The Couch

Is Global, Lasting, Permanent Peace Possible?

Comments on Is Global, Lasting, Permanent Peace Possible?

Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
Posted 07/28/06 - 5:14 PM:
Subject: Is Global, Lasting, Permanent Peace Possible?
Some of us liberal free-thinking persons speak out in protest of war and conflict, oppression, torture, murdr. We call for peace evrywhere, freedom for all, equality of opporunity, and the upholding of universally defind rights. And all this seems natural, and necessary when we see the horrors of war or experience loss because of corrupt systems, governments, or persons. But is peace a pipe dream?

The question is, can the human animal exist in and through a perfectly peaceful, harmonious society?

Considr this. All systems move towards equilibrium, a balance of forces of energy input and output. Systems are disruptd by conflict that creates an imbalance. But this conflict invariably leads to a strongr system ovrall, one more able to accomodate unexpectd changes, and hence, preserve equilibrium in the face of greatr levels of adversity.

A system that continues indefinitely in the same harmonious state may become powrless to deal with unexpectd changes, in effect, becoming weak in the context of largr environmntal pressures. How could a human society hope to exist in this mannr?

The question is, do we, as a race of beings, need conflict and war to purify ourselves, to strengthn ourselves, and increase our survival potential, determination, resiliance, and adaptability? Do we, in effect, need warfare?

Obviously, a system undr constant and unceasing pressure will collapse entirely. Constant warfare does not allow the developmnt of the 'highr' forms of human culture, like art and philosophy.

But considr this. Cows and deer dont go to war, and they live in harmony with nature, adapting to various environmental pressures. But in nature, there are predators. And for the cattle and deer the strongest survive when the old and weak are killd. For humans, it is the strongest who have returnd from the battlefield to propigate their genes. We are the decendents of survivors of countless wars and conflicts and epidemics.

So, is peace a pipe dream? Is peace an unattainable goal? Is it evn an undesirable goal? Should we evn work to attain it at all? Or should we embrace warfare and go to war with absolute relish and vigor, putting down evry enemy until there are none left to fight?

Thoughts?

8)
IammyaspectofUs
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 16, 2006
Location: Tacoma, Washington

Total Topics: 55
Total Comments: 720
Posted 07/29/06 - 12:35 AM:

May be the balance we seek is not the balance that is appropriate to our nature or natural states in present time.


You described a perfect peace and acceptance of war. The linguistics used in that apparent but unnatural dichotomy does not allow for a movement toward the middle of it. It has a definite outward tendency to it.
The harmony of nature and the unnatural perfection do not jive together.
Why do I say it is unnatural?
We must remember that we each live cyclical lives that bend our perceptions of life to the nature and generationally experiential perpetuations of those cycles.

The nature of living psychologies usually do not find them coming to what would be considered a peaceful end, because many or most of us are not at peace with dieing or ending. This is perpetuated into the social psychological state of our race. With that in mind it is understandable that perfection would still be sought after in the aspect of peace. A peace that needs, in reality, to be relative to the discourse of peace and is in fact not. The need for perfection in peace is what drives us to the abomination of it, war. The perfect peace is prevalent in religions of all types even the religion of science. I use the word religion as the systemic belief in any system of belief. So none of us can escape my dissemination of the word religion! Moahahaha!
I hope that all made enough sense.

In other words maybe as a whole or as a most we need to realize that the mistake we have been making all this time could be eliminated by slightly altering just one or two key destinctions of how we view ourselves as a race of beings.
The answer may be waiting for us to discover it in our heads.
Be the change you want to see in the world and your example will purpetuate throughout humanity. How powerfull can we allow ourselves to be? But the we tends to change at a slow rate so it may seem hopless to many at first. The individuals need to just keep setting the examples, like chipping away at the block of stone. The more hope we have in our quest for balance, the faster we will have it.



Edited by IammyaspectofUs on 07/29/06 - 2:03 AM
e.
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005
Location: UK

Total Topics: 142
Total Comments: 1081
Avatar e.
Posted 07/29/06 - 6:35 AM:

Midnight_Monk wrote:

The question is, do we, as a race of beings, need conflict and war to purify ourselves, to strengthn ourselves, and increase our survival potential, determination, resiliance, and adaptability? Do we, in effect, need warfare?


