Communism was never a failure. Soviet Communism died with Lenin and the rise of Stalin, who murdered all the original Bolsheviks. Maoism is not communism either. So two men derailed a deeply rooted and respected political philosophy and all communism is a failure? That's like saying democracy failed because Herbert Hoover didn't stop the Great Depression. The world has never seen the communism of Marx, Engels, Lenin & Trotsky. Does that mean it can't ever work? Surely you aren't so under-read & naiive.Michael said:I would say this hit the nail on the head.
What about Communism?
On paper it works great. If followed correctly, within a generation, everyone will live in a paradise. But.... in the real world, it does not work - in a generation everyone lives in a hell.
Do we blame the system or do we blame the people?
Which is at fault?
If the governmental system doesn’t work with real people living real lives then it simply is flawed and doesn’t work. There is really little point putting the blame on human nature. People are people. We evolved to have the traits we have and so we need a system flexible enough to accommodate these traits.
In the 2500 years of monotheist-government (Jewish, Xian or Islamic) none of them have produced much when compared with their polytheistic counterparts (Greece, Rome, Persia and Egypt). If anything, those societies digressed. In Europe, the Renaissance could only occurre after the demise of Xiandom.
I was talking with an Iranian friend about history and religion, atheism and Buddhism. He was raised Muslim and I Xian and so it is always a good laugh at some of the Bull @%$# we were taught to believe while growing upHe said he never felt any privacy growing up in Iran. He always thought there were two angles, one on each of his shoulders, writing down everything he did each day of his life. It reminded me of Gods ever watchful eye or maybe even Santa Clause's! Before I left he said that there is no way he could have had such a conversation with his family in Iran - they’d simply hate him and think he was under the influence of the devil or a demon or a bad spirit. They may even go as far as to ostracize him from the family, to protect themselves from his evil – that is if they ever found out years ago he had become Atheist.
While I would not say his family's thinking wrong (well it is for me) I do wonder: Why do they think like that?
Thinking back to Communism and its inherent failure as a Government System - is his families thinking a result of their religion and is it a fault of the religion itself that such an interpretation can even be made to occur?
Where a Buddhist is taught to remain sceptical - a Monotheist is condemned.
Michael II
samcdkey on Islam
- Thread starter superluminal
- Start date
The same argument can be made for an Islamic system. Islam as a proper form of government has never failed because it has never been properly implemented.Genji said:
Which was my point - That is the failure.
I shouldn’t say it doesn’t work at all. Monasteries have been functioning Communes for millennia - they remain the province of the few faithful dedicated to a likeminded lifestyle. Surely if they were beacons of Governance they’d have been implemented as so long ago. So sure, Monks held together by deep religious belief can exist as a Commune so long as the public at large are willing to support them by donations for their religious service.
Communism doesn’t work as well as a Republic for governing the public - or it would have. And to be fair - a Republic is probably pretty crap at governing a Religious Sec. Each to their own hey?
You know, I totally agree. I kind of think it may have something to do with land ownership. After awhile all the land is held by a few and all hell breaks loose. It seems to be a never ending cycle in China - with a revolution occurring once every few hundred years. The Chinese then thought – well then, no one will own land! That hasn’t worked so well either.samcdkey said:
True.samcdkey said:
But there is no Utopia (entropy sees to that). So the real question is: What motivates people?
- There’s the tried and true choice of Religion. But it really doesn’t do so well.
- Communism goes for the “all-together-now” approach (that’s even worse)!
So? What motivates the most talented among the populous?
I think the answers are endless so in the end the only solution is money. That’s why it was invented to begin with. It is the best motivator because it can be converted into what ever that particular person wants - which could be anything from a nice house on the beach to some weird sexual gratification (Rockefeller had a sexual fixation with money and would “gratify” himself while looking at it!
) As a society I think a Republic is probably the best way to go. If enough people are pissed off then they can change the rules of Capitalism. Here in AU they tax VERY HEAVILY every dollar over ~50K. Then spread it around. In the USA minimum wage is $5.15/hour. Here my friend started working as a shortorder cook 1 year ago and he makes $15/hour.
