Death Of Muammar Gaddafi

[JenellYB]

Social structures based on family, tribe, religion and a nomadic lifestyle aren't really conductive to a unified society and governing system. That has long been recognized as a major obstacle to political stability in the middle east.

 

Those younger here may have never read the book or watched the movie "Lawrence of Arabia," and even older one may not really remember much about it. The task of getting Arabs, a tribal, nomadic peoples, to come to ANY kind of cooperative agreement so as to rise up and fight so as to bring down the Ottoman Empire that held power over the middle east in WWII was considered impossible. British agent Lawrence accomplished that, with the guarantee from Britian and other Allied nations that in doing so, the Arabs would win what they had struggled for so long, autonomous Arab self-rule. They were betrayed, and the region was carved up into bascially the countries we see on the map today, all held under control of various western Eutropean and US power, that installed their own governments and politcal.economic systems. Colonialism. This history is so much at the root of the strife and conflict in that region even now.

 

Those boundaries set to carve up the region into chunks entirely disregarded the nomadic culture in which tribes wandered freely throughout the larger region, without designation of geographical or political boundaries. The West, in establishing such boundaries, totally disrupted nomadic culture, creating artifical divisions, that created chaose among the people of the region. Even the oppressive and much hated Ottoman Turk Empire had not attempted such a devasating assault on that nomadic culture.

 

 

The initial problem still remains, that tribalism simply isn't a sound foundation for uniified society or governing, nomadic culture makes it downright impossible. If you look at our own North American history, the same problem made the native peoples, First Nations as they are now being called, entirely vulnerable and incompetent in defending against European invaders. That assortment of tribal cultures spread out across this continent provided no foundation for a unfied society or government.

 

One can only wonder how things would have developed in the middle east had Western powers kept their promise to Arabic peoples after WWII, to grant them self-rule, allowed the establishment of some governing system 'of the people, for the people, by the people'. Perhaps they could have found a way to do it, but no matter, the intervening decades of cultural disruption resulting from that carving into artificial states under foreign control can't be so simply undone, if it could be done at all. And certainly, what the result would be now wold be nothing like it might have been if allowed at the end of WWII.

 

Jenell

[GeorgeW]

Jennel,

 

You are assuming that the nation state is an inherently stable, peaceful and superior form of government. How has that worked out? WWI, WWII, etc., etc.?

 

Some 'primitive' societies were doing quite well until we came in an imposed 'civilized' ideas like private property, national boundaries, monoculture, Christianity and the like.

 

Yes, a tribal structure is difficult in a global system of nation states, but there is nothing, IMO, inherently inferior about it.

 

George

[soma]

I don't have enough information to make a judgement. We support some dictators and malign others. We support and sell weapons of mass destruction to them and in our self interest can change that support to massive destruction in a whim, bombing cities and killing many innocent civilians. I traveled through Afaghanitan and stayed in Kabul, when the Russians occupied the country. At that time we were sending money and arms to Osama Bin Ladin and calling him a hero and great supporter of Mujahedeen, or Afghan resistance. We supported Saddam Hussein in Iraq and sold him weapons through Cheney because Saddam was often seen as an anti-Soviet leader in the 1960s and 1970s. Under Saddam Baghdad gained some of its former prominence as a significant center for Arabic culture before we invaded. When we invaded Baghdad and Iraq we caused severe infrastructural damage, and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent women, men and children in a War we labled, War on Terror when we were causing more terror and death than Saddam did in his whole reign, and we are still there supporting a corrupt government. Gaddafi I am sure as good and bad points, but I don't know either way.

[JenellYB]

George, actually I think such cultures based on tribe and family are wonderful. And the nomadism of such as the old middle eastern and central Asian cultures, Arctic sub-artic cultures, Australian Aborogninals, and those of the North Americans were probably among the most psycholigcally healthy social forms.

However, their lack of unifying government, more significantly, defense, make them usustainable in a competitive world, against cultural systems based on ownership of property and control of resources. That has been the down fall of pretty much all such cultures.