Hi MM,

I think that we need challenges, but those challenges don't have to be war. War isn't a challenge IMHO, it's an emotional trap.

On a personal note, In the last couple of weeks I have found my head filling up with conflict thoughts, probably driven by watching too much CNN. I found that I was taking sides.

It's not easy, but I've put those thoughts out of my mind, and suddenly I see the conflict for what it is, yet another conflict between people.

People can rise above conflict thinking, but it is very, very, hard when the sirens are screaming.

Cheers, e smiling face
delilah
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 01, 2006
Location: NY

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 26
Avatar delilah
Posted 07/29/06 - 8:48 PM:

peace is a choice, the desire to dream it up, a choice too. so i squash the jaded part of myself and say, yes, peace is possible. we all innately want good things for ourselves and our familes: love, shelter, warmth, safety, growth. i don't think too many of us innately want conflict and hatred and fighting. we need to wake people up from apathy and get them in touch w/ the parts of themselves that care, because i think most people would. hug
OxygenJunkie
banned
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 26, 2006
Location: Somewhere kissing the sky.

Total Topics: 22
Total Comments: 437
Posted 08/03/06 - 10:06 PM:

I believe it is possible. If I didn't, I'd probably lose my faith in humankid to actually get things right, I'd lose hope. Frankly, I'm fully aware I will not be alive to see that day, of global peace with a sincere shot at longevity, but it's the ultimate hope, of course. At best, I may live old enough to see a day when a sincere step is taken into this direction.

There is just so much work to be done. And it's the hardest kind of work: To effectively change collective ideologies and individual variations of them in a manner that will allow for a sincere peace process to be initiated.

I've read so much about warfare, civil war, and armed conflict in this life. I'm rather fascinated by these issues, and I was the 8 year old odd kid who'd walk straight to the library from school to read book after book. Frankly, that's my one continuous study in life, as I perceive such conflicts to represent all the failures of humankind in a defined format, so to speak, and I know that the only way to 'make peace' is to eliminate, not simply the wars which are going on with uneasy cease-fires and paperwork treaies, but to effectively eliminate the ideologies which create the pro-war ideologies that some will act upon.

It's quite sad that spending so many hours reading about this sort of thing had lead me to draw two very specific conclusions.

1. For too many a people, War represents the most basic equation that links all of mankind together. In being viewed as a 'primitive show of force' and knowing the barbaric events it can lead to, Warfare has come to be perceived as somewhat instinctive (as pure instinct generates the most impulsive and violent actions), and hence, it is the most animalistic huma equation, which can only make it the truest expression of humanity. Explicit for only a few, but implicitely held as a belief in some shape of form by a quiet and condoning majority, I'm afraid.

2. Pro War ideologies are best defined as a 'Culture of Domination' and they are a combination of two apparently distinct, but entirely unseparable elements: Imperialist Motives and Racial Ideology.

Be it Warfare, Civil War, Terrorism or any instance of an armed conflict with violent altercations, in my estimate, these two conclusions inevitably apply. The very ideal of 'Peace Through War' comes defined in a variety of ways thanks to this, with varying levels of each element of the proposed combination in th second proposition.

To eliminate the problem, you have to eliminate the pro-war ideology,and as its a combination of two things (the way I define it, the Culture of Domination) you have to eliminate one of the elements to render the combination impossible, as each element is actually quite impotent on its own, and as one perishes, so would the other. They simply have no reason to exist as separate entities and they'd be reduced to individualistic nonsense.

It's pretty tough to defeat the 'Imperialist Motives' part because we have a system neatly built so that it allows for a lot of it perfectly legally in a manner where too many have concluded that it was 'reasonably benevolent.' It's a hard one to tackle, because anyone can see how he could benefit from exploiting others pretty immediatly, and I'm open to suggestions on that one. Plus, it's not my forté.

