| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - A battle between two nations or two ideologies ?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


A battle between two nations or two ideologies ?

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Alexis5 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 16 May 2018
Status: Offline
Points: 14
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Alexis5 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: A battle between two nations or two ideologies ?
    Posted: 16 May 2018 at 15:37
When I think about the conquest of an ancient civilization by nomadic tribes who had just integrated under a new ideology or religion in Arabia and when I also think that Persians were somehow dissolved in the reign of that ideology despite long and somehow severe resistance and not totally dependent until after the invasion of Mongolians, it occurs to my mind that the battle was eventually between the two ideologies: Islam and Zoroastrianism rather than between the two nations.
Bearing in mind that Persians emerged as Persian Empire with the same ideology after many other invasions before and after Arab invasion such as the invasion of Alexander the great and the invasion of Mongolians, who both brought no new ideology along with their invasions.

 If so, what were the foibles or weak points of ancient ideologies or religions such as Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism or Mithraism that eventually diminished or totally disappeared in contrast with other religions such as Islam, Christianity, Hinduism or Buddhism?
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 May 2018 at 00:37
I think that most religions eventually get to something that can _not_ be expressed, except mystically through allusion or allegory.  Therefore, I do not see ideology as part of the essential nature of religion.  Religions do conflict, but I don't see ideology as the point at which they conflict.

Muslims recognize Zoroastrians as people of the book, like Christians and Jews (and probably others).  The writings of Islam, like the writings of Manichaeanism, are of the founder (Mohammed), unlike those of Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, I would include Judaism there, but tradition attributes the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible, Genesis through Deuteronomy) to Moses.  Most scholarship is highly skeptical of that attribution, but we should recognize that orthodox believers adopt it, and we should give some respect to their tradition, even if it is not ours.

Mithraism was a religion of soldiers, but that does not propagate well, Christianity was more often adopted by slaves and women, which propagated itself well.  Islam is not a religion of soldiers, but of warlike Arabian tribes.  I think that Arabs tend to make bad soldiers, no discipline, too many chiefs, not enough Indians, or rather no non-coms to span the bridge between the hereditary elite and the conscripts.  The US army runs on its non-coms, sergeants that make things happen.  

The point of religion is not in its propagation.  It is not a matter of those with the most heads, wins (except if you are amidst headhunters).  I would say that sincere religions get to the Truth, but truth of the religion, does not mean survival (either of the religion or of the individual).  Most religions demand the impossible of its adherents, and to some degree it allows them to achieve it.  Morally we often fail in life, but religion holds out the possibility that we might actually achieve what we imagine.
Back to Top
Alexis5 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 16 May 2018
Status: Offline
Points: 14
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Alexis5 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 May 2018 at 22:24
 As you said the truth of the religion, does not mean survival and I think the survival if religions in the long term and through the history,  is not in the truth or rightfulness of their philosophy or origin but it's in the humans psychology , sociology and mentality of the eras they have lived in .

 One theory is that most or all of the religions that survived believed in one god or deity (or ultimate destiny as in Hinduism and the like) that's the creator of (or superior to) all creatures , phenomena and powers , even the devil or evilness . 
And even in pantheistic cults there's no goodness or evilness .



 In most or all of extinct religions there are many gods , some benevolent and some evil .

 In Zoroastrianism and the like , the benevolent god is superior to devil , but it's not the creator of it  , so the devil is an independent or separate power from god .
And possibly the reason of ill destiny , misfortune and defeat .



Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 May 2018 at 22:30
I think prophets are the ultimate social psychologists.  They themselves understand God's message, and can put it into words that the people can understand.  (not _do_ understand (actually), but _can_ understand (potential)).  The fact that they are able to talk to ordinary people, say things they don't like, and not get lynched, is a miracle in itself.  I think all prophets have some divine insight in them.  Then there is Jesus, who is both divine and human.  And there are philosophers, who in the Jewish Medieval schema of things, had the understanding but couldn't express it in the ordinary vernacular.

For monotheism, there is the problem of evil, how can one have a supremely good, powerful, knowledgeable God, and how can that God allow evil to be in the world?  If you get rid of one of those three, (omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient), you can reconcile the problem, or you can reconcile it if evil is not really evil (but just looks like evil from our limited perspective).

Polytheism doesn't really have the problem of evil, since you attribute different events to different gods and their natures (forces).  Also, polytheistic, and pantheistic gods are not necessarily good, they have their own interests, and to the extent those interests coincide with human interests, we might call them "good."  (Athena goddess of crafts, friend to the heroes Heracles, and Odysseus.)
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1701
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 May 2018 at 14:39
Many people credit the success of Judaism, Christianity and Islam to the written works. A common text that can be carried and preserved insures new conversions and maintains the structure of a belief system.

