Joy to the world.." and all that good stuff B)

[keylime]

Where's Three Dog Night when you need them?

[Winstonm]

I that Christians, Muslims, and Hebrews would fight that.

 

All three religions' people would die before forsaking the God.

 

I know I would, anything else would be a sin for me.

 

 

A philosophical question: how can forsaking the beaurocracy of religious organizations be extrapolated to equal the forsaking of god?

 

As you may know, I happen to agree that abolishment of religion would go a long way in restoring peace to the world; but that abolishment in no way should interfere with an individual's spiritual relationship with a higher power.

 

It is not the intimate connection with a higher power that causes problems but the group-think mentality inherent in religious bias. God and religion are not the same thing.

[Winstonm]

Where's Three Dog Night when you need them?

Going to celebrity ball.

[mike777]

I that Christians, Muslims, and Hebrews would fight that.

 

All three religions' people would die before forsaking the God.

 

I know I would, anything else would be a sin for me.

 

 

A philosophical question: how can forsaking the beaurocracy of religious organizations be extrapolated to equal the forsaking of god?

 

As you may know, I happen to agree that abolishment of religion would go a long way in restoring peace to the world; but that abolishment in no way should interfere with an individual's spiritual relationship with a higher power.

 

It is not the intimate connection with a higher power that causes problems but the group-think mentality inherent in religious bias. God and religion are not the same thing.

The Encyclopedia of Religion defines religion this way:[5]

 

In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels — a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behaviour are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

[BebopKid]

As you may know, I happen to agree that abolishment of religion would go a long way in restoring peace to the world; but that abolishment in no way should interfere with an individual's spiritual relationship with a higher power.

My religion beliefs: to belong to a body of believers. To multiply that body of believers. Only believers go to heaven. We want everyone to become believers so that they can go to heaven.

 

Abolishing organized religion is against my religious beliefs and the beliefs of my religion.

[Winstonm]

Mike, also from your Wikipedia reference: (emphasis is mine)

 

In the frame of (patriarchal) European religious thought,[1] religions present a common quality, the "hallmark of patriarchal religious thought": the division of the world in two comprehensive domains, one sacred, the other profane.[2]

 

It is this division of the world into two comprehensive domains, i.e., a black and white, right or wrong structure that so often throughout history has led to violence.

 

And where I live the the good ol U.S.A., religious thought was and still is influenced by European religious thought.

 

Added quote from BeeBop: "Only believers go to heaven."

 

This confirms my point about two comprehensive domains; I have no dispute with Beebop believing this as that is his right; I have serious problems with any attmpts to coerce this belief onto others.

 

Make no mistake - I have the same abhorence of a forced or coerced belief in Islam, as well. To me, there is no difference between "Only believers go to heaven" and "Non-Muslims are infidels". Same black and white seperation.

[the hog]

Quote: from BeeBop: "Only believers go to heaven."

 

Really!? Believers in what? I believe there are faeries at the bottom of my garden. Does that mean I will go to heaven? And on what empirical source do you base this? How do you even know there is a "heaven". Please don't use the tired argument " It is in the scriptures so it must be true". The stoning of adulterers, ritual sacrificial offerings of human beings, rampant mysogony, torture, cruelty - all of these are in the Bible. Does that mean we need to believe in these as well?

 

How many of you have read Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion"?

[Codo]

Why do you ask for a proof for something beebop is believing?

 

If you can proove something you cannot believe in it, you know it.

 

Nobody can proofe that there is a higher power, but many do believe it for one "reason" or another.

 

And it is impossible to take away the religions from mother earth. There are at least 2.000.000.000 believers. I doubt that you can convince more then 20 % that they should abandon their religion.

 

And that you will stop a lot of violencef you cancel all religions is simply not true.

It is true that there had been a lot of cruellness in the name of religions.

But when they tried to stop the religion in the eastern world, did this stop cruel behaviour? And the same was true in the Nazi period in Germany. No religion but still violence.

 

If you take away the religions, the cruel people will find other "reasons" for their violence. They will do it for their state, their race or just because they want to do it.

 

If you take away religions you will take away a lot of ethics, a lot of hope and a lot of good feelings and good behaviour for millions of people. But you surely would not stop violence.

You will stop the violence in the name of god. But the violent people will just change the name of their gang. They won´t kill you because you don´t believe in their god, but because you are white/ a capitalist/a women/ugly/a foreigner/ old or whatever.

[the hog]

Why do you ask for a proof for something beebop is believing?

