Fan of theocracy?

[Live trash can]

"Group together people deliberately chosen for strong religious feelings, and you have a practical guarantee of dark morbidities expressed in crime, perversion, and insanity."

My hunch is that it is problematic with guys who are dealing only with religion. It is much better with people who happen to have a strong religious feeling but it is not their profession. Better with philosophers, scientists, professors who have strong religious sentiment as leaders, than priests and clergy as leaders. Because these lasts groups attract people who are fond of power for power's sake.

Then again, there are exceptions including even these last groups: Tibet and ancient Egypt I think are exceptions.

 

[Patine]

My hunch is that it is problematic with guys who are dealing only with religion. It is much better with people who happen to have a strong religious feeling but it is not their profession. Better with philosophers, scientists, professors who have strong religious sentiment as leaders, than priests and clergy as leaders. Because these lasts groups attract people who are fond of power for power's sake.

Then again, there are exceptions including even these last groups: Tibet and ancient Egypt I think are exceptions.

Tibet was not REALLY an exception when it was actually a sovereign nation, and not a government-in-exile. I commented on this concept here.

This is an interesting topic, and one not fully understood by Westerners, because of the conflict of strong (and, in both cases, not completely accurate) biases by two source groups - the Chinese Communist and the "hippie historical line" (for lack of a better term). Tibet only became a theocracy in the 15th Century when a remnant Mongol Khan converted to Tibetan Buddhism and used his military power to install the 6th Dalai as an absolute theocrat in the first place. There was a military, expansionist nation called the Tibetan EMPIRE, ruled effectively by warlord-emperors from about the 3rd to 9th Centuries. Also, the Dalai Lama's theocracy was not the land of milk and honey it was made out to be. When someone says that Tibet has never had freedom, liberty, democracy, and respect for human rights since China annexed the country in 1959, that phrase must be altered - Tibet has NEVER had freedom, liberty, democracy, and respect for human rights, period, full stop! Under the 13th Dalai Lama, the one in exile's predecessor, and the last one to rule Tibet effectively in his own name and under his authority (and the current one was just a teenager with the Kashag, or "high council" of Tibet, governing in regency for him at the time of the exile in 1959), the theocracy was VERY absolute. About 95% of the population was effectively in a state of permanent serfdom through a justification called "karmic debt" - in fact, the state holiday in the modern Tibetan Autonomous Area promoted by the CPC and PRC of Tibet's annexation's anniversary in 1959 is called "Day of the Emancipation of Serfs" - and law and justice were passed arbitrarily, as the lamas could not be refuted, and such punishment as amputations - and not just the typical heads and hands of Sharia, but a larger selection of possibility - were recorded punishments by many different outsiders with different points of view. There were no human rights, no freedom, no democracy, and no liberty at all. And while this does not justify the Chinese invasion and annexation AT ALL, the Western perspective needs more honesty on what exactly was going on before hand and the sort of regime that is so championed that was usurped.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Oh wow, I had no idea Tibet was that bad historically.

 

[Berzerker]

guess who converted to Islam

Muhammad > Pope

Sinead O'Connor

 

[Patine]

guess who converted to Islam

Muhammad > Pope

Sinead O'Connor

Probably a publicity stunt, like Madonna becoming a Kabbalist, or Mick Jagger becoming a Hindu.

 

[Live trash can]

Tibet was not REALLY an exception when it was actually a sovereign nation, and not a government-in-exile.

Yes I read your post with great interest.

The only thing from what you said that makes the Tibetan Empire sound harsh, to me, is what you call karmic debt and the punishments.

But punishemnts were common in olden days. I believe somewhere in Europe conterfeiting coins was punished by death by torture.

Having strict laws is a way of dealing with criminals or wannabe criminals and has little with how the general population is treated.

And as I said in an earlier post, freedom , democracy and human rights simply weren't around like they are today. Human rights existing only as late as after WW2.

Tibet didn't stand out in regard to these things, but I believe it wasn't any worse either. Lack of something (say human rights) doesn't automatically mean abusive behavior!

