World peace: Is it possible? Here is an excerpts from a prayer by John Paul II, decrying the violent conflicts that are on going in the world, from the Vatican yesterday:
VATICAN CITY - Pope John Paul II shared his fears about Iraq, Sudan and other hot spots and expressed his hopes in a Christmas message Saturday that peace-building efforts will bring the world a more tranquil future: "…Babe of Bethlehem, Prophet of peace, encourage attempts to promote dialogue and reconciliation, sustain the efforts to build peace, which hesitantly yet not without hope are being made to bring about a more tranquil present and future for so many of our brothers and sisters of the world…Before the crib where you lie helpless, let there be an end to the spread of violence in its many forms, the source of untold suffering,” John Paul prayed; "…Let there be an end to the numerous situations of unrest which risk degenerating into open conflict; let there arise a firm will to seek peaceful solutions, respectful of the legitimate aspirations of individuals and peoples,” the pontiff said.
According to this the Pope apparently believes it (world peace) is possible. What do you think? Do you believe current peace keeping efforts will bring any kind of lasting peace to the world? If Jesus is truly “the Prince of Peace,” and He is ruling over the world presently, as many Christians claim, how does one explain the present chaos in many parts of the world?
I think it is not only possible, but more or less certain. A few hundred years ago, peace in Northern Europe seemed distant and unlikely; today war here is a ridiculous notion. Regions that used to be hotbeds of fighting and hatred (Britain, France and Germany, I’m looking in your direction) are completely calm. I believe it’s just a matter of time. Long time, probably, but time.
As long as we have free will, we’ll all have differences of opinion. Also, with free will, different people will act differently on them. Some will have a live and let live attitude, and some will feel the need to force their beliefs on others. Some will just go along, others will fight back.
Also, there’s greed. Free will means that some powerful people will start wars for their own selfish purposes, whether it be wealth or power, or both.
Also, there’s mistrust and misunderstanding among certain groups, that will take a long time to go away, if it ever goes away. And when that animosity is gone, two or more other groups will have animosity between them.
And finally, think of this, world conflicts are just a large scale version of minor conflicts between people. As long as there are school bullies, there will be ruthless dictators. As long as there are hot heads who fly off the handle at you for apparently no good reason, there will be leaders who use, or threaten to use, force against neighboring countries for apparently no good reason. And as long as there are jerks who will screw you over and not care, there will be world leaders who will screw over other countries without caring. As long as individuals physically fight amongst themselves, be it with fists, or knives or guns, or whatever, nations will fight amongst themselves, but of course it will be on a grander scale, and with much more deadly weapons.
In the long term I believe this is correct. There are many reasons that Europe appears peaceful that doesn’t necessarily mean they are just plain nice guys.
Yeah but the reason they came together was becuase they had a common clear and present danger from communism. I don’t think we will see true world peace unless there is a clear danger that the world has to unite to fight or die.
It is conceiveable that nations would stop waging wars against each other - at least for a while… but I don’t think that violent crime would ever completely end.
Guys, cmon - that’s your cue for the “peace? not until the aliens attack!” post.
Oh, hi. World peace? It’s possible and I would hope it is the natural tendency of things as warfare evolves.
At the same time, the types of things warfare has evolved beyond - for example, reliance on bladed weapons - can still be employed. So, all those things that happened even hundreds of years ago - oh, let’s say, roving packs of militants with big blades hacking up people - are still possible.
I guess it depends on what you call world peace. If you’re talking lack of WW2-size wars, I’d say that’s possible. But for other stuff - until a system is in place that can prevent or combat old warfare methods from being employed, it will sprout up eventually and often.
I disagree. The reason they came together was to prevent the horror of another World War II. They still remain together today, 13 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, and several former Soviet states have joined the EU. No-one thinks Communism is a threat anymore, yet disputes are solved without military might.
Money talks.
Which is why Europe is calmer, and which is why glablization will do the trick.
As more and more companies are mega-multinationals, with employees in every corner of the world, with production in every corner of the world, the incentives for making war will be less and less of an option. Will Lockheed Martin provide arms to destroy the infrastructure in a country where they have production? Are politicos willing to start war that will destroy the base of their own power? Nope.
Which is why we don’t see wars in areas of the world which have free trade, multinationals and something approaching democracy. The hot spots are MENA and Africa, two parts of the world where there’s little or no multinationals.
OTOH, the biggest Islamic country in the world, Indonesia, has a lot of multinational industries, and is fairly stable, notwithstanding it’s large Muslim population. There are travel warnings from the US State Dept, but these are issued because of risk of terrorist attacks, not because the country or regime itself is a threat.
Spreading wealth and making businesses international, which has happened in Europe since WWII, is the best way to avoid future conflicts. As late as the 70’s there were still military dictatorships in Western Europe, the last one vanishing in '75
(a) There’s World Peace, and then there’s worldwide peace.
(b) He’s the Pope. Part of the job description is to not despair of humanity in public.
The RCC recognizes true universal peace and justice would have to wait for the Messianic Age. But, it does teach that the believers must work in the here-and-now to minimize violence and maximize justice as much as possible, always striving for a bar that keeps rising higher, until The Time comes. To borrow the uncomfortable, but honest, turn of phrase from John Kerry, it’s a case where “winning” can only mean reducing the threat down “to a nuisance level”
JP2’s position seems to be that peacemaking is a necessary thing, and any improvement is, well, an improvement. He thus prays to Jesus to grant His strength to all efforts made in the here-and-now on behalf of any improvement in peace (and justice: notice the “legitimate aspirations” codicil), because it is part of the mandate to try.
Totally agree…which is why I think that world peace is not only possible but inevitable. Oh, certainly there will still be flairups from time to time, but I think the time of the big global war are past…and that withing the next century or so the time of most conflict will be past.
BTW, because there is world peace doesn’t mean there won’t be any crime, or that individual murders won’t still take place…people being people and all. But it will certainly be an improvement, IMO, not to have any more Sudan’s…or Iraq’s for that matter.