OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 28, 2014, 03:24:36 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Muhammad Atta vs. Malcolm X: Who is the true exemplar of Islam?  (Read 10070 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« on: December 22, 2006, 05:28:31 PM »

Malcolm X gave up his life for what he believed to be the true practice of Islam, namely peace, tolerance, and love. Malcolm X was a true martyr, because he was killed by others, instead of killing oneself at the expense of others. Muhammad Atta believed himself to be a martyr of Islam, by killing himself in battle against the "Great Satan." Out of the two, who was the better Muslim? Whose actions more closely exemplified the spirit and overall message of the Koran?

Peace.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2006, 05:29:38 PM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 22, 2006, 05:35:33 PM »

Who cares? The Koran is a lie and the religion it produced is false. A false religion will produce false  believers.  The spirit and overall message of the Koran is error and darkness.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 22, 2006, 05:41:37 PM »

Look at pre-Enlightenment Christianity, when there was no separation between church and state. It could be described as a "militant religion." That Islamic culture is behind us in its historical development would not necessarily mean that the core of the Islamic faith is violent and radical. That is the point I intend to make, not that Islam itself is a true religion.

« Last Edit: December 22, 2006, 05:42:54 PM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #3 on: December 22, 2006, 05:45:23 PM »

Let's move this to the politics forum so I can really tell Chamberlain777 what I think of this BS. Grin
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 22, 2006, 05:47:58 PM »

This is an unmoderated forum, so please avoid personal attacks, otherwise it be moved to "Free For All," where it would probably get derailed. This is a topic that does not specifically deal with American politics. This is a thread to civilly state your opinion, but not for engaging in heated argument.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2006, 05:53:23 PM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #5 on: December 22, 2006, 06:01:59 PM »

Malcolm X was a communist revolutionary and enemy of western civilization; to say nothing of being a member of the satanic cult known as Islam. He was a traitor against the Republic and an enemy of the American people. He epitomized everything that was evil and wrong about the world in which he lived, there are few, save Lucifer, who have had fewer redeeming qualities.

There, now it's political (as though it's possible to discuss Malcolm X without discussing politics).
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #6 on: December 22, 2006, 06:20:24 PM »

Quote
Out of the two, who was the better Muslim? Whose actions more closely exemplified the spirit and overall message of the Koran?

That is only relevant if you are yourself a Muslim.  If you are wishing to approach this from a scholarly point of view, scholars don't judge which branch of a religion is the "true" one. 
Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 22, 2006, 06:22:04 PM »

If you are wishing to approach this from a scholarly point of view, scholars don't judge which branch of a religion is the "true" one. 

They do judge which one is closer to the original intent of the faith. Most Islamic scholars denounce suicide terrorism as violating the Koran and Islam's prohibitions against suicide and the killing of innocents.

Peace.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2006, 06:22:31 PM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #8 on: December 22, 2006, 06:25:11 PM »

Quote
That Islamic culture is behind us in its historical development would not necessarily mean that the core of the Islamic faith is violent and radical. That is the point I intend to make, not that Islam itself is a true religion.

Which Islam?  There are several major branches with wildly different understandings of Islam.  Do you even know of the different sects and their beliefs?  
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #9 on: December 22, 2006, 06:27:31 PM »

Quote
Most Islamic scholars denounce suicide terrorism as violating the Koran and Islam's prohibitions against suicide and the killing of innocents.

Note you said Islamic scholars - hence my point that to secular scholars it is neither here nor there which understanding of Islam is the "true" one. 
Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 22, 2006, 06:29:52 PM »

Do you even know of the different sects and their beliefs?  

I know of the Shiites, Sunnis, and Sufis. Though the majority of Islamic governments may be oppressive and militant, the same could be said for past Christian governments.

Note you said Islamic scholars - hence my point that to secular scholars it is neither here nor there which understanding of Islam is the "true" one. 

They still would consider which one more closely follows the original message of the Koran, given how the practice of Islam has so influenced the course of history. From a historical standpoint, it's important to understand which branch has more diverged from the original faith. It's like how most secular historians would make the judgement on whether or not the Mormon movement follows the original message of early Christianity.

Peace.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2006, 06:34:48 PM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #11 on: December 22, 2006, 06:42:59 PM »

Quote
I know of the Shiites, Sunnis, and Sufis.