 

Jenell

[GeorgeW]

Gaddafi I am sure as good and bad points, but I don't know either way.

Soma,

 

Maybe he was a good cook, a fast reader, a heavy sleeper, a good whistler, . . . . . He was a snappy dresser.

 

However, humility was not his strong suit. In a statement at an Arab League summit, he said, "I am an international leader, the dean of Arab rulers, the king of kings of Africa and imam of Muslims, and my international status does not allow me to descend to a lower level.”

 

Actually, he did assist some African countries with humanitarian projects. But, if motive counts, it seems clear that this was for his aggrandizement as the self-designated 'King of Kings of Africa.' As a pariah in the West and a persona non grata in the Arab World, sub-Sahara Africa seemed to be his best choice for recognition. And, he got some.

 

As much as he often talked about how much his people loved him, he surrounded himself with foreign body guards, nurses (?), and sherpas. Maybe this was just an open-minded appreciation of other cultures.

 

(Excuse the sarcasm, sometimes I can't stop myself)

 

George

[JenellYB]

He was, I think, an excellent example of the depths to which arrogance and pride can bring a man down to. Of what NOT to become. If there is a lesson to be learned there....

 

Jenell

[GeorgeW]

He was, I think, an excellent example of the depths to which arrogance and pride can bring a man down to. Of what NOT to become. If there is a lesson to be learned there....

Jenell

I think what bothers me the most about Gaddafi, al-Asad in Syria and Saleh in Yemen is them allowing so many people to die while they cling to power. At least Mubarak (who was also not as brutal as the others) had the good grace to step aside before more people died.

 

George

[JenellYB]

The 'snappy dresser' part? I don't know. I always thought he looked like a clown. Seriously. Maybe the frizzy hair could have used a touch of bright red-orange....

 

Jenell

[soma]

I think he persuaded a lot of people he was a good guy with his style of dress.

 

On May 15, 2006, the Bush administration announced that it would restore full diplomatic relations with Libya, once Gaddafi declared he was abandoning Libya's weapons of mass destruction program. They said that Libya would be removed from the list of nations supporting terrorism. On August 31, 2006, however, Gaddafi openly called upon his supporters to “kill enemies” who asked for political change.

[NORM]

A very good book I read many years ago on this subject (prior to my travels to the ME) was this one by Robert Lacey:

 

http://www.amazon.co...d/dp/0151472602

 

Admittedly, it takes a more pro-western view of the region than I now entertain, but the historical scholarship is good - particularly in its intriguing story of how one man - Abd-al-Wahhab - could have such far reaching influence as his legacy does in the world today.

 

NORM

[JenellYB]

Yeah, I studied at least the basis of the formation and development of Wahhabism, and the rise of thought that influenced young Ansama Bin Laden, in in the Islam course I took in Religious Studies. Fundamentalist ultra-conservative religion X an ultra-wealthy pampered ruling class with more time to think than do anything productive = one self-righteous dangerous bunch!

[JenellYB]

In honestly think that the aprant "warm relations" that developed in more recent years between US and other Western nation's leaders with Gadafi was more of the nature of the wisdom in the old saw...

 

Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.

 

The better to keep an eye on what they are really up to?

 

Jenell

[PaulS]

Soma, could I ask you to perhaps elaborate on a comment of yours in a previous post I titled "Angers Towards Fundamentalists", in relation to this post?

 

You said "It seems we have all spiraled to the same point that continues to spiral in love and the realization that God is always with us because we are inside Our Father. In our sincerity it seems we realize there is nothing to become or go, but just to remove the barriers that separate us."

 

How do you see somebody like Gadhafi being 'inside' God? Some of my questions concerning God and the reason I raised this particular post, come from hearing/reading things such as "God is pure love" and "we are inside our Father", yet to me the life and times of someone like Gadhafi and the pain and suffering he caused to so many, seems incongruous with this notion. Or more to the point, I don't understand how this notion of all things being within God = God is love = violent dictators causing so much grief.

 

I guess I'm asking the age old question - "If there is a God why is there so much pain and suffering in the world".

