2
   

Can the United Nations Unite Nations?

 
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2016 11:49 pm
When the League of Nations first came into existence, many religious leaders hailed it as the "political expression of the Kingdom of God".

Should it be viewed as such?
saab
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 12:01 am
@neologist,
Please tell from which religious denominations those religious leaders came from.
Sounds too absurd to be true.
neologist
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 12:25 am
@saab,
Well, Pope Benedict XV, for one. Those might not have been is exact words. But, if you Google the phrase "political expression of the Kingdom of God", you should find a lot of info.

It's late here.
I'll get back to this.. .
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 12:39 am
@neologist,
For Benedict XV and the League of Nations - see his encyclical Pacem, Dei munus pulcherrimum. (He pleaded for international reconciliation and although critical of some of its aspects gave general support to the League of Nations.)
saab
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 12:43 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Guess that is not the same as seeing it as "political expression of Kingdom of God" it it?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 12:51 am
@saab,
For Catholics, Kingdom of God is a kingdom of love, peace, and justice. And you get it by promoting peace and justice.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 03:34 am
Newologist started this thread from a position of dishonesty--at the very least, he was less than entirely candid. He didn't announce that the Watchtower Society teaches, or that Jehovahk's Witnesses believe . . . etc. He sets this up as a discussion of the United Nations when in fact it's an attempt to discuss his religious creed, to establish the principles before launching his scriptural assault. I see that he has no shame, and continues to attempt to establish a basis for his superstition of choice.
saab
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 03:43 am
@Setanta,
It is like when they ring the doorbell and have a statement which you should agree with and then they start their preaching.
I never agree with them - I contradict them in a friendly way. Usually that does not fit how they are teached to continue.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 05:20 am
@saab,
I had a woman come to the door once who started out by asking me if i didn't feel that there weren't enough hours in the day. I told her no. Then she asked me if i didn't feel that the world was more than i could deal with. I told her no. She asked me some other foolishness, it don't recall what. Finally, she asked me if she could talk to me about Jesus. I told her no, wished her a good day, and closed the door.
saab
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 09:04 am
@Setanta,
When living abroad and someone came to the door and wanted to sell something I looked very serious and said I am so sorry but according to § so and so I as a foreigner is not allowed to buy anything at the door.
Usually they left looking all confused.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 11:27 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Well, Pope Benedict XV, for one. Those might not have been is exact words.


what were his exact words?

__

stop playing bait and switch

0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 11:28 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
He sets this up as a discussion of the United Nations when in fact it's an attempt to discuss his religious creed, to establish the principles before launching his scriptural assault. I see that he has no shame, and continues to attempt to establish a basis for his superstition of choice.


I was very disappointed to see him doing this.
0 Replies
 
puzzledperson
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 09:53 pm
@neologist,
At the risk of going off topic (though discussion has already been diverted into an examination of some tenets of Jehovah's Witnesses), here is a question for you:

I have often, while sitting at a bus stop, been offered a choice of reading materials by Jehovah's Witnesses. I found The Watchtower to be a standard religious screed, but the companion magazine Awake! to contain many interesting general interest science and history essays with the religious "bite" usually limited to a paragraph or two, often at the end.

One thing I noticed is how the articles on the complexities of nature carry a moral pointing to this as proof of the Creator. But as any naturalist (or Hobbes) can tell you, nature in the raw is often cruel and merciless. The parasitical conditions, birth defects, and childhood diseases that (particularly in poor countries, which is many of them) afflict infants and toddlers alone, are truly horrific. In the animal kingdom things are only worse. In the insect kingdom, it is not uncommon for one species to stun prey, lay eggs in them, and keep them as living food sources for their hatched offspring. Even if one discounts the consciousness or pain sensitivity of insects, the scheme seems particularly perverse. These little factoids never seem to make the editorial cut, unlike the essays on the mathematical patterns in snail shells.

Another recurring theme is the claim that the Earth is under Satan's dominion. It is never explained how this is consistent with newspapers, scientific publications, or for that matter, Jehovah's Witness tracts that we can trust. If Satan controls mammon and mammon controls temporal power and influence, to say nothing of his reputedly expanded end-time powers (and Jehovah's Witnesses seem to believe that the end times began around World War One), then how should anyone trust earthly authorities, whether secular or religious? Did you ever see that Al Pacino movie, The Devil's Advocate?
saab
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jan, 2016 03:06 am
@puzzledperson,
In nature it is natural that there is a certain cruelty as you call it.
Take aphids. They have a tendency to multiply very well. If they were not something delicious for other animals or died by birth we would walk in aphids half way up out legs.
Guess God was not so bad after all in his ideas of creation.
Don´t support Jehova´s Witnesses.
neologist
 
  2  
Reply Sun 17 Jan, 2016 04:27 pm
Well.
I botched this topic from the beginning by failing to properly set the words of Diderot. I was hoping to get some assessment of the the UN other than my own bias.
What has developed is, in part, a discussion of religious leaders and their thoughts on the UN and its predecessor, the League of Nations. It appears I put words in the mouth of Benedict XV that belonged to the Council of Churches:
The Federal Council (of Churches) Endorses the League.
Quote:
Such a League is not a mere political expedient; it is rather the political expression of the Kingdom of God on earth. The World Tomorrow - Volumes 2-3 - Page xxiii
Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=kVwxAQAAMAAJ

Sorry for any confusion this may have caused. The Pope did support the League, however, as did these other prominent groups:
Quote:
The cement of the League of Nations is the Blood of Christ. - Dr. Frank Crane - World Outlook - Volumes 5-6 - Page xvii[/1]
Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=XgZKAQAAMAAJ
Quote:
The council supports the covenant as only political instrument now available by which the Spirit of Jesus Christ may find wider scope in practical application to the affairs of nations. Regular meeting, (18th), 19th minutes, roll of delegates ...
Congregational churches in the United States. National Council - 1919
Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=hSFaAAAAYAAJ

And I offer this endorsement of a more recent Pope:
Quote:
I hope the United Nations will ever remain the Supreme forum for peace and justice. Pope John Paul II, on his visit to the United States in 1979.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jan, 2016 04:28 pm
@puzzledperson,
puzzledperson wrote:
At the risk of going off topic. . . how should anyone trust earthly authorities, whether secular or religious?
Good question.
0 Replies
 
puzzledperson
 
  0  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2016 05:17 am
@saab,
An omnipotent designer could design animals whose reproductive abilities decline as their population grows too much. In fact there are animals whose mating habits curtail when natural resources like food are low. Or he could create balanced and optimum populations and make them immortal, making reproduction (not romance) unnecessary. All kinds of schemes can be imagined.

But all of the diseases and parasitism I alluded to are themselves both cruel and unnecessary under such a grand design. So are natural disasters that kill millions, often slowly and seemingly painfully. So is death.

Asserting that such things are part of a deity's plan and attempting to justify them is a form of diabolism in my book.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2016 06:08 am
@neologist,
It's not even a true Diderot quote... Jean Meslier wrote that.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2016 06:54 am
@Olivier5,
Indeed.

And before Diderot, Voltaire already quoted this Meslier quote. As did Friedrich Melchior Grimm.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2016 12:40 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
It's not even a true Diderot quote... Jean Meslier wrote that.
I did not know that. Google has not given the right credit, it seems.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/26/2020 at 03:42:45