Except that most Sufis don't consider themselves to be a different sect, rather an order within their respective branch (think religious orders within Catholicism).  Interesting you didn't any of the different legal schools within Sunni Islam... I guess you haven't gotten to that wikipedia article yet. 

Quote
Though the majority of Islamic governments may be oppressive and militant, the same could be said for past Christian governments.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? 

If the point you wish to argue is that Malcom X is a more authentic expression of Islam than Muhammad Atta, the way to do so would be to cite Hadiths and Qu'ranic verses (with refrence to commentaries) in comparison to Atta and Malcom X.

Quote
Let's move this to the politics forum so I can really tell Chamberlain777 what I think of this BS.

I second the motion.  In fact let's go a step further and ask for the creation of a private M777 forum in which just one member has access and that is the only forum in which he may start threads...
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #12 on: December 22, 2006, 09:01:38 PM »

Malcolm X was a communist revolutionary and enemy of western civilization; to say nothing of being a member of the satanic cult known as Islam. He was a traitor against the Republic and an enemy of the American people. He epitomized everything that was evil and wrong about the world in which he lived, there are few, save Lucifer, who have had fewer redeeming qualities.

There, now it's political (as though it's possible to discuss Malcolm X without discussing politics).

Asking whether Malcolm X or Muhammad Atta was a better Muslim is like asking whether Cesare Borgia or Benito Mussolini was a better Italian. It's a pointless question.

I would venture to say, however, that Averroes was a better Muslim than either.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,110


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #13 on: December 22, 2006, 09:10:35 PM »

Please restrict this to a discussion of the OP, and not of politics.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #14 on: December 22, 2006, 10:25:43 PM »

In fact let's go a step further and ask for the creation of a private M777 forum in which just one member has access and that is the only forum in which he may start threads...

I second the motion.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #15 on: December 22, 2006, 10:27:15 PM »

Please restrict this to a discussion of the OP, and not of politics.

And next we'll discuss whether Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton was a better president...keeping it completely non-political of course.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Gabriel
Agnostic Pessimist
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 138


« Reply #16 on: December 23, 2006, 05:56:32 AM »

*sigh*

Matthew.

Aren't you Indian Orthodox?

I find it amazing that an Oriental Orthodox Christian would have a muslim thug like Malcom X in his signature.  "A true martyr for Islam?"  What the hell does that mean?

I find it amazing that you can go from Saint Severus of Antioch to Malcolm X so quickly.

But, by all means, go ahead.  Disregard all those holy icons you could have in your signature.  Instead, keep in place a representative of that bastardous Christian heresy that invaded Egypt and now occupies Constantinople and half of Armenia.

Lord God, have mercy upon Your servants, all of us.

Logged

My soul waits for the Lord
More than those who watch for the morning.
Yes, more than those who watch for the morning.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 23, 2006, 06:26:36 AM »

Aren't you Indian Orthodox?

I am devoutly Indian Orthodox, and I recognize that one of the reasons why the Church of India has lasted in such a religiously diverse nation as India, where the majority is not Christian, is its policy of religious tolerance and respect for pluralism. The same attitude, if I'm not mistaken, is shared by Eastern Orthodoxy:

Quote
Orthodox Christian people most often live in societies of cultural, linguistic and religious pluralism. For that reason, the Orthodox have developed an attitude of respect for others, and a tolerance and understanding for people of other faiths. The Orthodox Church does not have an “official” pronouncement expressing the attitude toward other religions. However, Orthodoxy has a long-standing tradition showing respect and tolerance for people of other faiths. It is well-stated by an Orthodox Christian theologian and Archbishop, Anastasios Yannoulatos, of Albania, that, “being created in the image of God, every human being is our brother and sister.”

It is a strong Orthodox view that our commitment to the Christian truth claim must affirm a pluralistic democratic setting for all people to live in peace and harmony. Orthodoxy holds fast to the truth of Christianity and defends the right of other religious expressions to co-exist in harmony in a democratic system where the law equally protects all.

