I don't believe you

[+Sherapy]

11 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

Thank you Sheri. I wonder if you might take the time to read the following. I really would like to hear your assessment of the ideas presented.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Law, Liberty, and Sovereignty

134:6.1

If one man craves freedom—liberty—he must remember that all other men long for the same freedom. Groups of such liberty-loving mortals cannot live together in peace without becoming subservient to such laws, rules, and regulations as will grant each person the same degree of freedom while at the same time safeguarding an equal degree of freedom for all of his fellow mortals. If one man is to be absolutely free, then another must become an absolute slave. And the relative nature of freedom is true socially, economically, and politically. Freedom is the gift of civilization made possible by the enforcement of LAW.

134:6.2

Religion makes it spiritually possible to realize the brotherhood of men, but it will require mankind government to regulate the social, economic, and political problems associated with such a goal of human happiness and efficiency.

134:6.3

There shall be wars and rumors of wars—nation will rise against nation—just as long as the world’s political sovereignty is divided up and unjustly held by a group of nation-states. England, Scotland, and Wales were always fighting each other until they gave up their respective sovereignties, reposing them in the United Kingdom.

134:6.4

Another world war will teach the so-called sovereign nations to form some sort of federation, thus creating the machinery for preventing small wars, wars between the lesser nations. But global wars will go on until the government of mankind is created. Global sovereignty will prevent global wars—nothing else can.

134:6.5

The forty-eight American free states live together in peace. There are among the citizens of these forty-eight states all of the various nationalities and races that live in the ever-warring nations of Europe. These Americans represent almost all the religions and religious sects and cults of the whole wide world, and yet here in North America they live together in peace. And all this is made possible because these forty-eight states have surrendered their sovereignty and have abandoned all notions of the supposed rights of self-determination.

134:6.6

It is not a question of armaments or disarmament. Neither does the question of conscription or voluntary military service enter into these problems of maintaining world-wide peace. If you take every form of modern mechanical armaments and all types of explosives away from strong nations, they will fight with fists, stones, and clubs as long as they cling to their delusions of the divine right of national sovereignty.

1,491

War is not man’s great and terrible disease; war is a symptom, a result. The real disease is the virus of national sovereignty.

134:6.8

Urantia nations have not possessed real sovereignty; they never have had a sovereignty which could protect them from the ravages and devastations of world wars. In the creation of the global government of mankind, the nations are not giving up sovereignty so much as they are actually creating a real, bona fide, and lasting world sovereignty which will henceforth be fully able to protect them from all war. Local affairs will be handled by local governments; national affairs, by national governments; international affairs will be administered by global government.

134:6.9

World peace cannot be maintained by treaties, diplomacy, foreign policies, alliances, balances of power, or any other type of makeshift juggling with the sovereignties of nationalism. World law must come into being and must be enforced by world government—the sovereignty of all mankind.

134:6.10

The individual will enjoy far more liberty under world government. Today, the citizens of the great powers are taxed, regulated, and controlled almost oppressively, and much of this present interference with individual liberties will vanish when the national governments are willing to trustee their sovereignty as regards international affairs into the hands of global government.

134:6.11

Under global government the national groups will be afforded a real opportunity to realize and enjoy the personal liberties of genuine democracy. The fallacy of self-determination will be ended. With global regulation of money and trade will come the new era of world-wide peace. Soon may a global language evolve, and there will be at least some hope of sometime having a global religion—or religions with a global viewpoint.

134:6.12

Collective security will never afford peace until the collectivity includes all mankind.

134:6.13

The political sovereignty of representative mankind government will bring lasting peace on earth, and the spiritual brotherhood of man will forever insure good will among all men. And there is no other way whereby peace on earth and good will among men can be realized.

 

 

Will, I do not hold the UB or give it the same merit as the Constitution. 

Freedom from religion and free speech, the right to dissent are what make a country free.

If we want to know how it is panning out we only need to look to the United States to see how it is working, where it can be refined,  I wouldn’t consider some fantasy place in the  UB as comparable or viable in the quest for freedom.

 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2019 by Sherapy

[Dejarma]

1 minute ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Faith & belief are "real things" too, since people's faith and beliefs cause them to act in certain ways, yes?

It is 'faith & belief' that causes people to wage war on people with different 'faiths & beliefs'.

Faith & belief is what causes people to treat other people as 'less than', yes?

yeah, which is illogical & stupid= fortunately for the human race the vast vast majority of the highly intellectual/ scientists etc etc= ya know: those who dedicate themselves to making life easier (technology/ medical research etc)  do_not_believe_in_god/s

this i'm thankful for otherwise, we'd still be going around on horse-back & dying of tooth infection 

[XenoFish]

Believing that a completely made up entity will help you land that job interview is irrational, but can be functional. Because what would the effect be? Do you think that perhaps you might act in a more confident manner? Selecting your words just right? Could even completely fail the interview. It's all up in the air. But that entity acted as a psychological placebo. It doesn't make sense to anyone on the outside, so I try to make it easier to understand.