Also the opportunity for psychological work on one's self is an ongoing discussion even today, perhaps it is the lower self or unenlightened self that easily breaks the world down into two categories. Not unsuitable for the time but not practical for diaspora.
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1701
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 May 2018 at 14:42
Originally posted by Alexis5 Alexis5 wrote:

 As you said the truth of the religion, does not mean survival and I think the survival if religions in the long term and through the history,  is not in the truth or rightfulness of their philosophy or origin but it's in the humans psychology , sociology and mentality of the eras they have lived in .

 One theory is that most or all of the religions that survived believed in one god or deity (or ultimate destiny as in Hinduism and the like) that's the creator of (or superior to) all creatures , phenomena and powers , even the devil or evilness . 
And even in pantheistic cults there's no goodness or evilness .



 In most or all of extinct religions there are many gods , some benevolent and some evil .

 In Zoroastrianism and the like , the benevolent god is superior to devil , but it's not the creator of it  , so the devil is an independent or separate power from god .
And possibly the reason of ill destiny , misfortune and defeat .




The Tree of Sephirot in the Qabbalist philosophy shows us that humans began to see human nature as dualistic with every virtue containing the potential for darkness and vice versa. This is a kind of alchemy and desire to achieve the higher self with a predictable course to follow, a lamp for the path or the micro in the macro which resonates as man being powerful enough to change the world. To me it represents a new ideology.

Edited by Vanuatu - 28 May 2018 at 14:56
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain
Back to Top
Alexis5 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 16 May 2018
Status: Offline
Points: 14
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Alexis5 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 May 2018 at 17:56
 It seems to me that even now in the 21st century , after many controversies put forward by many agnostic or atheist philosophers , psychologist and scientists , as Voltaire , Marx , Freud , Einstein ,
Russel and etc , Monotheistic religions have still the strongest incentive and promising goal (right or
wrong) in the mind of humans who prefer (or find victory or success in) the deception of having reached the absolute truth rather than skepticism and struggle for approaching the truth through their
lives .
 They also have justification for the paradox of the benevolent god and evil. They believe that this
mundane life is just an arena for experimenting the human soul who would achieve salvation in an eternal life after death .

 But I think although the deception (if we accept that the achievement of absolute truth is a deception),
had really worked in the past - in ages of conflicts between nations , ethnicities and religions - it
definitely won't work (as we can see) in a world of sophisticated communications and sophisticated,
catastrophic weapons .

In the age of the so called globalization . 

Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1701
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 May 2018 at 18:10
Hi Alexis5

Sometimes I think of the Rosicrucian view here, psychologically did man evolve the way the material world manifested? First as ether, then plant, clay, flesh, rock? More intense with every incarnation.
Our atomic speed racing along with psychic development. Only to be weaponized ultimately. Control of consciousness itself, like Minority Report. Don't even think about crime!

Edited by Vanuatu - 24 Jun 2018 at 04:18
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jun 2018 at 03:17
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (18th c. German) said that if he was offered by God, Truth in God's right hand, and the search for Truth in his left, he would take the left hand and say that, 'the truth is for God thee alone.'  Lessing also offered the parable of the three rings, one for each Abrahamic religion, each gold ring indistinguishable from the other, no way to tell which is the original (and the point is that each is as real as the other).

With a written tradition, one has a problem of (branching) interpretation.  With a written record, one can interpret it personally, "however" one wants to do so. Judaism addresses this through the oral tradition, recognizing rabbis with an oral tradition conveying it personally to their followers.  Catholicism and Orthodoxy addresses this through the hierarchical tradition of priest, bishop, patriarch or pope.  Protestantism, on the other hand, believes in personal interpretation, and so has lots of branches, although there are some protestant denominations that have some continuity, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist....
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1701
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2018 at 15:50
[QUOTE=franciscosan] Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (18th c. German) said that if he was offered by God, Truth in God's right hand, and the search for Truth in his left, he would take the left hand and say that, 'the truth is for God thee alone.'  Lessing also offered the parable of the three rings, one for each Abrahamic religion, each gold ring indistinguishable from the other, no way to tell which is the original (and the point is that each is as real as the other).


Would Martin Luther have agreed?
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1078
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jun 2018 at 11:57
Surely the point of this debate is not the religion, which merely provides a source of conformal behaviour, identity, and cooperation, but rather that of the individuals able to manipulate the social effects of religion for their own ends? The Islamic conquests didn't happen because Islam got popular. They happened because somebody in charge said "moslems go forth and conquer". Christianty isn't innocent of that either. And if those missionaries wandering around my home town with strange American accents are anything to go by, they're still at it.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1701
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jun 2018 at 16:03
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:


Surely the point of this debate is not the religion, which merely provides a source of conformal behaviour, identity, and cooperation, but rather that of the individuals able to manipulate the social effects of religion for their own ends? The Islamic conquests didn't happen because Islam got popular. They happened because somebody in charge said "moslems go forth and conquer". Christianty isn't innocent of that either. And if those missionaries wandering around my home town with strange American accents are anything to go by, they're still at it.



I think we are looking at the religion in the time of old Empires so some of the designs on social engineering might be primitive compared to the flash we have going on today.
Essentially "for their own ends" is correct I agree.