 

Just interested in your philosophy (and that of others) as to how a tyrant like Gadhafi ties in with a God of love, having control over all things, and/or having all things within.

 

Confused.

[JosephM]

Hi Paul,

 

I'd like to try to address your post as one of the others and let Soma answer later for himself.

 

To me there is no power but God. Gaddafi could not exist except God provide that potential for existence which includes the potential for what you might consider evil. Nothing exists outside of God because there is no outside. Now we can say that God is Love but Love is not (at least to me) an act or emotion and is, in my experience, not very well understood by most. While it might be true there are actions that come out of Love, and love seems to start out as a feeling state, i believe it becomes a way of seeing, experiencing and interpreting life and in the end perhaps a state of being, a way of being with the world.

 

One could say who Gaddafi really is is Love but it is not yet realized in the form you might know as Gaddafi. Forms evolve here by the level of consciousness. They evolve by the transforming effects of Love, which imo is the highest level, dissolving judgement, condemnation and hatred. Love is a way of relating to the world and it sees that the nature of creation is as it is and its design is not in need of correction. The world is evolving, Love is already complete and all that exists is encompassed and evolving in that Love. Pain and suffering seems to be a natural part of the becoming of that consciousness.

 

To your question, "If there is a God why is there so much pain and suffering in the world", the answer to me, becomes obvious. The world of form is as it is designed and is evolving to a state of Love by the transforming power of Love. Pain and suffering is part of the evolutionary process. To me, to ask why does a God of Love allow such to be, while most natural in that evolution, is from a perspective of content and who one thinks one is. When one has the realization that they are One with God/Love, even as Jesus is recorded saying, the question disappears. Now i agree that this may appears as a non-answer to your question but that is only because, in my view, it cannot be satisfactorily answered from the perspective of form.

 

Perhaps, one will find it is a mystery hid in Christ that when realized needs no explanation because in Christ, the former things such as pain, tears and suffering disappear as a new world emerges. A new creature emerges and for him/her old things are passed away. I believe all are destined by design to come to that realization in their own time. Perhaps they will use different words than i to attempt to answer what can only be understood by experience. In my view, it is a natural part of the becoming of consciousness.

 

Just one man's attempted answer to a difficult question,

Peace,

Joseph

[soma]

"If there is a God why is there so much pain and suffering in the world".

 

”Just interested in your philosophy (and that of others) as to how a tyrant like Gadhafi ties in with a God of love, having control over all things, and/or having all things within.”

 

 

Paul these are great questions and I will attempt to answer them, but I am sure not completely.

 

Unity is not a new concept, but being open up to it to has made it effective so my life changed, making me aware that my body is in harmony with God, and His power is within. God, which can be interchanged with energy, love or consciousness, which flows through every atom of my being fortifying, energizing and renewing. Embracing and identifying with unity, instead of my mind easily opens my being to the influx of new ideas, new thoughts, new people, and the new situations that come into my experience. Drawing upon the invisible forces of unity I can feel the oneness and see that responsibility, decision-making and optimism all flow together in one universal consciousness, where God is an obvious reality. When a deep awareness of unity was established, I benefited tremendously physically, mentally and spiritually because the habit of being positive was acquired, and God was no longer a closed concept, but an infinite vast always present consciousness. To begin my journey to a new life of unity I had to see one God or Life beyond the myriad forms so I was not tricked into thinking that there are more than one God. My God is better than your god insinuates that there is more than one God. This statement I feel is false and is a misuse of belief, I feel.

 

I feel as a Christian that the Christian’s consciousness of acceptance that there is one God and that He created all things is a conceptual truth that frees my mind to think of God all the time. This relaxes the emotions so I can praise everything as good because it came from God. This kind of encounter I feel Jesus revealed to be the key to reality, a connection to God or pure consciousness that has the ability to bring into physical being that which is spiritual and ultimately real. I don’t think Jesus’ words were meant to be an end in themselves, but a vehicle to lead a person to encounter the all-pervading God that is beyond the grasp of the mind and all words. Jesus had the ultimate experience with God consciousness and his consciousness was interchangeable with God’s. He is beyond the normal mundane world of time and space and is the living expression of pure consciousness where everyone can find fulfillment. Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” This is where the formless becomes visible and the pure consciousness of God becomes expressed in the unit consciousness of an individual in the form of Christ consciousness.