[Dejarma]

3 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Do you think that perhaps you might act in a more confident manner?

no

[XenoFish]

Just now, Dejarma said:

no

That's why you're not me. I still have some imagination left. Logic, logic, logic, logic....in this world, on this planet, very little makes actual sense. Especially the species known as humans. Not a single one of those semi-hairless primates are sane. 

[Will Due]

7 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Will, I do not hold the UB or give it the same merit as the Constitution. 

Freedom from religion and free speech, the right to dissent are what make a country free.

If we want to ‘now how it is panning out we only need to look to the United States to see how it working, where t can be refined,  I wouldn’t consider some fantasy place in the  UB as comparable or viable.

 

 

 

Did you read it?

 

 

[Aquila King]

54 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I'm not sure how to explain it but even if I just bestow 'god-like things' with conventional god powers this comparison sounds off to me.  We can dismiss the possibility of a 200 mile wide space coffee cup entirely but on the other hand it's a reasonable possibility that a god exists who has the power to easily create a 200 mile wide space coffee cup for whatever god-like inscrutable reasons and thereby make the notion of one definitely non-dismissable?  I'm not sure why a god is so much more reasonable a possibility than a moon-size space cup given that.  I think the issue might have something to do with gods potentially wrecking the idea of probabilities, but haven't thought it fully through.

As I said: "Depending on your definition of a 'god' that is."

I don't think a God that can create a 200 mile coffee cup out of thin air is any more reasonable than the coffee cup itself.

It's when people discuss concepts like a more pantheistic "cosmic consciousness" sort of thing, or sort of quasi-sentient entity that sort of "guides" or "directs" or "influences" certain things in the universe that I think could very well be possible.

There are so many different ideas of what constitutes a "god" that you really can't just assume anything when someone mentions one.

[+Sherapy]

Just now, Will Due said:

 

Did you read it?

 

 

I did, but it is meaningless and vacuous in the context you are asking me to consider it. 

There isn’t any thing more noteworthy then the constitution. 

 

[Aquila King]

44 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

agnostics are cowards= they won't commit to one or the other just in case either one turns out to be true

Or maybe we humbly acknowledge our human limits and don't childishly adhere to a black-and-white "one or the other" mentality.

[Dejarma]

Just now, Aquila King said:

Or maybe we humbly acknowledge our human limits and don't childishly adhere to a black-and-white "one or the other" mentality.

to know your limits, one needs a yardstick- what yardstick are you using?

[+Sherapy]

49 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

I can understand when people say that times were different back then. But what I cannot fathom is how people can say things like "no, no! slavery was different!" Notice that these apologists don't try to say that murder was "different', or that theft was 'different', just slavery.

If cold blooded murder was wrong then, and is now;

If theft was wrong then, and is now;

If rape was wrong then, and is now;

Then how come slavery is different?

Indeed, I grew up when homosexuality was considered evil and wrong, I never agreed with this mindset and was not afraid to say so, while it wasn’t popular and I made up a small percentage I stood strong because the majority was lagging behind didn’t mean I should too. It was wrong to diminish a person for being gay and I knew it. I didn’t agree with corporal punishment either and forged my own way on it and now the world has caught up. What would be the purpose to be online trying to defend such stupidity and harm, I don’t care about the side of those that enslaved others, my compassion is with those that suffered.

There are always those that see the bigger picture, eventually the world catches up with or without them. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2019 by Sherapy

[Will Due]

Just now, Sherapy said:

I did, but it is meaningless and vacuous in the context you are asking me to consider it. 

There isn’t any thing more noteworthy then the constitution. 

 

What about a Constitution (like ours) that will outline the basis for a future government of the whole world which will eliminate nationalism? Eliminate wars between nations? Eliminate economic disparities? Eliminate social disparities?

You don't think that's a good idea?

 

 

[+Sherapy]

5 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

What about a Constitution (like ours) that will outline the basis for a future government of the whole world which will eliminate nationalism? Eliminate wars between nations? Eliminate economic disparities? Eliminate social disparities?

You don't think that's a good idea?

 

 

You are offering a straw man an argument I didn’t pose or imply. 

You asked me to consider the UB as a voice or guide to freedom, I gave you my response.

Moving on.

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

49 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Also, even if I am confident that all god hypotheses are "made up," I am probably also confident that they were not made up to be absurd (although some manage to turn out that way, and there are satirical "hypotheses" like the modern Eris, the Discordian goddess).

Sure good point, I can see that they have different kinds of problems.  I think where I'm at is that it doesn't seem to follow that if you're going to compare to gods that things that otherwise sound absurd are improbable just because they seem absurd.  With a god a space cup is not absurd, if god doesn't tell you his motivations then logically what seems absurd to us isn't relevant.  It's specific but so is what I'm doing right now where I am, but that's not improbable.  If we invoke a god, or maybe especially a small pantheon of them, then we have definitely increased the chances of a space cup existing, and lots of other absurd things.  I get what you're saying, at a base level even if a god exists then I have no basis for thinking it would do any specific thing, but specificity is not the only improbability with the space cup example, and the reason for that other improbability vanishes with gods' powers.