 

Because of the blanket self righteous comment that "Only believers go to heaven". Further Rolan, I have not asked him to prove it, I have asked on what authority he bases that statement.

 

If you can proove something you cannot believe in it, you know it.

 

And your point is....?

 

Nobody can proofe that there is a higher power, but many do believe it for one "reason" or another.

 

Many have tried to prove it Roland, and claim they have proved it. Look at the "proofs" of Thomas Aquinas for example.

 

And it is impossible to take away the religions from mother earth. There are at least 2.000.000.000 believers. I doubt that you can convince more then 20 % that they should abandon their religion.

 

Thats unfortunate! However 20% would be a fantastic start. Furthemore, I would not really call Bhuddism/Confucianism/Taoism a religion. I would suggest that these are more a philosophy of a way of life. There has NEVER been a war fought in the name of Bhuddism, for example.

 

And that you will stop a lot of violencef you cancel all religions is simply not true.

 

Yes it is. Look at the atrocities that have been commited by Christians and Muslims in the name of their religion throughout the ages. The Crusades, the exermination of the Cathars and other assorted heretics, the extermination of the Incas and Aztecs with the support of the Christian church, Serbs vs Croats etc etc....do you want me to go on?

 

It is true that there had been a lot of cruellness in the name of religions.

 

Agreed absolutely, but does this not contradict what you have written above?

 

But when they tried to stop the religion in the eastern world, did this stop cruel behaviour? And the same was true in the Nazi period in Germany. No religion but still violence.

 

I don't see your point here.

 

If you take away the religions, the cruel people will find other "reasons" for their violence. They will do it for their state, their race or just because they want to do it.

 

If you take away religions you will take away a lot of ethics, a lot of hope and a lot of good feelings and good behaviour for millions of people.

 

Now Roland, this is a point I totally and very strongly disagree with. Are you suggesting that people are "good" and have ethics because of religion? I hope not, because that is clearly incorrect. There are many atheists in this world. Are you suggesting that they are not good because they lack religion? That is the extrapolation of your argument.

 

But you surely would not stop violence.

 

No but there will be less of it.

 

You will stop the violence in the name of god. But the violent people will just change the name of their gang. They won´t kill you because you don´t believe in their god, but because you are white/ a capitalist/a women/ugly/a foreigner/ old or whatever.

 

See above.

[hrothgar]

Better still, why not push for the abolition of religion? You would solve a lot of the world's problems in one hit.

I that Christians, Muslims, and Hebrews would fight that.

 

All three religions' people would die before forsaking the God.

 

I know I would, anything else would be a sin for me.

As I recall, Pride is also a sin.

 

Regardless, lets wander back to your original claim. For whatever reason, I am drawn to the following quote from the book of Matthew:

 

Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. ::: But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. ::: And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. ::: And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the Man. ::: And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech betrayeth thee. ::: Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the Man. And immediately the cock crew. ::: And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

 

Needless to say, your claim that you would never forsake your God doesn't seem to match the behavior of Jesus's own apostles. I'm curious whether you think that your faith is stronger than theirs. Alternatively, perhaps you don't think that you will ever actually be tested.

[luke warm]

Mike, also from your Wikipedia reference: (emphasis is mine)

 

In the frame of (patriarchal) European religious thought,[1] religions present a common quality, the "hallmark of patriarchal religious thought": the division of the world in two comprehensive domains, one sacred, the other profane.[2]

 

It is this division of the world into two comprehensive domains, i.e., a black and white, right or wrong structure that so often throughout history has led to violence.~~

not exactly, winston... it is the failure to understand that this division exists, and an unwillingness to separate the sacred from the profane, that has led to the violence... the Buddhists have it right in this instance

[Winstonm]

Mike, also from your Wikipedia reference: (emphasis is mine)

 

In the frame of (patriarchal) European religious thought,[1] religions present a common quality, the "hallmark of patriarchal religious thought": the division of the world in two comprehensive domains, one sacred, the other profane.[2]

 

It is this division of the world into two comprehensive domains, i.e., a black and white, right or wrong structure that so often throughout history has led to violence.~~

not exactly, winston... it is the failure to understand that this division exists, and an unwillingness to separate the sacred from the profane, that has led to the violence... the Buddhists have it right in this instance

So do alcholics anonymous: Live and let live.

[1eyedjack]

Only believers go to heaven.

Heh. This was of course one of the foundations of the argument that Hell is exothermic ...

http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/gez_ihee.htm