 

Now the hard part how God includes pain and suffering.

 

 

In the unity one pure consciousness, one power and one medium that we all use. This medium is in one God that creates many manifestations. Multiplicity comes from unity without breaking up the one true God or Whole because everything is in God. At first I was ignorant of this and misused my power, consequently binging on myself misfortune, pain and negation. Liberation and repression, sickness and health, poverty and wealth, heaven and hell, good and bad, happiness and misery, peace and panic appear to be opposites, but they are only the result of opposing forces, the forces that led me to the one power or God. These forces taught me how to live and how to think so I could be happy in unity. I already had this ability to be at peace, but first I had to realize my relation to the Whole, a relationship with God in complete unity. Engrossed in pure consciousness even pain is fruitful, for all things work together for the good of the whole even sin is a commitment to greater love because it humbles bringing out the best.

 

If I don’t associate with pure consciousness in a harmonious state of mind, body and affairs, I have to depend totally on the created world, and I am subject to its pain and hardship. After becoming more and more involved with the external world and experiencing pain, the struggle of the flesh once again becomes a struggle for happiness. The nature of the flesh being self-centered, possessive, fearful, and always trying to force its will on others after suffering in the world, finally returns my mind on a direction back through individual consciousness to a path leading to the soul. Suffering makes me not happy with the material world so my minds lead me back through the depths of being to the kingdom of God.

 

When this reorganization is effective, a personality develops that suffers only in the lower layers of the mind but not in the upper layers of the mind where I become detached from pain and pleasure. The re-birth of this improved personality is the groundwork for the second coming of Christ in the higher realms leading to Spirit or Soul beyond the mind.

 

. The unattached mind is similar in good times or bad times, and it is not bothered by physical pain or discomfort, it is detached. The mind walking in the daylight of discrimination knows that everything that moves and exists is God the Father; therefore, I am satisfied with an inner joy and don't have to rely on the physical objects of this world for pleasure.

 

In the little simple worldly pleasures in this state I am no different from anyone else, but differ from others because I don't regard life's sensations as wrong; therefore, I have no need to condemn others because in this state I see the awareness of all things in God first. This concept of unity helps me to simply understand the lovely indescribable feelings as they come and go without attachment and enjoy the show while it last without longing for more because that would cause pain. In other words, I am able and willing to drop the mental stuff that prevents the natural condition, the joy of life. Unfortunately, I am not there all the time, but with practice my leaps of faith keep me there longer.

 

Pain has this function of teaching me the right path.

 

This reaping what I sow is nothing but the scientific law of cause and effect. My present life is ruled by my past just as my future is affected by my present actions; I am therefore, punished only by my own actions. These actions form my destiny so it seems that the ego has not been created by nature to follow its own arbitrary impulses to an unlimited extent, but to help make real God's purpose, which is self-realization. This realization comes into play when my ego starts to get rid of its desires, its fears and tries to get to a deeper more basic form of existence. The ego must be able to listen attentively and give itself without further purpose to mental expansion, spiritual growth and self-realization. It seems the past takes thinking as the future, but being in the present moment where past, present and future is on takes no thinking, but just pure being.

[PaulS]

Thanks Joseph & Soma for those last two contributions (and of course everyone else for their contributions to date). As I'm sure you can both understand, my mind still works quite black and white with a heavy bent towards logic and the desire for the 'right answers', which aren't of course always so satisfying. However please know that I appreciate your explanations above and enjoy reading and learning about how others see things fitting into place.

 

Guys, would it be fair to 'label' your responses, to a degree, as 'panentheistic'? I realise that labels are very superficial and don't fit 100%, but just trying to get an idea both of your views on God and my understanding of panentheism. To my understanding, Panentheism believes that God is in all things and all things are in God. That whilst God personally exists, it is more as a this 'life force' that pervades everything (perhaps as you say Soma, that flows through every atom of your being?).