So I believe even if what you said is right (and I believe it is right) life there could be quite sweet.

This is speculation, but i believe the monks of that area lived quite simple lives and didn't engage in oppressive behavior. If you know otherwise, I am listening...

Edit:
One of the questions we are dealing with here, is: what makes life sweet? A few generations ago people were much closer to nature. Wasn't this a source of joy? They had fewer liberties, but at least they knew their place in the world. All the pains from hurting the body, must have been burdensome, but one gets used to pain also. Many people were also around animals, which is a great source of joy.

 

[Traitorfish]

My hunch is that it is problematic with guys who are dealing only with religion. It is much better with people who happen to have a strong religious feeling but it is not their profession. Better with philosophers, scientists, professors who have strong religious sentiment as leaders, than priests and clergy as leaders. Because these lasts groups attract people who are fond of power for power's sake.

Power attracts people who are fond of power for power's sake. Priests have had greater access to power over the last six thousand years, but that doesn't tell us that there's anything about priesthood itself that attracts more pathological personalities than science or academia. Change which professions give access to power, and you'll see the power-hungry alter their ambitions accordingly.

guess who converted to Islam

Muhammad > Pope

Sinead O'Connor

She's still Catholic, though. That's just how it works.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Oh wow, I had no idea Tibet was that bad historically.

As pointed out they had some direct Mongol-esque influence, though in some ways they were worse.

I'm not sure Tibet was literally that bad throughout all of its prior history before it became a Theocracy, relative to typical rulership elsewhere. But yeah, theocracy was not exactly a picnic for most of the people there.

 

[timtofly]

I cant agree with that, the 'universe' was not the focus of creation myth... Heaven and Earth and their creator was the foundation of ancient cosmology as in Genesis. In Babylonian myth Heaven and Earth were born from Marduk's dismemberment of Tiamat, in Norse myth it was Odin and the Frost giant Ymir. In Mesopotamian myth the olden gods preceded Heaven and Earth, they were: Apsu, Mummu, Lahamu, Lahma, Tiamat, Kishar, Anshar, Anu and Nudimmud.

Marduk represented the current solar system. Before that it was a primeval water which gave way to earth and sky. Marduk was just the formation of our sun and it's planetary system after earth and sky, and a few other phenomenon.

 

[Berzerker]

Probably a publicity stunt, like Madonna becoming a Kabbalist, or Mick Jagger becoming a Hindu.

I hope not, that'd be a big mistake...Once you go Islam, you dont get to leave.

Marduk represented the current solar system. Before that it was a primeval water which gave way to earth and sky. Marduk was just the formation of our sun and it's planetary system after earth and sky, and a few other phenomenon.

Cant have primeval water without a planet

 

[Patine]

I hope not, that'd be a big mistake...Once you go Islam, you dont get to leave.

Well, there was Mirza Davud Baghir oglu Huseynov, who was stated to have been born into a "highly religious Azeri family in the Russian Empire," but who joined the Bolsheviks around the time of the Russian Revolution, became the First General Secretary of the Azerbaijan branch of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and, thus, the first inaugural executive head of the Azerbaijan SSR in 1920, who not only renounced Islam for Soviet State Secularism to get in tighter with Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Molotov, Kalinin, and friends, but participated in the "discouragement" (read, brutal suppression) of Islam in the Azerbaijan under his administration.

 

[timtofly]

Cant have primeval water without a planet

Sounds like an excuse when all that happened in previous history was a world covered in water where land emerged from the ocean, and they had no clue how the universe started.

The point that they named phenomenon and called that name a god, probably means they did not know any Gods. However the concept of there being a monotheistic beginning does not change. They still viewed the point as one beginning with a single point of reference. That there were other gods branching out into multiple named gods as the list of phenomenon grew is stated in their account of cosmology. I have already attempted to point out there were no gods at all, but just an evolutionary process by which they just named the various states and called those states gods. Just like they made up a name for all other phenomenon in the process. I am sure nature can invoke a religious experience in a vast majority of people. Does not mean there are various gods behind each and every phenomenon.

