I mean efficient as in maximizing welfare

Presumably it would allow for corporate entities (guilds, unions, collectives, communities, locales) to make direct economic decisions but the State would control the type of production. If steel is over-produced and food under-produced, the state has an incentive to direct economic forces in the proper direction for the collective good.

So, no, efficiency would not be maximized. Free markets obviously are better for efficiency. Efficiency doesn't necessarily equal general welfare however.

Are we talking about refutations on islam?

Cause i have some.

Two different convos

One on Islam, one on economics

@Deleted User efficiency in economics terms means welfare though

Or, it means maximized social surplus

Which is welfare

I think that's a fallacy and myth of free market capitalism

Because social surplus is based on utility functions

Mainly from reading Old Testament theology books and a book on the history of the arabic people's by Albert Hourani.

It's usually a bigger composed argument but basically Mohammed cannot be a prophet by abrahamic standards.

No, I think you're misunderstanding the definition of surplus

Let's move to <#452069937305878530> so they can talk

I don't believe that economic efficiency equates to social welfare. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

Okay, i'm going to make it as breef as possible without letting the heavy parts of the argument out.

According to theological observations on the rise of prophet figures in the old testament, Prophets are oftenly seen with the vocation already, but at somepoint they got it directly from God, when he requires them to speak in his name, sometimes, certain "missions" they are to accomplish are announced by "the Angel of Yhwh" these ministries, according to theologian Gerard Von Rad, can only be observed as a confirmation of pre-prophetic hebrew religious tradition, wich means that the prophet's have to bring those clean as they are, to be a true revival of the tradition, it cannot be a new covenant, or a new law that it's not truly fundamented in principles of that pre-prophetic period, and such we can observe with Moses, for example, wich is not a new Covenant, but commandments, a form of practice that we know already from pre-Mosaic times.

So the prophets cannot add new principles, nor invent or be harbingers of completly new laws, nor could the patriarch's

To try and ease this disctintion, Islam usually gives the title of prophet "Nabawi" to many figures in the old testament, such as King Solomon, Patriarch Noah and Patriarch Ibrahim, etc.
This way they make it impossible to distinguish what a prophet can do or do not or who can be one.

Problem is, in the hebrew text's the word "Nabi" wich is associated with prophethood, is never reffered to Solomon, Ibrahim, Noah, or any of these figures wich they (the muslims) claim to be "prophets"

Mohammed takes advantage of this somewhat clever way to make the figure of the prophet blurry, and claims a rather curious way to claim himself a prophet, as instead of being announced as the prophet's of the old law, he goes for a more christological approach, he doesn't claim a celestial messenger of Allah to be the one to call him, nor does he claim that Allah himself has called him, but rather that Gabriel (Angel of Annunciation that also announced Christ) has done so, but he does not have enough with that, he also claims with the help of a historian known as Al-Tabari, that when he was a child he was warned by the apostate monk Bahira, that he saw the simbol of the prophets in Mohammed's back, and that the natural element's behaved as if they were greeting him. To wich we know there is not a "simbol of the prophecy" like a literal simbol for the ancient prophets, rather the signs of the prophet's are meant to be miracles they can make under certain considerations that make them stand up from common sorcery.

So, we can see Mohammed want to claim himself as a Christological figure so he can be a special sort of prophet himself, enough to break the old laws of Christianity and Judaism, and give legitimacy to his new law wich he is about to impose.

But considered the facts, Mohammed can simply not be a prophet by abrahamic standards, as he had to modify the Old law understandings, and later he claims that the ones to corrupt those are the Christians and the jews.

On top of that, we know that Islam cannot be a continuation of the earlier laws, as both the ancient hebrew faith and christianity, have a liturgical-invocative character.

While Islam has a worship character with no liturgical practices whatsoever.
Worship character that of course, we know comes from the fact the pilars of islam are just pre-islamic arabian practices that Mohammed took and said "I like this, Allah likes this too"

And that is pretty much it.

TL;DR
Mohammed cannot be a prophet coinciding with the old laws because:

He does not reafirm them, he breaks them and brings a completly new one, and of different nature to that of the previous laws.

It's not the way of the prophet's to do that.

He is not annointed as the prophets usually were annointed.

Instead he blurs the understanding of prophet, and gives himself a christological aura to himself so he can claim to be able to make a rupture of traditions.

I don't understand how there can still be freethinking Muslims in 2019.

I know "it's the current year" is an utterly stupid argument, but, I mean, come on...

I don't understand how we aren't allowed to openly shoot down blasphemers, but there we are. The world is crazy mate.

^

Like idk, gays, muslims, jews, pagans, etc etc

yea

Thoughts on the right sector?

Fake and gay. Like the whole idea of Ukrainian nationalism

Wow, I am not reading that.

Tbh I'm fine with Right sector since it incorporates nationalism and religious conservatism, aka christianity

Nah, they're piggybacking on the schism, that's about it. The leaders that have spoken out on the topic (Dmitri Yarosh) are saying they're open to unification between Ukrainian Uniates and the Ukrainian Schismatic Orthodox Church. Which puts their disregard for religion outside of politics on clear display.

What the fuck, gay

Innit

Jesus is the way you heretics

That was kind of random lol

@Daniil BUT /JESUS/ IS THE ***WAY***

I see two heathens, hmm.

Holy war lets go

Easy there laddy. Convert first, cut later