So I suppose money is the answer for most people and hence the best motivator of a public.
Michael
"So I suppose money is the answer for most people and hence the best motivator of a public."
But the problem with money is that when combined by the insatiability of human desires, it is never enough. And more and more, people have become self serving. We are now essentially immune to violence and depravation. So where does that take the future?
"a Republic is probably pretty crap at governing a Religious Sec"
India is a Socialsit, Democratic Republic. Atheism is less than 2%.
Another comment regarding the Islamic form of government; when Muhammed established it, it was a theocracy with secular principles, protecting all groups; it was however an unfamiliar form of government for the Arabs and after the deaths of the first four Caliphs who were companions of Muhammed, the system degenerated into an absolute aristocracy, which was complete by the time the Ottomans came on the scene. Even then among the Ottomans, Suleiman is probably the one who followed a system very close to that recommended by Muhammed; he was tolerant of other religions and established a successful, flourishing Islamic society, based on secular values (only with him as Sultan. )
But the problem with money is that when combined by the insatiability of human desires, it is never enough. And more and more, people have become self serving. We are now essentially immune to violence and depravation. So where does that take the future?
"a Republic is probably pretty crap at governing a Religious Sec"
India is a Socialsit, Democratic Republic. Atheism is less than 2%.
Another comment regarding the Islamic form of government; when Muhammed established it, it was a theocracy with secular principles, protecting all groups; it was however an unfamiliar form of government for the Arabs and after the deaths of the first four Caliphs who were companions of Muhammed, the system degenerated into an absolute aristocracy, which was complete by the time the Ottomans came on the scene. Even then among the Ottomans, Suleiman is probably the one who followed a system very close to that recommended by Muhammed; he was tolerant of other religions and established a successful, flourishing Islamic society, based on secular values (only with him as Sultan.
)
Last edited:
Hi Sam,
Why would so many Jews and Xians and Polytheists convert to Islam?
Assuming there are no Gods, how then do you view Mohammed’s accomplishments? Do they appear rather a little self serving?
As to your question: Where does that take the future?
Good question! I have no idea........
But as for money - it is just a tool. It works OK, probably as good as we can get. That's why it has been used for 8000+ years. Nothing else has works as well or it would be used and not money.
Think about North Korea – last year they killed off over 100000 children because they were considered “half-casts” (Korean woman who had children with Chinese men) North Koreans is dirt dirt dirt poor. Depravity has no bounds. Poor and rich alike can act in a violent manner.
Also not all wealthy people are depraved - many are quite generous. That said, I personally think too much money is a curse (although I wouldn’t personally know that!). I do know many children of ultra-wealthy families that are spoilt so to speak; they have little to no course in life and little to no motivation to improve themselves as individuals.
I don’t think I agree that we are now essentially immune to violence and depravation. A few centuries ago, in London and in Paris, dead bodies were typically tossed into side-allies and left for the dogs to eat. Things have surely improved since then? Also, when the tsunami happened last year, I think that ordinary people from around the globe were quite generous. That certainly wouldn’t have been the case a 1000 years ago – would it have?
However, when values counter to the core principals of the republic are taught then I think society as a whole needs to take a look at such a religion and see if it doesn’t qualify for banned-Cult status. For example, in a society where equality is a core principal it would seem to be incorrect (to me) to support a religious group that forbids non-white skinned people from joining the religion. That doesn’t seen right. Another example would be a religion that only allows people of a particular “blood-line” to join the group (ultra conservative Judaism springs to mind). Perhaps those religions should be assessed to see if they are deemed appropriative for the society at large. The people of the Republic should decide whether such Religions don’t actually fall into the category of cult and be banned?
What were the secular principals?
What is the difference between a secular and a religious “principal”?
I don’t get it.
Weren’t the polytheistic Arabs prevented from worshipping their multiple Gods in Mecca?
Wasn’t homosexuality banned?
