World Peace is Possible and Will Happen

[CG Didymus]

A family friend was raised in a family who believed "the end is neigh"

Education should never be neglected.

That was "education". But from a very literalist Christian Church. And, to them, who knows more? The state or God? The state wants to teach their kids about evolution and about contraception. But God's word is true and must be believed and obeyed!

What's strange is that if it truly is God's word it should be believed and obeyed. Yet, sensible people don't take as being true. They see something wrong with those that take it so literally. But what are Baha'is going to do? They are a religion that believes it has the truth from God. And if it is, it should be believed and obeyed. True education would include the Baha'i writings in it. But... too many people have come to distrust religion.

So, how does the Baha'i Faith earn the trust of the people? Fortunately, you know how. It's being humble and respectful of the opinions and beliefs of others. Unfortunately, some Baha'is seem to be just as dogmatic and fundamentalist about their beliefs as any Christian ever has. And since we're striving for peace and unity, that's not going to cut it. That's going to be divisive... even though, they believe what they say is the absolute, God-revealed truth, it's going to probably be rejected. Anyway, I think right here is a good place to start. If you, a Baha'i, can be loving and kind and respectful to those here on this thread, that's going to bring a little bit more peace to the world. I'm glad it was you that was the first Baha'i to post on this thread.

 

[Heyo]

So, even if most of the world agrees to put a stop to war, I don't think it's going to be unanimous. What then do we do with those that don't want peace? And that don't want to get rid of their prejudices? We've got plenty of them here in the U.S. and they all have guns.

Baby steps. We don't have to fall for a black-and-white fallacy. If we can have alliances who believably and reliantly won't attack each other militarily, we have at least cut the number of players. The EU is a construct that could abandon it's national armies and pool them into a united force.
The members of the EU have been at each others throats for centuries, now we are unlikely to have a military conflict ever again.

 

[Truthseeker]

Baby steps. We don't have to fall for a black-and-white fallacy. If we can have alliances who believably and reliantly won't attack each other militarily, we have at least cut the number of players. The EU is a construct that could abandon it's national armies and pool them into a united force.
The members of the EU have been at each others throats for centuries, now we are unlikely to have a military conflict ever again.

Too bad Russia is not in the EU. Of course, Russia is strenthening the EU with their recent action. But in the ebb and flow of things, when the war ends, we don't know what will happen, it may weaken again. There were temporary setbacks in the EU before this, like when immigrants flooded in from Syria and other places, and this caused disunity, and the UK went on brexit. There are also other tentative multi-nation organizations, but they are weaker than the EU. The United States which itself formed in the present constitution in 1789 I think is the best example of a federal sytem formed from originally independent states, which has functioned well, at least after the civil war ended in 1865, though now it is going through a political crisis that is worse than any crisis since the civil war, in my opinion. But anyway, that model is what the world can hopefully follow perhaps after a tumultuous future.

 

[rational experiences]

If a human says the following human only quotes.

O one earth a planet. As the entity O it owned it's own heavens.

Humans one self species. Equals X two of as humans life continuance by sex only.

On a planet humans agreed to name God.

So if you want to say the first God is planet earth. Everyone should agree. Let's use the words planet...earth...a God.

Agreement.

Then let's say the words a heavens...all types in it are gods owned.

And agree.

No theorising allowed. The exact human problem. Stories.

The problem...I argue over stories.

All other family living conditions should be mutual and shared as the planet is its owned natural body first.

How you advise advice. Is how acceptance is met.

Rich humans then will say I won't give away my possessions. No human should ask them to.

You begin to home house humans mutually. Until the rich die out. As they do. Who own it now. As only now humans the owner argues.

Newly born humans should be given mutual rights only. So natural attrition is met. Without harm or suffering to anyone.