The question of truth is of highest importance to Orthodoxy. “What is Truth?” Pontius Pilate asked (John 18:38). Christ kept silent. Christians interpret this silence a His reply that the “Truth” was standing before him-Christ is the “Truth.” “Truth” makes reference to the knowledge of being. Tolerance “implies a certain relationship of religious faith with truth in every concrete manifestation in the world, whether national political or sociological” (Damaskinos Papandreou, “Truth and Tolerance in Orthodoxy”). The source of all truth is God the Creator, who gives existence to all beings. God is the originator and the human being is the receiver.

For Orthodoxy there is a fusion between the truth claim of Christianity and a mandate for tolerance. We may say that one cannot be a Christian if he/ she does not embrace the doctrine of tolerance as a mandate of Christian love.
http://www.goarch.org/print/en/ourfaith/article8075.asp

I find it amazing that an Oriental Orthodox Christian would have a muslim thug like Malcom X in his signature. 

Malcolm X was not a thug, but one of the greatest leaders of the civil rights movement. Could you please support the claim that he was a thug?

"A true martyr for Islam?"  What the hell does that mean?

The meaning is that he was a true martyr, in giving up his life for his faith, while doing no harm to others in the process.

Peace. 
« Last Edit: December 23, 2006, 06:50:15 AM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
aserb
asinner
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self Ruled Antiochian Archdiocese
Posts: 1,188


« Reply #18 on: December 23, 2006, 10:26:54 AM »

Gabriel:

Read Malcolm's biography. -- Muslim thug does not apply. Many white (I assume you are white) are misinformed about Malcolm X, who in his later years, repented (if I can use that word) of his beliefs in the Nation of Islam. His true mission was to elevate the black people in this country to receive theor just rights under the law and enjoy the freedom's that the constitution of the US afforded them. I often think that if the Orthodox church would have been more welcoming to blacks in that era that he would be an Orthodox Christian convert.  He was martyred more in a Christian sense in giving his life for a just cause not in an attempt to destroy others and cause nations to change their policies.

Right On Malcom!
Logged

Save us o' Son of God, who art risen from the dead, as we sing to thee Alleluia!
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #19 on: December 23, 2006, 12:07:24 PM »

I often think that if the Orthodox church would have been more welcoming to blacks in that era that he would be an Orthodox Christian convert.

Now that's a counterfactual argument I've never heard before. Any evidence to support this?

---

My question is, what in the world does Malcolm X have to do with Orthodoxy or even Christianity? I never imagined I'd be discussing what kind of a Muslim Malcolm X was in a place such as this.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2006, 12:09:09 PM by lubeltri » Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #20 on: December 23, 2006, 12:57:42 PM »

Quote
His true mission was to elevate the black people in this country to receive theor just rights under the law and enjoy the freedom's that the constitution of the US afforded them.

Yet he converted to a religion which prescribes death for converting away from, he made a pilgrimage to Mecca (a city in which Christians are not allowed) and in a country which Christians have no legal standing, cannot practice their religion or even show publicly symbols of their faith.

Irony has a way of being very ironic.
Logged
bergschlawiner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 235

Sarisan


« Reply #21 on: December 23, 2006, 02:47:04 PM »

Wondering about the latest rising star Barak Obama (not a political discussion here please).  They say he is the son of an African Muslim father and a Christian mother and is a practicing "christian" of whatever faith?  If this is true then possibly he could be considered an "apostate" by Islam and the subject of a "fatwa".  Could be an interesting development
Logged
Thanatos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 82



WWW
« Reply #22 on: December 23, 2006, 05:59:29 PM »

Look at pre-Enlightenment Christianity, when there was no separation between church and state. It could be described as a "militant religion." That Islamic culture is behind us in its historical development would not necessarily mean that the core of the Islamic faith is violent and radical. That is the point I intend to make, not that Islam itself is a true religion.



Yeah, there was the Byzantine empire, and the growing state of the Russian Tsar; however, you cannot equate these things that occured in Orthodox history to the caliphate and implementation of Shari'a in the 'ummah. These things in Orthodox history, at least in my opinion, are not a part of the faith itself, nor of the ultimate doctrinal/canonical Tradition. Sure, the Emperors of Byzantium did indeed influence some formation of liturgy, and to this day we can see in many Greek Orthodox churches the double-headed eagle of Byzantium. However, these are merely occurances and not static incidents - and to take them in the same political context as Islam (which is intrinsically theocratic, right down to its very doctrine) would be wrong.