Well, there was Mirza Davud Baghir oglu Huseynov, who was stated to have been born into a "highly religious Azeri family in the Russian Empire," but who joined the Bolsheviks around the time of the Russian Revolution, became the First General Secretary of the Azerbaijan branch of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and, thus, the first inaugural executive head of the Azerbaijan SSR in 1920, who not only renounced Islam for Soviet State Secularism to get in tighter with Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Molotov, Kalinin, and friends, but participated in the "discouragement" (read, brutal suppression) of Islam in the Azerbaijan under his administration.

It takes a government.

 

[Traitorfish]

I hope not, that'd be a big mistake...Once you go Islam, you dont get to leave.

I understand that for the declaration of faith to stand, it has to be made sincerely and in sound mind, and given that O'Connor is pretty notorious for her psychological and emotional instability, I'm not sure how many mainstream Imams would be prepared to endorse her newfound enthusiasm.

Even the fundies might be happier to see her go; the idea that Islam is somewhere white celebrities go to have a nervous breakdown can't be very appealing to them, either.

 

[Patine]

It takes a government.

But he was a willing, founding member of that government from the ground up, not a victim and martyr forced to shed his religion on the surface to an oppressive state. He was gleefully oppressing other Azeri Moslems!

 

[Live trash can]

Power attracts people who are fond of power for power's sake. Priests have had greater access to power over the last six thousand years, but that doesn't tell us that there's anything about priesthood itself that attracts more pathological personalities than science or academia. Change which professions give access to power, and you'll see the power-hungry alter their ambitions accordingly.

Yes I think that is very true! There is not much inherently wrong with either being a Catholic priest, being a professor or being part of a theocracy. But the more powerful these jobs become the more they will attract power hungry people.

These jobs used to be reserved for aristocracy but today there is more of a meritocracy so the jobs draw on a much larger portion of the population. Bigger chance of some power hungry nut getting the job.

 

[Berzerker]

Well, there was Mirza Davud Baghir oglu Huseynov, who was stated to have been born into a "highly religious Azeri family in the Russian Empire," but who joined the Bolsheviks around the time of the Russian Revolution, became the First General Secretary of the Azerbaijan branch of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and, thus, the first inaugural executive head of the Azerbaijan SSR in 1920, who not only renounced Islam for Soviet State Secularism to get in tighter with Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Molotov, Kalinin, and friends, but participated in the "discouragement" (read, brutal suppression) of Islam in the Azerbaijan under his administration.

I dont mean Muslims cant leave the religion, only that doing so can get them killed because Islam forbids apostasy.

Sounds like an excuse when all that happened in previous history was a world covered in water where land emerged from the ocean, and they had no clue how the universe started.

The point that they named phenomenon and called that name a god, probably means they did not know any Gods. However the concept of there being a monotheistic beginning does not change. They still viewed the point as one beginning with a single point of reference. That there were other gods branching out into multiple named gods as the list of phenomenon grew is stated in their account of cosmology. I have already attempted to point out there were no gods at all, but just an evolutionary process by which they just named the various states and called those states gods. Just like they made up a name for all other phenomenon in the process. I am sure nature can invoke a religious experience in a vast majority of people. Does not mean there are various gods behind each and every phenomenon.

According to the Enuma Elish Heaven and Earth were the carved up remains of Tiamat (biblical tehom) and they were likened to 2 halves of a flatfish. So Heaven is not the universe, it was comparable in size to the Earth and is nearby in our own solar system. Genesis doesn't describe the creation of the universe, but it is monotheistic. How did its authors adapt polytheistic mythology for their own? The "gods" were disguised. Tiamat becomes 'the deep', or waters, and the olden gods are hidden in numbers - 6 'days' of creation followed by a 7th for rest. Our oldest written records show monotheism derived from polytheism.

 

[Patine]

I dont mean Muslims cant leave the religion, only that doing so can get them killed because Islam forbids apostasy.