 

[Truthseeker]

I agree with almost every thing you so intelligently pointed out only that the Baha’i plan does indeed advocate an international force to enforce rulings of a world court if the recalcitrant member continues its warring or oppressive ways. It will be similar to local governance but on a world scale. In other words law and order will become internationally enforceable by the world tribunal.

But this is for humanity to decide upon not the Baha’is. We only offer it as a solution.

An International Executive and Standing Army

Series: Building a World Federation

I love SOVAIDA MA'ANI-EWING. I took a Wilmette Institute course on World Federation with her as faculty. Recently she has been doing a video series called "Re-imagining our World". There have been 31 episodes, and I believe it is over. It is here:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN9dLePUrhCFsVA9hlzjGjA

 

[Heyo]

Too bad Russia is not in the EU. Of course, Russia is strenthening the EU with their recent action. But in the ebb and flow of things, when the war ends, we don't know what will happen, it may weaken again.

The overall trend has been towards more unity and however much strife there may be, the option for a military conflict is basically nil.

There were temporary setbacks in the EU before this, like when immigrants flooded in from Syria and other places, and this caused disunity, and the UK went on brexit.

There are only few immigrants from Syria. Most are asylum seekers and they may go back (or will be sent back) when it is safe.

There are also other tentative multi-nation organizations, but they are weaker than the EU.

Less united, but also very powerful are the African Union and the Arab League. There are also the West Indies Federation and the Pacific Islands Forum. These are all organisations, similar to the EU, which are not just strategic alliances, like NATO, and they also strive for internal peace and unity.

The United States which itself formed in the present constitution in 1789 I think is the best example of a federal sytem formed from originally independent states, which has functioned well, at least after the civil war ended in 1865, though now it is going through a political crisis that is worse than any crisis since the civil war, in my opinion. But anyway, that model is what the world can hopefully follow perhaps after a tumultuous future.

I don't think that something like the US will happen again. There is too much nationalism for existing countries to give up their autonomy for a republic. At least not as fast as the US states were willing. But I see the EU as a model that can work elsewhere.

 

[loverofhumanity]

In theory, we here in the U.S. believe that all people are equal and have certain rights. Sounds great. But it doesn't take much to get us to hate each other. We have a lot of diversity but very little unity. Too many young people have assault rifles and aren't afraid to use them... knowing they're probably going to die themselves. One side hates and distrusts the political leaders of the other side. We've got lots of crime.... blue collar and white collar. Some people want to protect the environment while others could care less.

So, even if most of the world agrees to put a stop to war, I don't think it's going to be unanimous. What then do we do with those that don't want peace? And that don't want to get rid of their prejudices? We've got plenty of them here in the U.S. and they all have guns.

An end to war is just that, an end to war nothing much else. It will free up a lot of money to improve quality of life though. That’s why in Baha’i lingo it’s called the Lesser Peace because you don’t get much bang for your buck, just some relief from having wars. When people decide that materialism isn’t all that fulfilling and start to go for things like virtues and find that being nice to each other tastes good, then things could improve a lot. But that might be never or many, many centuries into the future. Baha’is have faith in humans to reach a high spiritual condition where they will be able to have both material and spiritual civilisation in balance, so have their cake and eat it too and not at somebody else’s expense.

But even when we do end war, we’ll still have a lot more growing up to do to before we really begin to get along with each other. But we will never have Utopia because we are imperfect but we could have a golden age where crime is rare. But not for a long, long time but I believe in the goodness of humanity and that we will outgrow our immaturity eventually.

There’s really no magic wand just a lot of hard work if we want to make this a better world.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That was "education". But from a very literalist Christian Church. And, to them, who knows more? The state or God? The state wants to teach their kids about evolution and about contraception. But God's word is true and must be believed and obeyed!

What's strange is that if it truly is God's word it should be believed and obeyed. Yet, sensible people don't take as being true. They see something wrong with those that take it so literally. But what are Baha'is going to do? They are a religion that believes it has the truth from God. And if it is, it should be believed and obeyed. True education would include the Baha'i writings in it. But... too many people have come to distrust religion.