Personally, those who know me reasonably well know that my focus has always been to eradicate the 'Racial Ideology.' Because some animals have a well defined hierachy system, the imperialist nature of humans is something too many will be able to maintain is 'perfectly natural' so I'm intent on making the other element impotent instead, because I really can't see how there's much of an argument to be made that racial ideologies 'exist in nature' considering even pro-war types define it as a societal and cultural design. Hence, it can be attacked more aptly, it can allow for (sadly, this tactic can be helpful) much more provocative statements, and it also has the benefit that you can attack, actually, both science and religion on this one. Religion, thanks to its inherently exclusive structure, and science in its obviously misguided attempts to define the races, which most often proves a futile and entirely ridiculous, if not midly entertaining, excercise. Trust me, I read on this extensively, and any scientific attempt to define the races has been a showcase of partisanship and a wonderful display of creative conclusions from vague premises. At times, the very premises and what they wish to 'demonstrate' are cleverly hidden as a means to grant the text more overall credibility. It's hard to defeat an argument when you're not even sure what that argument is.

Recently, a scientist went as far as 'discovering' that racism occured thanks to the colour receptors in the brain being over-stimuated generating uneasiness towards too great an 'otherness' factor (otherness being the actual word used in the text). So now, we have a genetic way to condone an ideology, as if we were totally pre-programmed little droids who came colour coded to facilitate conflict. You just bet the next step is that, as people view individuality so highly, that a combination of a permanently stimulated individuality cell, if combined with an entire lack of stimulation from an 'otherness' factor will cause uneasiness, make one feel threatened in regards to his individuality, and all redheads will simply go at war, because, well, there can only be one redhead.

I'll pick Nicole Kidman.

We have to fight off this Culture of Domination. Hence, I find the best way to go about this is to eliminate the targets, the potentially exploitable, and in my ciew, you have to eliminate the Racial Ideology, which comes in different shapes and sizes to fit the times. Even a 'non-race' can become one to feed a racial ideology that will attacj itself to imperialist motives and allow for a Culture of Domination to set in. Back in WW2, the Jews were somehow a 'race' in Nazi ideology. So right, Jews were a race then? Man, they sure had an extremely varied genetic pool going, which I thought kind of defeated the purpouse of being a so-called 'race' but hey, maybe that's just me? Now, it seems that all Arabs have become a single and well defined race in Conservative-American-Ideology (fortunately, most Americans are, I trust, smart enough to be above it) but how can anyone not realise that such a varied genetic pool as 'arab' makes absolutely no sense whatsoever? Much less if you target the Isam instead, because that makes for an even more varied pool of genes there, anyone can be a muslim.

Well okay, not everyone... Benedict the 16th won't be a Muslim any time soon.

I mean, let's get totally ridiculous about it, alright? I work outside, the heat levels are quite high, and I've got a really strong tan going. Will this stimulate the 'otherness factor' in my brother's brain that will make him want to hate me? I swear Terence, my parents too my off the will because, well, I'm a different race now...

... and boy, winter needs to ome back so I can be an albino again.

IammyaspectofUs
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 16, 2006
Location: Tacoma, Washington

Total Topics: 55
Total Comments: 720
Posted 08/04/06 - 12:12 AM:

you should pick my brain someday Oxi. Being the son of a white southern bigot I could use the conversation whole heartedly, and mayby you could use something from me.

I agree with your conclusions. It seems that I have heard many times that education is the short answer to those problems. But to educate the world of poeple...
Maybe we could fantisize about what it would look like taking place apropriatly to our present circumstances. Hell it may be that we come up with a plan.

cryingsmiling face


symbot
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 11, 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Total Topics: 6
Total Comments: 88
Avatar symbot
Posted 08/04/06 - 1:50 PM:

We're talking about two different types of peace here. One is "peace from crime." The other is "peace from war."

I think we'll never have a perfectly peaceful society on a domestic level, and there will always be a need for some sort of regulatory mechanism. There will always be people who go off the deep end, get violent, commit domestic abuses because they're not equipped to deal with their environments, etc. Even if there's no centralized police force, we'll need to be vigilant of violent criminals

However, I think global peace, peace between nations, is an ideal that we could achieve someday. Diplomacy has come a long way, and despite obvious setbacks (American imperialism, nuclear proliferation, etc) I think the ideal society is one that seeks to minimize conflict and effect international relationships through negotiation and diplomacy. The point isn't to create a one-world government, or to eliminate all disagreement... it's just to eliminate mass violence as a way to solve those disaggreements.