Perhaps if youre referring to the caesero-papism of the Roman Catholic Church, in relation to Islam, then yeah you got a definite link there. However, monarchy is not inherrent in Orthodoxy - whatever IS inherrent in Orthodoxy, as far as political alliances are concerned, is definitely a moot point. But, the point remains that this "state and church" union we saw in Byzantium and Russia cannot be equated with Islam's need for a international dominance of Shari'a (or just simply Islam).

As far as militancy is concerned, there are examples of this in the Byzantine state and church union (handling of Jews, monophysites). Then again, we have to assess whether these examples are reflective of "render unto Caeser what is Caeser's" vs. a Caeserization of Byzantine Orthodox mindset.

If I'm not making myself clear, main point is just: Islam = theocracy and the doctrinal origin of this theocratic mindset ≠ the Christian Emperors and their doctrinal origin. Thus, Islam sucks.

Peace,
Ioannis
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,238


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #23 on: December 23, 2006, 06:08:03 PM »

I think that Thanatos has a good point here, Matthew. There is a significant difference between a religion which actively condones conversion through coercive means, or putting apostates to death (even in it's holy book); and a religion which might sometimes might be (ab)used, or might be the beneficiary of secular goings on, but which doesn't directly and consistently condone using coercive conversion tactics (though some, like Augustine, seemed to be a bit more permissive of such tactics).
Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #24 on: December 23, 2006, 06:49:23 PM »

Quote
There is a significant difference between a religion which actively condones conversion through coercive means, or putting apostates to death (even in it's holy book); and a religion which might sometimes might be (ab)used, or might be the beneficiary of secular goings on, but which doesn't directly and consistently condone using coercive conversion tactics

Only Sola Scriptura protestants could claim that for their branch of Christianity (even then they'd run into problems with the Old Testament).  In Orthodoxy we have Holy Tradition in which Justinian, Nicholas II et al. are venerated as saints.  The thing is, most Orthodox people simply ignore that part of our Tradition in favour of other parts. 
Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #25 on: December 23, 2006, 07:04:38 PM »

My question is, what in the world does Malcolm X have to do with Orthodoxy or even Christianity?

What in the world does Gandhi have to do with Orthodoxy or even Christianity?

If I'm not making myself clear, main point is just: Islam = theocracy and the doctrinal origin of this theocratic mindset ≠ the Christian Emperors and their doctrinal origin. Thus, Islam sucks.

The Christian Byzantine and Roman empires were theocratic, persecuting, and even killing, anyone who did not conform to the state religion.

Peace.
 
« Last Edit: December 23, 2006, 07:09:04 PM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Thanatos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 82



WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 23, 2006, 07:59:03 PM »

The Christian Byzantine and Roman empires were theocratic, persecuting, and even killing, anyone who did not conform to the state religion.

Congratulations on telling me something I already knew (and stated):

Quote
As far as militancy is concerned, there are examples of this in the Byzantine state and church union (handling of Jews, monophysites).

Peace,
Ioannis
Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #27 on: December 23, 2006, 08:09:13 PM »

There is a significant difference between a religion which actively condones conversion through coercive means, or putting apostates to death (even in it's holy book); and a religion which might sometimes might be (ab)used, or might be the beneficiary of secular goings on, but which doesn't directly and consistently condone using coercive conversion tactics (though some, like Augustine, seemed to be a bit more permissive of such tactics).

These passages have been used to justify oppression by Christian rulers:

Romans 13
 1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

1 Peter 2
13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.

Titus 3:1
Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work,

Peace.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,238


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #28 on: December 23, 2006, 08:20:51 PM »

Ok, you've convinced me. One more reason not to be Christian. Good job.  Cool
Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #29 on: December 23, 2006, 08:38:46 PM »

Quote
Ok, you've convinced me. One more reason not to be Christian. Good job.

But I am a Christian!  For every Justinian there is a St. Silouan the Athonite... and notice who is included in anthologies like the Gerontikon, Philokalia etc - that is the real inner ethos of the Christian spiritual life. 

My only contention here is: don't create second rate polemics against Islam that are easily turned around against Christianity. 
Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #30 on: December 23, 2006, 08:46:45 PM »

don't create second rate polemics against Islam that are easily turned around against Christianity. 

Agreed.