If not, then it seems like nepotism top me. History shows that nepotism usually falls in on itself and is replaced with family-succession rather quickly.
Also, I don’t see how lifelong employment as a Caliph is any different then any other autocratic system? Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. The Egyptians ruled a VERY prosperous Egypt peacefully for many 1000s of years over 100s of generations - using an elaborate autocratic system.
I guess I fail to see what is so innovative and better about the Islamic system?
Again I say its a fault of the system. Hence the comment about Communism.
To me there is no "perfect system" and there will never be a "Utopia" for all people. As they say: You can never please all of the people all of the time. But I think a Republic does an OK job for the most people.
Michael
Was Muhammad tolerant of Polytheists? What happened to all of the Jews and Xians that lived on the Arabian peninsula? The coast was full of Xian monasteries.samcdkey said:
Why would so many Jews and Xians and Polytheists convert to Islam?
Assuming there are no Gods, how then do you view Mohammed’s accomplishments? Do they appear rather a little self serving?
As to your question: Where does that take the future?
Good question! I have no idea........
But as for money - it is just a tool. It works OK, probably as good as we can get. That's why it has been used for 8000+ years. Nothing else has works as well or it would be used and not money.
Think about North Korea – last year they killed off over 100000 children because they were considered “half-casts” (Korean woman who had children with Chinese men) North Koreans is dirt dirt dirt poor. Depravity has no bounds. Poor and rich alike can act in a violent manner.
Also not all wealthy people are depraved - many are quite generous. That said, I personally think too much money is a curse (although I wouldn’t personally know that!). I do know many children of ultra-wealthy families that are spoilt so to speak; they have little to no course in life and little to no motivation to improve themselves as individuals.
I don’t think I agree that we are now essentially immune to violence and depravation. A few centuries ago, in London and in Paris, dead bodies were typically tossed into side-allies and left for the dogs to eat. Things have surely improved since then? Also, when the tsunami happened last year, I think that ordinary people from around the globe were quite generous. That certainly wouldn’t have been the case a 1000 years ago – would it have?
Sorry if I wasn't clear. To me Atheism has nothing to do with governance. India could be 100% Taoist and still be a Republic (I’d argue all governments are “socialist” to some degree). Also, I do think most people like to have some sort of “spiritual” beliefs - something that incorporates a better afterlife for themselves and a punishment for those perceived as evil. A republic with freedom of religion (religions that do not teach values counter to the foundation of the Republic) is OK with me.samcdkey said:
However, when values counter to the core principals of the republic are taught then I think society as a whole needs to take a look at such a religion and see if it doesn’t qualify for banned-Cult status. For example, in a society where equality is a core principal it would seem to be incorrect (to me) to support a religious group that forbids non-white skinned people from joining the religion. That doesn’t seen right. Another example would be a religion that only allows people of a particular “blood-line” to join the group (ultra conservative Judaism springs to mind). Perhaps those religions should be assessed to see if they are deemed appropriative for the society at large. The people of the Republic should decide whether such Religions don’t actually fall into the category of cult and be banned?
What do you mean “principals”?samcdkey said:
What were the secular principals?
What is the difference between a secular and a religious “principal”?
I don’t get it.
I was under the impression polytheisms were not "protected"?samcdkey said:
Weren’t the polytheistic Arabs prevented from worshipping their multiple Gods in Mecca?
Wasn’t homosexuality banned?
Firstly: Could a Polytheist run for high office of Caliph?samcdkey said:
If not, then it seems like nepotism top me. History shows that nepotism usually falls in on itself and is replaced with family-succession rather quickly.
Also, I don’t see how lifelong employment as a Caliph is any different then any other autocratic system? Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. The Egyptians ruled a VERY prosperous Egypt peacefully for many 1000s of years over 100s of generations - using an elaborate autocratic system.
I guess I fail to see what is so innovative and better about the Islamic system?
This may be true BUT is that a fault of the system or of the people within the system??samcdkey said:
Again I say its a fault of the system. Hence the comment about Communism.