And I think our societies are all progressing with that end-goal in mind. When enough societies are in the hands of a well-educated public, served by enlightened officials working under scrutiny of complex democratic processes, then the global social fabric will no longer permit international aggression. Our sovereign nations will have to act like grown-ups and work toward agreements.
IammyaspectofUs
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 16, 2006
Location: Tacoma, Washington

Total Topics: 55
Total Comments: 720
Posted 08/04/06 - 2:05 PM:

clap
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
Posted 08/04/06 - 3:08 PM:

Unless we change the way we do business globally, there will nevr be political peace. If we still labour undr economic class distinctions, there will always be room for revolution and war, and the belief for the undrclasses that this is a necessary and desird outcome. And its not just about giving each his share or raising the standard of living for the poor, its about fundamentally changing the way we approach living in general, viz the production of the goods and services and support structures that support our continued existence in this ecosystem.

Its not just a mattr of having figureheads all believing 'peace is the answr'. We have to eliminate the need for war. So far, all I see in our civilization is the creation of more opportunities for war, largely because of socio-economic disparities. Religious diffrnces are a red herring. Unless they are connectd to the economics of a nation. In which case, war will continue as long as religions oppose each othr's right to merely exist.

If the Arab states recognizd Israel's right to exist, and if Israel recognizd Palestine's right to exist, and each kept to themselves within their own communities, how could there be a need for war between them? If american values were not being importd into evry cornr of the earth, but stayd within the range of the American population, why would anyone else hate Americans?

Hmm.

At the lowest levels hate is cultivatd by abhorrence of diffrnce, which is irrational and can be defeatd by reason and education. At the highest levels war is propigatd by bankrs and profiteers who dont care anything about the laws of any given nation, but are concrnd only with the sustainance of their own greedy desires. Those people crave powr for powr's sake without regard to the consequences. And they have the resources to pull strings and make things happn. And ultimately play on the simply minded prejudices we all experience in the face of diffrnce.

If the US wasnt an economic powr, its culture wouldnt be perceivd as oppressive and dominating globally, and cultures, like the Islamic culture of the mideast, would have no reason to fear it as a threat to their sovereign right to live how they choose.

But, I fear, recognizing evryone's right to 'live as they choose' is not enough, and will only lead to more violence. Why? Because people like to stick their noses into othrs business and forcibly subject othrs to their values. If we all heard about female circumcision going on in the village nextdoor, and we found it abhorrent, we would probably want to go do something about it basd on 'universal human rights' evn though we really only mean 'our most cherishd values'.

Point. We cant leave well enough alone.

Its not good enough to live and let live. We need to forcibly make sure that evryone is living according to a certain standard.

The only solution would be a global society. One world, one government, one vision of humanity. Where there is free travel and traffic between individualizd cultural niches by free choice and choice alone, such that if a person wantd to live as a Muslim (sans killing all infidels) they could do so in peace, and stop doing so if they found it distasteful. And if they wantd to practice or participate in female circumcision, they could, but leave the situation if they found it didnt suit them aftrall.

Is such a level of personal responsibility possible for human kind?

8)
symbot
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 11, 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Total Topics: 6
Total Comments: 88
Avatar symbot
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/04/06 - 9:33 PM:

MM wrote:
We have to eliminate the need for war.


There is no need for war. As I see it, war is only necessary per se as a result of scarcity... if there wasn't enough to go around, we would need war in order to distribute things necessary for survival. In an economy of scarcity, nobody would give up their right to food/water/land, so war would be inevitable. However, we currently have the global production power to give everybody what they need to survive and to be content.

So why do we still have wars?

MM wrote:
economic class distinctions ... socio-economic disparities


I agree with you on this point, MM. We have wars because we can't seem to dispose of our attachments to class, privilege, land, inheritance, etc. Every sovereign nation is proud and stupid enough to feel like it's entitled to some stupid shit that it stole from its neighbors and its ancestors. And you're especially right that this kind of behavior is propogated by profiteers. These are the individual malignant cells that make the whole social body a sick animal, diseased with violence. And you're also right that this kind of large-scale war is "rational," i.e. it's premeditated, and it always serves some kind of arbitrary motive, whether of an individual or of a social body.