Peace.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
aserb
asinner
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self Ruled Antiochian Archdiocese
Posts: 1,188


« Reply #31 on: December 23, 2006, 09:15:11 PM »

Apart from his faith, I admire Malcolm X the man. Regardless of the more henious tenents of Islam, to my knowledge Malcolm did not practice them. Remember his aim in life was to a large extent political, that is to elevate the black man - - -by any means necessary. All of us who are commenting here have the luxury of having grown up white and not have been subject to racism and classism or many of the other isms out there.

There are not enough black Orthodox Christian converts!  (new thread)
Logged

Save us o' Son of God, who art risen from the dead, as we sing to thee Alleluia!
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #32 on: December 23, 2006, 09:27:29 PM »

Only Sola Scriptura protestants could claim that for their branch of Christianity (even then they'd run into problems with the Old Testament).  In Orthodoxy we have Holy Tradition in which Justinian, Nicholas II et al. are venerated as saints.  The thing is, most Orthodox people simply ignore that part of our Tradition in favour of other parts. 

I certainly don't ignore the veneration of the great Emperor St Justinian, who was glorified for many reasons, and the veneration of St Nicholas the Tsar, who while a horrible emperor, was a pious man.  I don't see the reason to take these figures out of their historical context and judge them anachronistically.  I see a big difference between these figures in their historical context and Islam in its essence.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #33 on: December 23, 2006, 09:30:43 PM »

There are not enough black Orthodox Christian converts!  (new thread)

That may be true in the United States, but the Ethopian Orthodox Church has existed for centuries.

For the most part, I agree with you concerning Malcolm X, but am uncertain whether the more heinous aspects of Islam are truly reflective of the faith itself.

I certainly don't ignore the veneration of the great Emperor St Justinian, who was glorified for many reasons, and the veneration of St Nicholas the Tsar, who while a horrible emperor, was a pious man. 

How can a truly pious man act so viciously as a ruler? You cannot divorce a man's faith from his public policy.

I see a big difference between these figures in their historical context and Islam in its essence.

Please elaborate.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2006, 09:32:35 PM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #34 on: December 23, 2006, 10:11:02 PM »

That may be true in the United States, but the Ethopian Orthodox Church has existed for centuries.

He mentioned converts, not born members.

Quote
How can a truly pious man act so viciously as a ruler? You cannot divorce a man's faith from his public policy.

How was he any more vicious than any other ruler at any point in time?  He was an amazing ruler, and a brilliant theologian.  Remember, we are not living in make-believe land where everyone is always nice; we are talking about the 500's in the vicious, rough, Eastern Roman Empire, where life was vicious and tough, and the only way to rule was by extreme and harsh members.  Anything less than that would have resulted in the empire crumbling.

Quote
Please elaborate.

I will if you will tell me what books you have already read on the topic.  If you have read anything substantial, then I will be interested in discussing the matter further, as I am at a busy point in my life and have to narrow down what I chat about online.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #35 on: December 23, 2006, 10:13:42 PM »

I will if you will tell me what books you have already read on the topic.  If you have read anything substantial, then I will be interested in discussing the matter further, as I am at a busy point in my life and have to narrow down what I chat about online.

I've read the Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined, which discusses in detail that brutality of the Chalcedonian party. I see little difference between this and the behavior of contemporary Islamic governments.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #36 on: December 23, 2006, 10:22:42 PM »

I've read the Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined, which discusses in detail that brutality of the Chalcedonian party. I see little difference between this and the behavior of contemporary Islamic governments.

So you haven't read any Lewis?  He was of course roundly condemned by Said.  Said, however, was considered an academic flake by many, but his book Orientalism was a major work.  Lewis seems more firmly grounded to me in a historical sense.  Fouad Ajami looks interesting to me but I haven't had the time to read his Dream Palace of the Arabs.  The book History of Islamic Societies is definitely on my Amazon wish list.  that's the kind of stuff I was looking for--whether you have any idea of the history of Islam and Arab culture.

As for your comparison between the Chalcedonian party and modern Islamic governments, thanks for proving my point: Christian governments don't act like that ANYMORE.  Things have to be judged by the contemporary world.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #37 on: December 23, 2006, 10:37:52 PM »

Quote
I certainly don't ignore the veneration of the great Emperor St Justinian, who was glorified for many reasons, and the veneration of St Nicholas the Tsar, who while a horrible emperor, was a pious man.