 

Personally I think I can see what both of you are saying and it seems to make more sense to me than many other explanations for our being. Of course, these days I hold off on believing anything really because I am concerned I might start believing the wrong thing!

 

Soma, in your post you said "To begin my journey to a new life of unity I had to see one God or Life beyond the myriad forms", and also "first I had to realize my relation to the Whole". May I ask how you did that? Of course I realise that I've just asked a question to which the answer probably spans decades of your life experience!. How do you feel abbreviating your life to a few paragraphs? Incidentally, I appreciate this may be taking my post off topic, so am happy to start a new thread if appropriate (I guess I'm asking any moderators that may be reading this).

 

From both of your responses, one particular thought comes to mind. I wonder if it could be that until we ALL (the entire human race, perhaps the entire universe) realise that we are one with God and that the power of God lies within us all, that until that point in time there will continue to be this struggle for love/peace/simply 'being'. I wonder if at some point everything will fall into place once we all understand 'God'.

 

Upon re-reading that last sentence, I guess I've pretty much gone down the path of wondering if one day there will be a 'restoration of all things', albeit in a different sense than how I understand mainstream Christianity of the last few hundred years to expect such restoration.

 

Thanks for your patience and contributions.

 

Cheers

Paul

[minsocal]

If man made himself the first object of study, he would see how incapable of going further. How can a part know the whole? But he may perhaps aspire to know at least the parts to which he bears some proportion. But the parts of the world are all so related and linked to one another, that I believe it impossible to know one without the other and without the whole.

 

Blaise Pascal

[JosephM]

Guys, would it be fair to 'label' your responses, to a degree, as 'panentheistic'?

 

Paul,

Thanks for bringing up the questions. I don't think Gaddafi will mind us taking away a bit of the attention from him.

 

Speaking for myself, i think using any label does some injustice to understanding. It seems to me that while it is desirable to the thinking mind, once a label is applied, the mind often assumes it knows exactly what is being conveyed by that label.

 

So, while it is certainly okay with me that people apply labels as an aid in communications, i personally try to avoid labels as much as possible though i also catch myself getting tangled in them quite often even though i think i know better.

 

I also have good reason to believe as you wonder that "one day there will be a 'restoration of all things', albeit in a different sense than how I understand mainstream Christianity of the last few hundred years to expect such restoration." I no longer wonder if all things will eventually " fall into place" as you say, because it seems inevitable to me from my own subjective experience that it can be no other way.

 

Just one input to consider,

Joseph

 

PS. Thanks for the Pascal quote minsocal (Myron)

[PaulS]

Joseph,

 

Thanks for your response and please know that I understand and respect your views concerning labelling. I tried to convey that I too was aware of the shortcomings of putting one's beliefs into a particular box, and was simply trying to expand my understanding of personal views and what I undersatnd panentheism to be. Perhaps I'll scour other threads or start my own to further expand on the matter.

 

One comment - It must be nice to have firm belief in God and how things will end up one day, that there is something to all of this when it comes to the bigger picture (I say that rhetorically as I know it is, or at least it was, for me). I miss that from my early days as a fundy believer. I am seeking now because I would like to have some belief again, although I know that is no reason to create/accept beliefs. Rather I think beliefs have to find you.

 

I guess I'll just bob along reading/listening/contributing and trust that one day all will be revealed, if in fact there is anything to be revealed

 

Cheers

Paul

 

PS You asked me before about the Perth Mint and I have been meaning to mention to you at some point that I visited Florida in 1990. Perhaps we walked past one another! I also visited Dallas and New Orleans before driving the West Coast from Tijuana to Vancouver, Canada and back to San Diego. Just a bit of info.

[JosephM]

I tried to convey that I too was aware of the shortcomings of putting one's beliefs into a particular box, and was simply trying to expand my understanding of personal views and what I undersatnd panentheism to be. Perhaps I'll scour other threads or start my own to further expand on the matter.