But I think the opposite of you on solving the problem. I think rationality can't solve the stupid, reactionary rage that goes into street crime and murder. Those things just happen because human socialization and conscience occasionally fall short. However, the big systems, the consciences of nations, have access to a wealth of experience and perspective. As long as societies can get stronger, with education and global integration and increasing tolerance, then societies can become less and less prone to war, and more and more able to deal with their differences through diplomacy.

This is a long and difficult process, mind you, and one that we've barely started. But a multinational political sphere, as the world is becoming, is kind of like a small community of extremely complex agents. Each nation is capable of coming to the point where they refuse to threaten the integrity of other nations, and when we've perfected the arts of politics and diplomacy, we'll be able to solve our problems without bombs and foot soldiers and blitzkreigs.

There you have it... Jesse's voice of optimism. Maybe I'm reading too much Iain Banks... he's turning me into a technological utopianist. Oh well. I'll get over it.


Edited by symbot on 08/04/06 - 10:15 PM. Reason: You didn't say anything about politics. My first paragraph was an unsubstantiated tangent.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
#11 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/04/06 - 10:31 PM:

war was around long before anything was scarce. i'm of the opinion that war is the result of a biological impulse, a bloodthirst. socio-economic disparities are just as much red herrings as religion or any other excuse man can come up with to justify killing his fellow man. i think that society will grow more and more tired of picking up the pieces as time goes on, and that's how we biologically evolve away from war. it's also, in part, how we mature; we get tired. rationality doesn't solve the problem, although it does help.

i'm optimistic myself. i believe that a planet without mass violence is a viable future for mankind. when that time comes, i feel certain that our physiology will be quite different from what we are now. i also believe that we'll be more telepathic in nature. by telepathic, i don't mean that we'll be able to read minds as is traditionally portrayed in science fiction. i just mean that our emotional sensitivities will be more finely tuned, such that our intuition and ability to read body language and facial expressions will be more strongly developed. society will have much less need of verbal communication. our memories will be stronger.

a world without war will be a much humbler world, for sure. to some extent, man's warring nature represents a certain vitality and immaturity of a youthful species. i think that someday the world will reminisce fondly of its old warfaring ways, once the memory of the physical pain of war passes from our consciousness. that's all a long way off. inevitable, though, in my opinion. it's entropy. entropy will bring about the end of war.
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#12 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/05/06 - 2:11 AM:

entropy will bring the end of all things... hmm

people have to learn to see others like themselves
this world needs more empathy
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
#13 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/05/06 - 9:25 AM:

smokinpristiformis wrote:
people have to learn to see others like themselves
this world needs more empathy

amen to that.
OxygenJunkie
banned
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 26, 2006
Location: Somewhere kissing the sky.

Total Topics: 22
Total Comments: 437
#14 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/05/06 - 12:54 PM:

MM wrote:
We have to eliminate the need for war.

I agree, and that's a twofold issue.

1.We have to eliminate the targets for this to be achieved, which requires 2.The elimination of the very ideology that seeks those targets or defines them.

As I mentionned in my previous reply (a rant is an apt description of that reply) you just have too many people which have somehow found ways to define 'warfare' and such conflict as instinctive, inherent to human nature. And lots of people have more or less bought into it. But it's a self-defeating proposition for two very specific reasons: a) Human warfare is built on ideololgy, and playing on people's 'instincts' is a means to motivate the pro-war attitude, which is not instinctive in itself (in my opinion) but the actions people will be willing to take to support, or even participate, in warfare can be instinctive, and some people are quite good at making that distinction entirely invisible and nonexistant for the masses, and b) If there is such a thing as a genuine warfare instinct, why are humans the only animals apparently suffering from it? Warfare is invariably self-destructive in a collective sense, being from the very species we belong to will be eliminated by other beings of our species out of the artifically created survival instinct that warfare forces people into. Animals seem perfectly immune to such idiocy.

Another element of warfare that is entirely unnatural, to be honest, is that we manage to attach moral considerations where there are none. For example, we are all 'offended' if children are killed -en masse- through our brand of conflict, because we know, perhaps on an unconscious level, that this serves no human instinct or inherent trait in the slightest. If that were the case, we'd have no issue with it, because if it serves a true and simple instinct, no animal will frankly have any problem feeding off of the newly born offsprings of another species. But we have a problem with it, and still manage to see many people hold on to pro-war ideologies despite that we are all fully aware much of what will go on in a war serves absolutely no inherent trait or instinctive belief of humanity. I frankly know of no species that feeds off of its own offsprings or kills them if they are reasonably healthy, and frankly, I've yet to hear the story on 'Those two would be King Lions fought to be the alpha male because one was muslim and the other jewish and wanted to dictate the right ideology or theist philosophy to the group."

