New World Order and Supernationalism

Whether under the auspices of politics or religion, the global unity of mankind has been and still is the goal of many. It seems that both the political AND the religious campaigns have idealized unity as the end to strife in the world as we know it.Hypothetically, if there ever were such a thing as a one world government, what would that mean for us as individuals?What would the governing body be like? What would such sentiments as patriotism be like? Essentially, would we not begin from scratch in determining a boundary around us to which we can relate? And last but not least, would we ever achieve a goal of harmony while individuals in the society are still given to violent tendencies, pride, corruption, power trips, greed,...or would a moral unity actually be more to the point?This is admittedly a cop-out, not all that I would have desired as an OP...I am hoping (I've been mistaken before) that it could LEAD to a better point by point discussion.I don't care where it ends up topic wise.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Its been suggested by some that the very belief of many fundamentalist Christians concerning an eventual One World Government that deifies religion in a humanistic sense (We all are Gods) and/or we all are manifestations of the godlike potential within each human (a fundie belief) is a Self Fulfilling Prophecy and that fundamentalism itself is the devil driving the world to ruin.Of course, if human nature tends to lean towards a selfish and greedy extreme, our Utopian world will never get off the ground through humanism unless we understand our behavior and do our best to cooperate with each other.

Seems to me that we can manage a country wide government and no one seems to be losing their individuality. England is a pretty small country compared to America; is there any loss of individuality in America compared to England?A stable one world government seems to me no different from a one country government. We have negative tendencies that are dealt with state apparatus, why not an analogous (only larger) world wide apparatus? Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

I don't think that this is a question that can be usefully answered.There is no realistic prospect of anything even remotely close in the forseeable future. Any answer would critically depend on what form that government took. A universal Islamic state would be different from an expansion of UN power would be different from US hegemony over the whole world. If it should happen then I think it more likely to happen through social and technological - and perhaps environmental - changes which we cannot predict which themselves will shape the nature of that government.

Well, the governing forces that be can't ever entirely affect individuality, but I think any attempt at unity is always centered around the ideal of a common goal or a common good which would over-ride any differences of nationality, religion, race, or other denominator.Thus far, trying to 'force' a common denominator in say, the Crusades maybe, or communism, has resulted in nothing but scandal in the annuls of history. I don't think anyone has actually stopped trying to unite makind, but the tactics and the promotional ads have changed.Christians have sort of learned that political conquest by a religious group is intolerable and even causes resentment of the very notion of religion. Yet, read the literature of any prominant religious group and evangelism is on the top of the to-do-list. If everyone would just be christian, we would create God's kingdom on earth, conquer evil, wave in the next phase of history and an era of peace. We have pledged ourselves as Americans to religious liberty, but go out to the far corners of the globe to win converts. If the emphasis is on 'personal' salvation for the individual, the larger picture still looms; we feel so sure that if everyone had a personal saviour the world itself would be a much better one.In essence, the religious leader's promises of an ideal 'world' are no different than those of the politicians. I think political tactics have changed along the lines of 'conversion' by persuasion as well, but the problem is, as a christian, I sense an extreme distrust on the part of more 'fundementalist' christians, of any type of political global unity. There are accusations that war and conflict are deliberately instigated to force a New World 'conversion', or, that environmental issues are super-sized to 'force' a common denominator of humanity ultimately united by our dependence on Mother Earth.The fear is that the motives of the would-be 'unifiers' is somehow suspect. Paranoia? could be...but I don't think we could entirely shake the fear of what corruption could spring from such ultimate power. Thus, my question, what type of government would prevent corruption?

Yikes, phat, care to expound on this? What do you mean by a Self Fulfilling Propechy?

And each form of government benefits different groups of people..and no group would want to lose the benefits of the government they now have.