So, how does the Baha'i Faith earn the trust of the people? Fortunately, you know how. It's being humble and respectful of the opinions and beliefs of others. Unfortunately, some Baha'is seem to be just as dogmatic and fundamentalist about their beliefs as any Christian ever has. And since we're striving for peace and unity, that's not going to cut it. That's going to be divisive... even though, they believe what they say is the absolute, God-revealed truth, it's going to probably be rejected. Anyway, I think right here is a good place to start. If you, a Baha'i, can be loving and kind and respectful to those here on this thread, that's going to bring a little bit more peace to the world. I'm glad it was you that was the first Baha'i to post on this thread.

Thanks CG. The truth is we are just ordinary people like anyone else with the same human frailties as others. We are not special or chosen ones by any stretch of the imagination. We will be judged, and rightly so, by what we do, not what we say because people are tired of sermons and lectures. We too get carried away and often can be dogmatic and it’s going to take a lot of effort for us to be an example to others.

The thing is there’s potential good in everyone and that’s what is special about all people. Humankind has tremendous inner strength that is untapped as of yet. Humanity has achieved so much but is capable of much more than it ever dreamt of. I believe in the goodness of people and that they will overcome our present difficulties and establish a just world. But it’s understandable, with all these countries having nukes, that there’s reluctance to enforce justice, but I’m sure in time humanity will rise up and create a better place for all of us.

 

[idea]

That was "education". But from a very literalist Christian Church. And, to them, who knows more? The state or God? The state wants to teach their kids about evolution and about contraception. But God's word is true and must be believed and obeyed!

What's strange is that if it truly is God's word it should be believed and obeyed. Yet, sensible people don't take as being true. They see something wrong with those that take it so literally. But what are Baha'is going to do? They are a religion that believes it has the truth from God. And if it is, it should be believed and obeyed. True education would include the Baha'i writings in it. But... too many people have come to distrust religion.

So, how does the Baha'i Faith earn the trust of the people? Fortunately, you know how. It's being humble and respectful of the opinions and beliefs of others. Unfortunately, some Baha'is seem to be just as dogmatic and fundamentalist about their beliefs as any Christian ever has. And since we're striving for peace and unity, that's not going to cut it. That's going to be divisive... even though, they believe what they say is the absolute, God-revealed truth, it's going to probably be rejected. Anyway, I think right here is a good place to start. If you, a Baha'i, can be loving and kind and respectful to those here on this thread, that's going to bring a little bit more peace to the world. I'm glad it was you that was the first Baha'i to post on this thread.

Someone can believe in a God, no trouble there, it's when someone claims they personally know what God wants that trouble sets in. Humility = not claiming to know what God wants, learning and experimenting like everyone else, changing beliefs as new information becomes available, and being open to further changes in future.

 

[Truth in love]

That's the claim of the Baha'i Faith. Is it true? The claim is that their founder, Baha'u'llah, was sent from God to bring humanity the social and spiritual teachings needed to bring the world together in peace and harmony. So, what are those teachings?

In 1985 the Baha'i governing body, the Universal House of Justice, put out the "Promise of World Peace". Here's how it ends....

In the earnestness of our desire to impart to you the fervour of our hope and the depth of our confidence, we cite the emphatic promise of Bahá’u’lláh: “These fruitless strifes, these ruinous wars shall pass away, and the ‘Most Great Peace’ shall come.”​

And here's an excerpt from the middle of it...

Acceptance of the oneness of mankind is the first fundamental prerequisite for reorganization and administration of the world as one country, the home of humankind. Universal acceptance of this spiritual principle is essential to any successful attempt to establish world peace. It should therefore be universally proclaimed, taught in schools, and constantly asserted in every nation as preparation for the organic change in the structure of society which it implies.