So, too, by written doctrine do Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Confucianism, Zoroasatrianism, Yazhidi, Circassianism, Samaratanism, Druze, and most old Pagan and Animistic faiths. Enforcement of these ubiquitous laws of religion is a matter of local action and by local membership, and does not always occur successfully in all cases. And note, that I had mentioned Madonna and Mick Jagger making a publicity of joining two of the above religions as well, who also have laws (with fatal punishment, demanded in their scriptures, like Islam - in fact, quite graphic and horrible deaths demanded by Judaism and Hinduism), as well. Technically, Scientology, if you can all it a religion, also forbids apostasy, but they don't always outright kill you - they have their "fair game" policy. In fact, by actual written doctrine, Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, and Taoism are rare as religions for having no stated and explicit ban on or punishment for apostasy (though the Book the Mormon has such a ban and punishment stated, and the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists have extra-scriptural bans on such, and Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Lutheran, and Mormon Churches have extra-scriptural procedures for excommunication, which is being cast out by the Church, but different that voluntary apostasy).

 

[aelf]

Power attracts people who are fond of power for power's sake. Priests have had greater access to power over the last six thousand years, but that doesn't tell us that there's anything about priesthood itself that attracts more pathological personalities than science or academia. Change which professions give access to power, and you'll see the power-hungry alter their ambitions accordingly.

Having had some relatively up-close experience with those types, I suspect the priesthood does attract more pathological personalities. It's easier to have a crowd of pliable, adoring followers as a priest than as a CEO or even politician. Hell, not only those who want power or to stroke their ego, it can even attract those who are greedy for money as well.

One important dimension of this is the nature of faith. First, faith tends to make people question less once they've bought into the narrative. Second, many priest-types are quite intelligent and learned people, so at some point, they are likely to be aware that the stuff they're selling is at least partially untrue (particularly if we're talking about the kind of things that attract adoring, pliable crowds). But they're either very good at lying to and convincing themselves of the truth of it all, or they've chosen to ignore it and continue using the expression of faith to prop up the BS. That requires levels of pathological-ness that I think exceeds the pure greed that's often behind CEO or banker-types, even if the latter have had more deleterious effects in the larger scheme lately.

 

[Berzerker]

So, too, by written doctrine do Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Confucianism, Zoroasatrianism, Yazhidi, Circassianism, Samaratanism, Druze, and most old Pagan and Animistic faiths. Enforcement of these ubiquitous laws of religion is a matter of local action and by local membership, and does not always occur successfully in all cases. And note, that I had mentioned Madonna and Mick Jagger making a publicity of joining two of the above religions as well, who also have laws (with fatal punishment, demanded in their scriptures, like Islam - in fact, quite graphic and horrible deaths demanded by Judaism and Hinduism), as well. Technically, Scientology, if you can all it a religion, also forbids apostasy, but they don't always outright kill you - they have their "fair game" policy. In fact, by actual written doctrine, Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, and Taoism are rare as religions for having no stated and explicit ban on or punishment for apostasy (though the Book the Mormon has such a ban and punishment stated, and the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists have extra-scriptural bans on such, and Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Lutheran, and Mormon Churches have extra-scriptural procedures for excommunication, which is being cast out by the Church, but different that voluntary apostasy).

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...ntries-where-atheism-punishable-death/355961/

 

[Live trash can]

Having had some relatively up-close experience with those types, I suspect the priesthood does attract more pathological personalities. It's easier to have a crowd of pliable, adoring followers as a priest than as a CEO or even politician. Hell, not only those who want power or to stroke their ego, it can even attract those who are greedy for money as well.

After a bit of thought, I wonder also if not clergy-type occupations come with a bigger responsibility and potential for power than being a CEO, politician, academic or scientist. There is something about having power to impress the nature of the universe onto people and having an appearance of holiness that is attactive to "perverts". Also, religious institutions are very old and can cater to these guys in various ways.

As times change though, both academia and scientists and politicians get more power, as @Traitorfish said.