To me there is no "perfect system" and there will never be a "Utopia" for all people. As they say: You can never please all of the people all of the time. But I think a Republic does an OK job for the most people.
Michael
Last edited:
Michael:
In case you're interested in history of Islam and it's evolution, I recommend this book.
(I have to search for it in one of my zillion boxes; I just moved house)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400062136/103-1705470-7115056?v=glance&n=283155
In case you're interested in history of Islam and it's evolution, I recommend this book.
(I have to search for it in one of my zillion boxes; I just moved house
)http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400062136/103-1705470-7115056?v=glance&n=283155
Thanks!samcdkey said:Michael:
In case you're interested in history of Islam and it's evolution, I recommend this book.
(I have to search for it in one of my zillion boxes; I just moved house
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400062136/103-1705470-7115056?v=glance&n=283155
I also just moved house - just last Saturday!
Michael
Michael:
Here is governance in the true spirit of Islam.
It's written by one of my favorite human beings, Asghar Ali Engineer
Governance and Islam
Here is governance in the true spirit of Islam.
It's written by one of my favorite human beings, Asghar Ali Engineer
Governance and Islam
OK - here it is
What is the basis for saying that Allah has no form?
What is the basis for saying that Allah has no form?
lightgigantic said:
There is no description of God in the Quran. Allah is a name that is neither feminine nor masculine, and it cannot be made plural. When asked about God the prophet revealed this verse.
In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Say (O Muhammad), He is God, the One God, the Everlasting Refuge, who has not begotten, nor has been begotten, and equal to Him is not anyone. (112:1-4)
The Creator must be of a different nature from the things created because if He is of the same nature as they are, He will be temporal and will therefore need a maker. It follows that nothing is like Him. If the maker is not temporal, then he must be eternal. But if he is eternal, he cannot be caused, and if nothing caused Him to come into existence, nothing outside Him causes Him to continue to exist.
God is beyond our sight and understanding, yet at the same time "nearer to us than our jugular vein" (Qur'an 50:16)
It is forbidden to create any image as a representation of God; this is to avoid his anthropomorphisation. The only way He can be represented is by his name.
Last edited:
This states that Allah is causeless and of a unique catergory - doesn't say about form or no form - actually the same description is there in the vedas - but there is an addition of form - in otherwords theer is a logical premise that god can fit this description and still possess a form
So why does different mean "opposite"? The reasoning seems like this - - god is different than us - therefore he is opposite - we have form - god has no form
I guess this leads to other questions - Is the living entity eternal? Is the mateial creation eternal?
This sounds like an understanding that the vedas would call "brahman"
http://www.krishna.com/chinese/printarticles/Brahman_Paramatma_Bhagavan.html
If god has no form, it raises the q how did form develop from something that has no form - or even on a less intellectually intense scale - why, if god is the supreme enjoyer, is it possible for us to have some thing enjoyable that he doesn't poses? ie a form?)
lightgigantic said:
God is formless because there is no other like Him.
How does that qualify as having any kind of form?
There is no opposite. Opposite is a comparison; and one can only assign names and attributes to God, not a description, since one can base all knowledge of God only to the extent he has revealed in the Quran.
This concept is not unique to Islam:
According to the Quran, God neither begets nor was begotten. That is all we know. His creation is an ongoing process, the fate of which is unknown.
It is part of the mystery of creation.
Last edited:
samcdkey
It merely states difference, not absence
This concept is not unique to Islam:
This doesn't indicate formlessness, only uniqueness
All these are concepts of brahman, in otherwords the rejection of the material as a definition of god (as a precurser to establishing the correctness of his form)
I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, only the tip of the toe of whose lotus feet is approached by the yogīs who aspire after the transcendental and betake themselves to prāṇāyāma by drilling the respiration; or by the jñānīs who try to find out the nondifferentiated Brahman by the process of elimination of the mundane, extending over thousands of millions of years.BS 5.34:
SB 1.2.11 Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān.