 

Paul,

Yes, you did make that clear by your words and did a good job of conveying that so i took the liberty to avoid using the label in an answer.

 

One comment - It must be nice to have firm belief in God and how things will end up one day, that there is something to all of this when it comes to the bigger picture (I say that rhetorically as I know it is, or at least it was, for me). I miss that from my early days as a fundy believer. I am seeking now because I would like to have some belief again, although I know that is no reason to create/accept beliefs. Rather I think beliefs have to find you.

 

It seems to me your last sentence says it all. Somehow, i think we come full circle and perhaps as my brother quotes TS Eliot in his own words "at the end of all our exploring we shall come back to where we started and know it for the first time"

 

PS You asked me before about the Perth Mint and I have been meaning to mention to you at some point that I visited Florida in 1990. Perhaps we walked past one another! I also visited Dallas and New Orleans before driving the West Coast from Tijuana to Vancouver, Canada and back to San Diego. Just a bit of info.

 

Well, if you ever do it again or get over this way, perhaps you will let us know in advance and we can meet face to face.

 

Joseph

 

PS HERE is an interesting thread titled "Are Labels Really Necessary" One can find some pro's and con's in that thread.

[soma]

Paul you are a fellow spiritual seeker because I recognize your questions. I have asked them many times and each time I get a different answer.

 

Paul, I am just a simple seeker like you that has looked in all the corners. I lived overseas for 20 years studying cultures, people, religions and scriptures. I lived as a monk for a few years and have found that the key is just to be honest with yourself. Married man, monk, young single guy looking for love, solitary confinement are all true paths to follow if they are the path one is meant to follow. I think I started seeking because family, country, religion and everything I thought was true rejected me and started my seeking first overseas and finally within. The simple answer, I found that everywhere I went it was the same because I didn't change. Alone I found everything is al---one, connected in a Quantum Interconnectedness, in pure consciousness. There were no distractions I was quiet and felt something inside.

 

I don't know what I am, but I can say I am a Christian with all the negative baggage that goes with that label. I like to say Christian Mysticism so my explanation in Christian terminology is below.

 

The first commandment is “I am the Lord thy God and thou shall not have strange Gods before Me.” This is the basis for the conviction that there is only one God, a belief that leads to the knowledge of unity, which once accomplished influences and helps us in our daily lives. There is only one God appearing before us, and this one God is for everyone embodying the secrets for successful living in His all-pervading consciousness. It is sad that Christians create false Gods so they can feel superior to other sects, all sects bow to the same God in different clothes. I can be happily married because my God wears my wife's clothes when I am centered or my son's clothes just so I can expand my personal relationship with this one God in all things.

 

In the awareness of God’s omnipresence I realized that God is all loving and always present so there is no need to fear either man or his developments. As a young vulnerable seeker overseas I was assisted by God dressed as a Muslim, beggar, fellow monk, women, children and even people considered criminals. God in this mix ground my ego into bits until I finally let go and guess what..............I didn't fall because in God's womb I was protected in every direction.

 

Jesus said, “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” because it provides an effective answer to the many problems of modern life. This call for love tells us that we are united and that no other person is separate or apart in God’s spiritual consciousness. Recognizing that we are all one in God’s consciousness gives us full protection in His unity by integrating our individual life with the world around us and providing a basic harmony and equilibrium in our hearts and minds.

 

The proof is in the experience of harmony, equilibrium and love. In that experience everything is True call it grace, but it you want to share it with a Buddhist learn their terminology and they will share and you will share the same Truth. Allah Akbar

[PaulS]

Soma,

 

Many thanks for your response. I should have thanked you ages ago but I have been somewhat distracted and didn't get around to posting.

 

I do like the concept of "one God in all things". Not sure if it exists of course, but I like the thought.

 

Thanks for sharing and I shall continue to ponder and search.

 

Cheers

Paul

[soma]

Paul, Thank you and enjoy the one movie we all have supporting roles in. Cheers