I think it could happen sooner than we might think. The reason is that if a nuclear weapon is used in the near future, panic will ensue.The reality of our having reached the point of anihilating ourselves will force the survival instinct into play, as the work of naturalists in making physical life king, will pay dividends to the creation of the new Babylon.People will do almost anything to save their skin...btw, what I mean by Babylon is the one world system that once was, now is not, and is to come. It is mankind united into one collective beast.It's all actually quite predictable...

um, rob. we already had a nuke go off. in fact, two. All that happened was Japan surrendered, and we had a V-J day. oh, and WWII was over.now, if you're talking about something along the lines of MAD (mutually assured destruction) of the cold war, where the US and USSR release their whole arsenal (easily over 10,000 nukes), then there won't even be a government left, never mind a group of humans to or to be governed.and where in history have we ever had a single world system?As to anastasia's topic:
the closest thing we have right now to a world government can be seen in the evolution of the EU from a simple economic cooperation system to the by far more complex governmental function it serves today. We are seeing 25 nations, and with more being added slowly, give up individual sovereignty in specific areas (like currency). They are aiming for a body with a single foreign policy agency--in other words, the UK and Sweden will not have separate foreign policies, but a common one.will we ever all decide to go into a single world government? I'm not sure. A lot of people find the idea of giving up their sovereignty distasteful, and will protect it--sort of like the break up of the US that occurred in 1860-61. Besides, who can we declare war on if we're all of the same government?

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Genesis 11:1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech.I believe this story of Babel is relating more about the languge inherent in philosophy (religion / culture / government), than the spoken language. That was before the communist systems emerged and people's readiness to adopt socialist economics.People are more than willing to be taken care of by Government. The entitlement mentality. I think you may have missed my point. It is the war that will push people to accept the one-world Government. Give up freedom, to protect themselves and their goods.A straight deal with the devil...And the ironic thing is... we're all going to die anyway. So why give up anything? Why be feared into settling for anything less than real life?

Yes, I agree that while there is no real foreseeable situation that would enable a one world order, there are possibilities of unforeseen calamity on a global scale. Alien invasion (tho I don't agree whatsoever) is another theme which is tossed around in sci-fi thrillers.Such events would immediately call our collective resources to action, and unite us as 'humanity'. But for now, there continue to be groups which seek to create unity from the ground up...harping on common ancestry and common dependence on the environment. Again, the political and religious meanings of 'One World Order' are thought to be distinguished one from the other. But it is only the relgious views which have any real point to them, IMO. For you, and for me, the Manichean rivalry of God and Satan is a fact. From a religious perspective, the combination of the Bible, extra-biblical prophecy, world history, and the constant cries for 'unity' and 'awareness' on a humanitarian level paint a clear and disturbing picture of not only foreseeable but immanant World Conquest. Being 'realistic' and purely political, all we have is a hazy ideal with no major players and no likely-hood.I don't know how far and how high up it truly goes, but NWO is still is still being proposed...the question is, is it in the minds of the few and the powerless, or secretly and behind the scenes already in progress? Is it benevolent, or diabolic?I feel sure I know where you stand on this. For many Christians it comes down to a simple good vs evil. It is all clear in the Bible. Catholicism in its most conservative forms lays out the same plot in concrete terms; the secession of power by the papacy to the 'state', the infiltration of communism in the UN, the gain of Papal approval of UN policies...and then sums it all up with the same word (uh oh)...pantheism. In the words of Cardinal Newman 'the great deceit of the age to come'. I include that with no intent of judgement but just of illustration to your previous post.

ahem . . .perhaps I should ask for historical evidence of a single world system. you are clearly using it for a single government (which is a system). the bible has very little that is historically accurate or real, for that matter.And what was the "whole world" to the authors of genesis? the middle east? the meditarranean? how long ago did the "tower of babel" supposedly exist?Rome, for all its power, is not a single world government. It may have goverened most of the world it knew of--but there's a whole other half to the world they were missing--the Americas. Not even the mongol hordes of Genghis Khan ruled the whole world, and they've ruled more territory than anybody else, period. (I think Alexander comes in at a second, but I don't know for certain).again, historical evidence for a previous one world system.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

I think all three are true... the diabolic being in the spiritual reality under the surface of the deep.All in the name of peace...Jeremiah 8:11 They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. "Peace, peace," they say, when there is no peace.

It seems like you have common ground with many of those you seem to disdain (ie "liberals"). I guess it all depends on how you define freedom.Do you also disagree with certain articles in the Patriot Act? Especially the ones that allow the invasion of privacy in the name of "security?"Would you agree that giving up certain rights that are enshrined in the Contstitution or have been elucidated after the ratification of it (also enshrined by the Constitution, btw) just so we can feel more secure puts on a path towards completely wiping out the rights to free speech, a free press, fair trials, privacy, humane incarceration and punishment, etc? Exactly. You sure you're a Christian?