Though it could make for an interesting new spin for a sequel of The Lion King.

Warfare is a farce only humanity is mislead enough about to believe in. But history shows humanity's propension towards being much more apt at believing these lies they can immediatly benefit from instead of these truths which require time and dedication to gain benefit from, and these benefits are never defined in humanitarian terms.




e.
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005
Location: UK

Total Topics: 142
Total Comments: 1081
Avatar e.
#15 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/06/06 - 7:19 AM:

Hi folks,

I would like to add an optimistic note to our discussions.

On Saturday, 100,000 people demonstrated in central London in the 'Stop the War' action. There are further demonstrations planned all around the UK and I noticed a link to US demos, including one in San Francisco on August 12th I think.

This has been an amazing surge of anti war feeling, and most heartwarming. Remember that this kind of peaceful uprising influenced the US towards ending the Vietnam war.

Cheers, e.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
#16 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/06/06 - 9:41 AM:

e. wrote:
Hi folks,

I would like to add an optimistic note to our discussions.

On Saturday, 100,000 people demonstrated in central London in the 'Stop the War' action. There are further demonstrations planned all around the UK and I noticed a link to US demos, including one in San Francisco on August 12th I think.

This has been an amazing surge of anti war feeling, and most heartwarming. Remember that this kind of peaceful uprising influenced the US towards ending the Vietnam war.

Cheers, e.


that's awesome. smiling face
OxygenJunkie
banned
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 26, 2006
Location: Somewhere kissing the sky.

Total Topics: 22
Total Comments: 437
#17 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/06/06 - 9:44 AM:

We can't expect our governments to pave the way. Demonstrations like these, a show of string public unity.. might be the only way.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#18 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 10/23/12 - 9:29 AM:

"Is Global, Lasting, Permanent Peace Possible?"

No.
SUNLIGHT
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 28, 2012
Location: united kingdom

Total Topics: 64
Total Comments: 931
#19 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 10/27/12 - 3:25 PM:

henry quirk wrote:
"Is Global, Lasting, Permanent Peace Possible?"

No.


...............................


well in the 6,000years since the fall of men there have been nothing but wars and even now while we are awaiting the american presidential electios there are thousands of american?nato troops in the middle , east buiding up their forces in readiness for a possible move against syria and iran , they are not there to admire the scenary.....so i must agree with henry ,the answer is NO thumb downBUT there are many references from many different sorces that speak of a coming golden age ...but not yet peace


Edited by SUNLIGHT on 10/27/12 - 3:29 PM
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#20 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 10/29/12 - 9:19 AM:

"a coming golden age"

Don't hold your breath.
SUNLIGHT
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 28, 2012
Location: united kingdom

Total Topics: 64
Total Comments: 931
#21 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/06/13 - 8:01 AM:

henry quirk wrote:
"a coming golden age"

Don't hold your breath.
. Well it would be difficjlt for me to.hold. my breath for the next 20 or 30 years. Henry zen but th king dom of god will come at the time appointed nod


Edited by SUNLIGHT on 04/06/13 - 8:09 AM. Reason: ;
thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
#22 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/06/13 - 8:46 PM:

SUNLIGHT wrote:
. Well it would be difficjlt for me to.hold. my breath for the next 20 or 30 years. Henry zen but th king dom of god will come at the time appointed nod



On both of these points, we could agree.
SUNLIGHT
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 28, 2012
Location: united kingdom

Total Topics: 64
Total Comments: 931
#23 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/07/13 - 11:52 AM:

On both of these points, we could agree. [/quote] that's good doczen
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#24 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/08/13 - 8:39 AM:

"th king dom of god will come at the time appointed"

Mebbee, mebbee not...we'll see.
SUNLIGHT
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 28, 2012
Location: united kingdom

Total Topics: 64
Total Comments: 931
#25 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/09/13 - 6:00 AM:

On both of these points, we could agree. [/quote] that's good doczen
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.