59 minutes ago, eight bits said:

A 200 mile wide coffee cup in space displays the toolmarks of the aspiring comedian,

As do farts.

[Daughter of the Nine Moons]

Thread cleaned.

[Will Due]

10 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

You are offering a straw man an argument I didn’t pose or imply. 

You asked me to consider the UB as a voice or guide to freedom, I gave you my response.

Moving on.

 

 

We were talking about slavery. I posted something about it and how the whole world will be free of it someday. You threw up something about the Constitution. I mentioned that the Constitution is the basis for the freedom of the whole world. We're talking about the same thing.

But whatever Sheri. 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2019 by Will Due

[+Sherapy]

6 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

We were talking about slavery. I posted something about it and how the whole world will be free of it someday. You threw up something about the Constitution. I mentioned that the Constitution is the basis for the freedom of the whole world. We're talking about the same thing.

But whatever Sheri. 

 

 

I think the Constitution addresses freedom exceptionally well.

I am glad you do not espouse or praise slavery by the way.

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

I think the Constitution addresses freedom exceptionally well.

I am glad you do not espouse or praise slavery by the way.

 

All I'm trying to say is that we have flourished in this country. Flourished because of the Constitution. Flourished because of our form of government. 

I hope someday it will act as a model for mankind government. When every nation will voluntarily relinquish its national sovereignty. Thereby creating the sovereignty of the government of all mankind and finally putting everyone on the planet on equal ground. Creating the stage for freedom from much more than just slavery. Creating the stage where everyone can flourish together as one race.

 

 

[+Sherapy]

29 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

All I'm trying to say is that we have flourished in this country. Flourished because of the Constitution. Flourished because of our form of government. 

I hope someday it will act as a model for mankind government. When every nation will voluntarily relinquish its national sovereignty. Thereby creating the sovereignty of the government of all mankind and finally putting everyone on the planet on equal ground. Creating the stage for freedom from much more than just slavery. Creating the stage where everyone can flourish together as one race.

 

 

Indeed, it is a wonderful sentiment.

Edited April 19, 2019 by Sherapy

[Mr Walker]

17 hours ago, Sherapy said:

 

 

Walker, slavery was horrible, period. 

 

http://www.understandingslavery.com/index.php-option=com_content&view=article&id=418_benin-leopard&catid=143&Itemid=253.html

No argument; but it was better than many of the alternatives at the time and often not much worse than being a free, poor, person. 

is slavery worse than starving or freezing slowly to death with your whole family, or having yourself and your whole family executed after defeat in war . Which gives hope for the future? 

The debate  is about when, if ever, slavery is permissible (not morally good, but practically necessary)  The answer is that it is permissible when ending it would do greater harm to more people than maintaining it. 

[Mr Walker]

16 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Nowhere in your justification post however did you actually mention survival. You merely mentioned slavery's value in maintaining a lifestyle.

Both are significant. Survival is an outcome of lifestyle.

If you  don't have enough food or shelter, and your society cannot support you, then  you will more likely die a long and painful death.  

I think from  the contexts and examples i gave, my point was clear.

Other wise, slavery would still be acceptable today, just to give some people a better standard of living 

I didn't see what you seem to see as i thought and wrote my post. It is about how slavery. in ancient societies,  supported a total economic system which provided adequate work and resources for all people     ( slave and free ) to survive 

[Mr Walker]

16 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Do you even read his posts? 

 

i am sure i never said anything about the slaves kept shackled in my basement.  

[Mr Walker]

16 hours ago, Sherapy said:

He praises slavery. 

“It was that, in many early societies if slavery was not practiced all enemies would be killed including women and children.   Keeping them as slaves  meant they were not a threat, could be controlled and eventually integrated into your society and even freed...” 

“Second, only slavery enabled societies like those in Greece and Rome to survive and be prosperous.”

“Thus slavery, while hard,  was a better option than death” (Walker).

“In many ways slavery was no different to being a working class person, or a serf, or peasant,   and in some ways it was better” ( Walker).

That is not praise. It is recognition that slavery was often the economic necessity which allowed early cultures to survive, but ALSO enabled them to keep alive ( and not kill) enemies or others whom the y could not let go free but did not have the resources to keep alive.  Thus slavery was all often all that enabled the survival, of not just the slaves, but the free people 

 

As i said, I think you have very little understanding of the realities of human existence and history and thin you can impose modern values onto totally different circumstances 

it s easy to say you would never eat your best friend, until he/she is lying dead on a frozen mountain top and you are starving to death.  

All the statements  in the quote above are factually true 

So true, indeed, that in such societies free men/citizens, sold themselves  (and sometimes their sons)  into slavery, to ensure that  they and their families could survive. 

[jmccr8]

2 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

Did you read it?

 

 

Hi Will

UB kidding right, the gods of the UB created and seeded over 600 planets with humans and some were purposely created as lesser beings that could be deleted from the records after they wiped their a..es with them. Sounds like a real deal there and how exactly does this make your point relative to human rights?

jmccr8

[Golden Duck]

2 hours ago, Dejarma said:

logic & basic common sense will ALWAYS rule 

Prove it