God save us from pious men then.  I really don't think the cult of Justinian is that big.  I looked him up in the Prolog of Ohrid and amazingly enough it claimed he was a Serb.  The HTM Horologion gave him a different date.  To be honest in the last five years, I don't remember a single parish in the area serving liturgy for his feast.  So practically speaking he is forgotten, or more accurately only the positives are remembered.  

As for Nicholas II, even by the standards of his time (like the ever ancient 20th century) he was the most backwards and despotic ruler in Europe (or in second place if you include the Ottoman Empire).  He stiffled the Church and invoked his divine right to rule in an effort the thwart any reform efforts.  Had he been able to reform the Russian Empire he easily could have transitioned Russia into a modern nation, rather than communism.  That being said, his cult is one of selective memory of the warm and fuzzy (even pious while his population suffered under his tyranny) Nicholas.  So while you claim to venerate him and remember him (as do many others), nobody is putting that into actual practice.  

It is easy to venerate such "pious" men in twenty first century America.  

Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #38 on: December 23, 2006, 10:51:04 PM »

Quote
As for your comparison between the Chalcedonian party and modern Islamic governments, thanks for proving my point: Christian governments don't act like that ANYMORE.  Things have to be judged by the contemporary world.

But what is the reason for this transformation of Christian governments?  Was it a return to the Gospel message in its simplicity or the European enlightenment?

As for Christian governments, the civil rights of Orthodox people in some of old Warsaw Pact and newly made EU nations aren't looking so great.  My point being, giving political power to Christians even in modern times can be a scary thing (and thinking about it, I'm not sure that Islamism is any worse of a state to under than something like the WWII era Croatia).     
« Last Edit: December 23, 2006, 10:59:15 PM by Νεκτάριος » Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #39 on: December 23, 2006, 10:58:02 PM »

It is a serious comment - Orthodox minorities in Poland and Baltic states face an uncertain future today precisely because Catholic parties are coming into power. 
Logged
Thanatos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 82



WWW
« Reply #40 on: December 23, 2006, 11:06:35 PM »

These passages have been used to justify oppression by Christian rulers:

Romans 13
 1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

1 Peter 2
13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.

Titus 3:1
Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work,

Peace.


How are any of those passages applicable to Christian rulers? St. Paul is talking from the perspective of a citizen, not a ruler - and hopes that who he is writing to, understands their civic duties.

The fact that St. Paul is talking to submit to "any" authority (he does not specify what type of authority or structure of government) demonstrates how open Christianity is able to coexist with other forms of government (except, of course, philosophies founded upon atheism - that may be a problem); in other words, Christianity is not intrinsically monarchial or theocratic, as opposed to Islam. This rings clear, particularly in Titus 3:1 which you quoted.

If I missed the point, anyone, I'm sorry. But I don't see how these can go for Christian rulers?

Peace,
Ioannis
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #41 on: December 23, 2006, 11:10:56 PM »

God save us from pious men then.  I really don't think the cult of Justinian is that big.  I looked him up in the Prolog of Ohrid and amazingly enough it claimed he was a Serb.  The HTM Horologion gave him a different date.  To be honest in the last five years, I don't remember a single parish in the area serving liturgy for his feast.  So practically speaking he is forgotten, or more accurately only the positives are remembered. 

I certainly do not think he is someone to promote like the holy ascetic fathers or great missionaries like St Cyril and Methodius. But his novellas and theological work, and the 5th ecumenical council, his reigning in of the weak and distrusted Pope Vigilius, are all things that benefited the Church, and his expansion of the Roman empire against the barbarians was important to preserve the peace of the Church.  I don't advocate promoting his cultus, but rather am just reacting against people insulting his memory with anachronistic arguments.

Quote
As for Nicholas II, even by the standards of his time (like the ever ancient 20th century) he was the most backwards and despotic ruler in Europe (or in second place if you include the Ottoman Empire).  He stiffled the Church and invoked his divine right to rule in an effort the thwart any reform efforts.  Had he been able to reform the Russian Empire he easily could have transitioned Russia into a modern nation, rather than communism.  That being said, his cult is one of selective memory of the warm and fuzzy (even pious while his population suffered under his tyranny) Nicholas.  So while you claim to venerate him and remember him (as do many others), nobody is putting that into actual practice. 