In the Bahá’í view, recognition of the oneness of mankind “calls for no less than the reconstruction and the demilitarization of the whole civilized world—a world organically unified in all the essential aspects of its life, its political machinery, its spiritual aspiration, its trade and finance, its script and language, and yet infinite in the diversity of the national characteristics of its federated units.”

Elaborating the implications of this pivotal principle, Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith, commented in 1931 that: “Far from aiming at the subversion of the existing foundations of society, it seeks to broaden its basis, to remold its institutions in a manner consonant with the needs of an ever-changing world. It can conflict with no legitimate allegiances, nor can it undermine essential loyalties. Its purpose is neither to stifle the flame of a sane and intelligent patriotism in men’s hearts, nor to abolish the system of national autonomy so essential if the evils of excessive centralization are to be avoided. It does not ignore, nor does it attempt to suppress, the diversity of ethnical origins, of climate, of history, of language and tradition, of thought and habit, that differentiate the peoples and nations of the world. It calls for a wider loyalty, for a larger aspiration than any that has animated the human race. It insists upon the subordination of national impulses and interests to the imperative claims of a unified world. It repudiates excessive centralization on one hand, and disclaims all attempts at uniformity on the other. Its watchword is unity in diversity”.​

For Baha'is... How's the plan going? For others... What do you think? Will it work?

I believe peace will come, however not without a great destruction and cleansing of the earth by the Almighty.

the greed, love of power, hate of fellowman etc. is pretty well entrenched and won't be dislodged quickly or easily.

 

[Dawnofhope]

is unity in diversity”.For Baha'is... How's the plan going? For others... What do you think? Will it work?

Peace depends on us all, not just the Baha'is. Optimists see the good in the world and in people. That isn't the sole domain of the Baha'is.

The Baha'i plan speaks of international co-operation and a framework that is based on justice. All countries need to solemnly declare and commit to disarmament to the extent of only having enough weapons to defend one's territory.

There have been treaties and work between the major superpowers to reduce armaments over the last few decades. Clearly the current conflict with the Russian invasion of Ukraine represents a significant set back towards this process.

 

[Heyo]

All countries need to solemnly declare and commit to disarmament to the extent of only having enough weapons to defend one's territory.

Disarmament would be "nice to have" but is too big a problem as a first step. Setting unrealistic goals only leads to frustration. A commitment to strike military attacks from the diplomatic options catalogue would be a good start followed by the commitment to sanction trade with any country violating the first commitment.

 

[CG Didymus]

I agree with almost every thing you so intelligently pointed out only that the Baha’i plan does indeed advocate an international force to enforce rulings of a world court if the recalcitrant member continues its warring or oppressive ways. It will be similar to local governance but on a world scale. In other words law and order will become internationally enforceable by the world tribunal.

But this is for humanity to decide upon not the Baha’is. We only offer it as a solution.

An International Executive and Standing Army

From your link...

When the Supreme Tribunal gives a ruling on any international question, either unanimously or by majority rule, there will no longer be any pretext for the plaintiff or ground of objection for the defendant. In case any of the governments or nations, in the execution of the irrefutable decision of the Supreme Tribunal, be negligent or dilatory, the rest of the nations will rise up against it, because all the governments and nations of the world are the supporters of this Supreme Tribunal. – Abdu’l-Baha, Foundations of World Unity, p. 33.

The wisdom underlying these words is evident: There is no point in passing international laws for the benefit of all peoples if we have no means of enforcing them. Similarly, regardless of how wise and well-considered the judgments of a World Court are, they are useless, if we lack the means to put them into action.

To assist the World Executive in enforcing these international laws and judicial decisions, the Baha’i Teachings envision that the international community will create an international standing army, composed of armed forces representing all the nations of the world. This international military force will act at the behest of the World Executive
​

Now the Baha'i Faith is recommending a World Executive, a World Court and a World Legislature? And then a World Police to enforce the decisions? But that's what lots of nations have, and it's far from perfect.