In other words, Bhagavān, or the Personality of Godhead, is the last word of the Absolute Truth. Paramātmā is the partial representation of the Personality of Godhead, and impersonal Brahman is the glowing effulgence of the Personality of Godhead, as the sun rays are to the sun-god. Less intelligent students of either of the above schools sometimes argue in favor of their own respective realization, but those who are perfect seers of the Absolute Truth know well that the above three features of the one Absolute Truth are different perspective views seen from different angles of vision.
quoted from http://vedabase.net/sb/1/2/11/en
If you acept god as consciousness, as opposed to some mere energy or force like gravity or electricity (in otherwords he reciprocates with us, as conscious entities) how is it possible to not have a form - for instance does god feel pleasure or displeasure? Does got have desire? (in other words is theer a teleolgical signifigance to creation?)
I have to rush off now - sorry to drown you in what may be mumbo jumbo - maybe I wil come back later and have something more coherant to say
It merely states difference, not absence
How does god accept or reject anything if he doesn't have a form - or in other words where is the question of energy without an energetic source?
This concept is not unique to Islam:
This doesn't indicate formlessness, only uniqueness
All these are concepts of brahman, in otherwords the rejection of the material as a definition of god (as a precurser to establishing the correctness of his form)
I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, only the tip of the toe of whose lotus feet is approached by the yogīs who aspire after the transcendental and betake themselves to prāṇāyāma by drilling the respiration; or by the jñānīs who try to find out the nondifferentiated Brahman by the process of elimination of the mundane, extending over thousands of millions of years.BS 5.34:
SB 1.2.11 Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān.
In other words, Bhagavān, or the Personality of Godhead, is the last word of the Absolute Truth. Paramātmā is the partial representation of the Personality of Godhead, and impersonal Brahman is the glowing effulgence of the Personality of Godhead, as the sun rays are to the sun-god. Less intelligent students of either of the above schools sometimes argue in favor of their own respective realization, but those who are perfect seers of the Absolute Truth know well that the above three features of the one Absolute Truth are different perspective views seen from different angles of vision.
quoted from http://vedabase.net/sb/1/2/11/en
If you acept god as consciousness, as opposed to some mere energy or force like gravity or electricity (in otherwords he reciprocates with us, as conscious entities) how is it possible to not have a form - for instance does god feel pleasure or displeasure? Does got have desire? (in other words is theer a teleolgical signifigance to creation?)
I have to rush off now - sorry to drown you in what may be mumbo jumbo - maybe I wil come back later and have something more coherant to say
Wow! that is the same argument that can be made for capitalism,Laissez-faire capistalism has never been properly implemented in any region of the world, or at any time in history, it's closest however was at the rise of the industrial age in the US, derailed of course, by goevernment quislings during the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. :bugeye:
Hi Sam,samcdkey said:Yes that is exactly what it is- a secular government with representatives from all religions.
Now do you see why I get so frustrated when people malign Islam or Mohammed ? This is the system of government set up 1400 years ago.
The only thing wrong with Islam is the people who practise it.
How are you doing?
you are so right SAM
lightgigantic said:
Perhaps you may be right, but it is still conjecture.
Energy is our definition, not his.
Again, conjecture.
I could very well say that this is the true description, which is difficult for us to grasp leading to the formation of anthropomorphogenic concepts which are easier and more relevant. Like these:
Is it not equally possible that the concept of Parmatma evolved to give "substance" to a concept of God by those who had difficulty understanding the concept of Brahman?
Okay, so the so both Bhagavan and Parmatma are different perspectives on Brahman? Is that what you mean?
Again the knowledge of God is restricted to what is known from the scriptures. So I don't know.
Well then we're in the same boat; take care.
Then how does islam help you trace cause to effect?
Meaning of course how does this manifested world of matter impress on you the superior nature of god?
Like for instance how does something that you find touching or impressive relate to the glory of allah?