Yet why does it sound less than virtuous in those terms?
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain
Back to Top
Alexis5 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 16 May 2018
Status: Offline
Points: 14
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Alexis5 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jun 2018 at 22:18
I think that everyone should choose her/his way of thinking and reach his/her own ideas by observations and deductions from those observations, and those deductions are always prone to modifications and even falsification for sure .
 And in a broader (and more far-reached) point of view , anyone should think free from her/his inherited or induced beliefs or inclinations , in a coming era that global way of thinking would be inevitable .

 So if anyone thought I am extracting my own desirable conclusion from a historic period , it was just a misunderstanding , surely there are many reasons for a historic trend , but there might a main reason that in it's absence , the outcome of historic events in the long term could be totally different .

 I just suggested a hypothesis prone to be falsified, and anyone may refer to other historic events (specially long term and durable ones) for its falsification .
 
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1701
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jun 2018 at 06:41
Originally posted by Alexis5 Alexis5 wrote:

I think that everyone should choose her/his way of thinking and reach his/her own ideas by observations and deductions from those observations, and those deductions are always prone to modifications and even falsification for sure .
 And in a broader (and more far-reached) point of view , anyone should think free from her/his inherited or induced beliefs or inclinations , in a coming era that global way of thinking would be inevitable .

 So if anyone thought I am extracting my own desirable conclusion from a historic period , it was just a misunderstanding , surely there are many reasons for a historic trend , but there might a main reason that in it's absence , the outcome of historic events in the long term could be totally different .

 I just suggested a hypothesis prone to be falsified, and anyone may refer to other historic events (specially long term and durable ones) for its falsification .
 
For my part the use of "their own ends" is deliberately ambiguous, doesn't mean much bc the phrase has several meanings. In one sense our own ends -end of life in addition to the plan and method for reaching a desirable end.

One could say "to their own ends" to imply that all piety is a forgery and a craft to secure a privileged place for ourselves in this physical reality.  Or to reinforce the ideas that we already lean towards philosophically. The synthesis of ideas about our actions in the physical reality and their relationship
to spiritual development are highly speculative. 


Edited by Vanuatu - 23 Jun 2018 at 06:42
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jun 2018 at 22:55
When i hear falsification, i tend to think of Sir Karl Popper and his critique of science and the role of falsification in it.  (i admit, i never read his 'Logic of Scientific Discovery, but he says that scientific propositions are not verifiable (because if they were they could never be overturned), but they are falsifiable.)  i am not sure that history is that way.  maybe history is just a good story, and the fact that one story is good doesn't mean another is bad.  there is more than one way to skin a cat (or so i am told),  one way to tell the tale is Arabs vs. Persians, another way is Islam vs. Zoroastrianism.  Each version has its advantages and disadvantages.  I guess that is a pragmatic way of looking at it.  I think it is important to realize that one has a "map" (and there are other possible maps emphasizing different things), the "reality" or "territory" however, is a lot more mirky.  Or as Robin Williams once said, "reality, wow, what a concept!"

i think our current ideas about physical reality are (due to secularism) often very divorced from the spirit, but i do not think it has to be that way.  Some people know God, my dog for example, is a very spiritual being, (and I flounder around trying to be as well).

But, one thing to remember if we choose the Muslims vs. Zoroastrians 'story' is that for the Muslim, the Zoroastrians are people of the Book, like Jews and Christians are also people of the book.  It is not a matter of "automatic" warfare like it is with the pagan.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1701
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2018 at 12:18
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:


But, one thing to remember if we choose the Muslims vs. Zoroastrians 'story' is that for the Muslim, the Zoroastrians are people of the Book, like Jews and Christians are also people of the book.  It is not a matter of "automatic" warfare like it is with the pagan.

I will remember this statement as one of your most baffling. We are talking about old Empires and religion. Are you saying that these "people of the book" were not as willing to go to war as the pagan?

First, which pagans are you using for comparison? 

Explain why people of the book were not "automatic" in going to war? 

Does saying "God told me to do it"
make going to war well reasoned?

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2018 at 22:41
no, Islam is aggressive against pagans, heathens and infidels.  I am not talking about pagans being aggressive, I am talking about what Islam says regarding other groups.  It is not supposed to go to war with Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, because they are "people of the book."  Unless of course "attacked" first.  Someone who converts to another religion is "unfaithful" and therefore an "infidel."  People of the book recognize prophets, and monotheism and other things, there is a commonality that Islam recognizes with them, they have a place in Islamic society, albeit an inferior place.  From my vague understanding of the Koran, it does not work that way for heathens, infidels and pagans.  The Koran does not have a place for them, even an inferior place.

Of course Sunnis and Shiites have been feuding since almost the beginning, and Sufis get picked on by both sides, because they recognize the divine in the individual, and therefore get labeled as polytheists.  But, there is no more bitter of a fight than that between siblings (sunni and shiite).
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.