 

[CG Didymus]

An end to war is just that, an end to war nothing much else.

And is that even possible with what the Baha'is are recommending?

But even when we do end war, we’ll still have a lot more growing up to do to before we really begin to get along with each other. But we will never have Utopia because we are imperfect but we could have a golden age where crime is rare. But not for a long, long time but I believe in the goodness of humanity and that we will outgrow our immaturity eventually.

There’s really no magic wand just a lot of hard work if we want to make this a better world.

God is the supposed "magic" wand.

I’m sure in time humanity will rise up and create a better place for all of us.

If it is up to people, why even mention an invisible God that is going to leave it up to humanity to create a better place?

But I think Baha'is do believe God is helping and guiding humanity through this. And that Baha'is feel like they are on a "mission" from God. And as you say it will take a lot more "growing" up. Which I imagine you mean growing spiritual and turning to God. But that is long, long way off?

Then how will selfish, greedy, lying, cheating people even accomplish the "lesser" peace and be able to put an end to war? And how much fighting and killing is allowable before it gets called a war? And even if nations don't rise up against this World Tribunal, who's going to stop small terrorist groups?

Will the plan work? Or is it just a bunch of religious idealism? And if we are going to bring religion and God into it, the promises were that when the Messiah comes... there will be a peaceful world.

 

[CG Didymus]

I believe peace will come, however not without a great destruction and cleansing of the earth by the Almighty.

the greed, love of power, hate of fellowman etc. is pretty well entrenched and won't be dislodged quickly or easily.

That's how I understood it from several religions. The version I've heard the most is that God is going to finally send his heavenly army led by Jesus and do away will Satan and evil. But now the Baha'is say their guy is it. Their guy is that return that was promised. So now I'm saying, "Okay, what do we have to do? What are the details of the plan. There is a link to a Baha'i talking about these things, but it's a series of about 30 programs.

But anyway, what are some of the details of what your religion is expecting to happen?

 

[CG Didymus]

Peace depends on us all, not just the Baha'is. Optimists see the good in the world and in people. That isn't the sole domain of the Baha'is.

The Baha'i plan speaks of international co-operation and a framework that is based on justice. All countries need to solemnly declare and commit to disarmament to the extent of only having enough weapons to defend one's territory.

There have been treaties and work between the major superpowers to reduce armaments over the last few decades. Clearly the current conflict with the Russian invasion of Ukraine represents a significant set back towards this process.

"Solemnly" commit to disarmament? Now if you said God was going to be watching and smite those that disobey, I'd say the plan has a chance. But it sounds like God just sent the outline of the plan down to us and now it's up to us to put it into practice.

First thing we have to do is realize we are all just one people? Yeah, we're one people that don't necessarily like and agree with each other. What else? Maybe that thing about all religions are one also? Yeah, they have some things in common. One important thing, the Golden Rule. But do they practice it? Not too many. But let's get to this World Tribunal. Without God guiding it, assuming there is a God, we are going to leave it to people? Good luck. Sounds like a recipe for corruption.

To use the U.S. as an example again, half of us don't even like and agree with those in power. Then we finally elect the ones we like, and the other half hates them and fights against their policies and rallies to get one of their people in leadership. On a world scale, the major powers aren't going to allow smaller countries an equal voice. Then how will the U.S. Russia, China, and the rest of the bigger countries feel as though they are adequately represented in this Tribunal? Which means... if they don't have control, then why would they abide by the rulings? And then if one is favored over another? Like if decisions favor China over the U.S. do you really think the U.S. is going to agree and follow the ruling?

I don't know, but just in case God really did send Baha'u'llah with this plan, I think we owe it to God to at least listen to his plan.

 

[CG Didymus]

Disarmament would be "nice to have" but is too big a problem as a first step. Setting unrealistic goals only leads to frustration. A commitment to strike military attacks from the diplomatic options catalogue would be a good start followed by the commitment to sanction trade with any country violating the first commitment.