For a sciforumite you are being surprisingly noncommital
But the concept of bhagavan (presented above) does not violate the concepts presented in brahman and paramatma -
and on top of that this is from a scripture called the brahma samhita that is incredibly ancient - the only thing that remains is part of the 5th Chapter- brahma is the first living entity of creation and is responsible for the engineering of the material universe under the inspiration of vishnu - and the brahma samhita is a series of his realisations after meditating on the inspiration of vishnu -
Even the upanisads, which deal with brahman almost exclusively, give an indication of the bhagavan feature
Isopanisad 5
The Supreme Lord walks and does not walk. He is far away, but He is very near as well. He is within everything, and yet He is outside of everything.
Iso 8
Such a person must factually know the greatest of all, the Personality of Godhead, who is unembodied, omniscient, beyond reproach, without veins, pure and uncontaminated, the self-sufficient philosopher who has been fulfilling everyone's desire since time immemorial.
(indications god has a body but not a mundane one)
and there is also this warning in 12
Those who are engaged in the worship of demigods enter into the darkest region of ignorance, and still more so do the worshipers of the impersonal Absolute.
- the principle is that if a person does not have a clear perception of god then it is inevitable that sinful propensities fill the void (I don't know where contemporary Hindi stands in regard to sanskrit, but how can one expect to develop ruci, asakti, bhava and finally prema with something that is formless - english actually developed as a trade language, so "love" can mean anything from sex to unmotivated faultless attraction and selfless service)
(BTW -How do you relate to the concept of loving god? What do you make of rumi? )
and 15 and 16
O my Lord, sustainer of all that lives, Your real face is covered by Your dazzling effulgence. Kindly remove that covering and exhibit Yourself to Your pure devotee.
Iso 16: O my Lord, O primeval philosopher, maintainer of the universe, O regulating principle, destination of the pure devotees, well-wisher of the progenitors of mankind, please remove the effulgence of Your transcendental rays so that I can see Your form of bliss. You are the eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead, like unto the sun, as am I.
anyway ....
-is there a verse in the koran similar to the bible's "Man is made in the image of god" - how do you relate to that concept? Does it mean that god has dandruff?
There is a similar concept advocatde by plato that this material world is a shadow and that more real eternal counterparts exist in a realm that is composed of a superior nature.
Brahman is eternity - the realm of brahman is described as the brahmajyoti and its qualities are where the knower, the object of knowledge and knowledge itself are the same thing - in other words thyere is no concept of individuality - other places it is described as merging into a light.
Of the 5 types of liberation one is to enter the brahmajyoti, but this is refered to as the crocadile mouth of liberation - because there is no opportunity for the loving service of god in the brahmajyoti (its all homogenous) - even though the brahmajyoti is eternity - it is not an eternal abode for liberation because the living entity cannot eternally reside in an abode that is bereft of engagement - so the idea is that a living entity, upon attaining the brahmajyoti, falls down to the material world since they are einevitable attracted to the inferior atmsphere due to a lack of engagement.
Paramatma innvolves knowledge - that is there is a distinction between the living entity and God that is eternal and constitutional
Katha Upanisad - Of all the eternal, conscious, individual persons, one is supreme
and bhagavan is honing that knowledge to the point of actually reciprocating with that entity in direct full consciousness - in other words bhagavan realisation is a more complete notion of god, just as entering the sun would be a more direct way of perceiving it than seeingit in the sky or merely observing its sunlight (which are aspects of paramatma and brahman realisation respectively
Maybe I explained that above, unless my weakness as an academic, namely the ability to render simple things incomprehensible, got the better of me.
So if you are faced with two or more options, and all of them are technically within the folds of scriptural injunctions, how do you allocate one option as composed of superior value to another (even if it just for the sake of your own personal life)?
Maybe we could saturate this thread in theistic discussion for a changeThere's nothing "wrong" with people, it's the ideology that is at fault.
It's funny when men invent their gods, they attempt to make their descriptions all the more "airtight" then the ones before, to make sure that the "mystery of creation" remains all the more mysterious.
BOO!
It's funny when men invent their gods, they attempt to make their descriptions all the more "airtight" then the ones before, to make sure that the "mystery of creation" remains all the more mysterious.
BOO!