Part of the plan depends on the old world order to continue to crumble. Add to that, environmental/natural disasters and plagues. And maybe even a war. That's what I thought was included in what the Baha'is predict. Once things get so bad that we can't stand it any longer, we all say, "Hey, you know what... the Baha'is say they have a plan to bring peace and unity to the world. Why not give it a try?"

Maybe a Baha'i can clarify that. But if that's the case, then the world is in such bad shape that we'd be starting almost from scratch. Sadly, I think that's the only way their plan will work. I really doubt that countries today are going to disarm... and then obey the rulings of some Tribunal?

 

[Heyo]

Part of the plan depends on the old world order to continue to crumble.

My plan depends on the old world order to stabilize and to evolve. Revolutions are a bad thing to bet on. They can backfire and have a tendency to make things worse.

Add to that, environmental/natural disasters and plagues. And maybe even a war. That's what I thought was included in what the Baha'is predict. Once things get so bad that we can't stand it any longer, we all say, "Hey, you know what... the Baha'is say they have a plan to bring peace and unity to the world. Why not give it a try?"

Maybe a Baha'i can clarify that. But if that's the case, then the world is in such bad shape that we'd be starting almost from scratch. Sadly, I think that's the only way their plan will work. I really doubt that countries today are going to disarm... and then obey the rulings of some Tribunal?

As I said before, there is too much nationalism for a "tribunal". And it isn't needed. Just the commitment to two rules.

 

[loverofhumanity]

From your link...

When the Supreme Tribunal gives a ruling on any international question, either unanimously or by majority rule, there will no longer be any pretext for the plaintiff or ground of objection for the defendant. In case any of the governments or nations, in the execution of the irrefutable decision of the Supreme Tribunal, be negligent or dilatory, the rest of the nations will rise up against it, because all the governments and nations of the world are the supporters of this Supreme Tribunal. – Abdu’l-Baha, Foundations of World Unity, p. 33.

The wisdom underlying these words is evident: There is no point in passing international laws for the benefit of all peoples if we have no means of enforcing them. Similarly, regardless of how wise and well-considered the judgments of a World Court are, they are useless, if we lack the means to put them into action.

To assist the World Executive in enforcing these international laws and judicial decisions, the Baha’i Teachings envision that the international community will create an international standing army, composed of armed forces representing all the nations of the world. This international military force will act at the behest of the World Executive
​

Now the Baha'i Faith is recommending a World Executive, a World Court and a World Legislature? And then a World Police to enforce the decisions? But that's what lots of nations have, and it's far from perfect.

These have been Baha’i teachings all along. The fact is that the world has yet to decide whether it wants to unite against the aggressor. Currently some nations take the side of oppressive regimes which makes it impossible to intervene without starting a major conflict. Economic sanctions also don’t work without unity. That is why unity is so important because without it justice cannot be implemented.

 

[Truthseeker]

The overall trend has been towards more unity and however much strife there may be, the option for a military conflict is basically nil.

Yes, quite true.

Less united, but also very powerful are the African Union and the Arab League. There are also the West Indies Federation and the Pacific Islands Forum. These are all organisations, similar to the EU, which are not just strategic alliances, like NATO, and they also strive for internal peace and unity.

I'm impressed you are so well acquainted with these organizations.

I don't think that something like the US will happen again. There is too much nationalism for existing countries to give up their autonomy for a republic. At least not as fast as the US states were willing. But I see the EU as a model that can work elsewhere.

No, not as fast. Climate change is a common threat, in my opinion, though so far it only elicited voluntary pledges that unfortunately have not been kept. It is quite possible that things will get bad enough that they will enter a more binding agreement. Then they will need an organization that will enforce the binding agreements. Whether that's a federated world government in the full sense at that point, who knows? Things will not get so bad that the nations will feel it's necessary to do that for a while, that's true.