I don't actively venerate him and am troubled by some of his decisions but at the same time he seemed to be between a rock and a hard place and was doing the best he could.  I don't think he was glorified for his great ruling ability at any rate, but the fact that the Church chose to glorify him means I accept it.

Quote
It is easy to venerate such "pious" men in twenty first century America. 

It's also easy to criticize all sorts of things in 21st c. America, and create such extreme dichotomies between "spiritually pure" and "politically corrupted" ideas of the Church.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Thanatos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 82



WWW
« Reply #42 on: December 23, 2006, 11:13:21 PM »

As for Nicholas II, even by the standards of his time (like the ever ancient 20th century) he was the most backwards and despotic ruler in Europe (or in second place if you include the Ottoman Empire).  He stiffled the Church and invoked his divine right to rule in an effort the thwart any reform efforts.  Had he been able to reform the Russian Empire he easily could have transitioned Russia into a modern nation, rather than communism.  That being said, his cult is one of selective memory of the warm and fuzzy (even pious while his population suffered under his tyranny) Nicholas.  So while you claim to venerate him and remember him (as do many others), nobody is putting that into actual practice.  

It is easy to venerate such "pious" men in twenty first century America.  

You hit on a great point here. The Tsar's, particularly after Peter "the Great," seemed to become increasingly involved within the Church. Wasn't this (the tsar's involvement) the reason why the holy synod of the Russian Church was born? That the Patriarchate essentially just became another arm of the Tsarist state?

Peace,
Ioannis
Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #43 on: December 23, 2006, 11:15:25 PM »

Apart from his faith, I admire Malcolm X the man. Regardless of the more henious tenents of Islam, to my knowledge Malcolm did not practice them.

He openly decried the fact that people who leave Islam are considered apostates who must be killed, or that Christians can't go to the city of Mecca, or that Christians cannot practice their faith in Saudi Arabia?  Maybe he did and I missed it, but I can't see how you can separate him from this faith or accept that he decried intolerance in one sphere and accepted it in another.
Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #44 on: December 23, 2006, 11:20:14 PM »

Christian governments don't act like that ANYMORE. 

That is precisely my point. That Islamic culture is behind us in its historical development does not mean that Islam itself is a religion of hate.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2006, 11:20:33 PM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #45 on: December 23, 2006, 11:23:24 PM »

But I don't see how these can go for Christian rulers?

Christian rulers used these passages to justify their excesses of power, including oppression and brutality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
jaderook
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 113


« Reply #46 on: December 23, 2006, 11:39:01 PM »

Malcolm X gave up his life for what he believed to be the true practice of Islam, namely peace, tolerance, and love. Malcolm X was a true martyr, because he was killed by others, instead of killing oneself at the expense of others. Muhammad Atta believed himself to be a martyr of Islam, by killing himself in battle against the "Great Satan." Out of the two, who was the better Muslim? Whose actions more closely exemplified the spirit and overall message of the Koran?

Peace.

Matthew777,

I've read the whole thread, and I have to wonder why you'd expect anyone here to care either way who was a 'true martyr' for Islam?  Both of them died in their false beliefs.  It is a very tragic thing.  They didn't die as Christian martyrs.  I'd much rather hear about Christian martyrs who should inspire us in our faith instead of martyrs for a false religion.

Saint Athanasius said inspiring things regarding Christianmartyrdom in On the Incarnation:

"All the disciples of Christ despise death; they take the offensive against it and, instead of fearing it, by the sign of the cross and by faith in Christ trample on it as on something dead. Before the divine sojourn of the Savior, even the holiest of men were afraid of death, and mourned the dead as those who perish. But now that the Savior has raised His body, death is no longer terrible, but all those who believe in Christ tread it underfoot as nothing, and prefer to die rather than to deny their faith in Christ, knowing full well that when they die they do not perish, but live indeed, and become incorruptible through the resurrection. But that devil who of old wickedly exulted in death, now that the pains of death are loosed, he alone it is who remains truly dead. There is proof of this too; for men who, before they believe in Christ, think death horrible and are afraid of it, once they are converted despise it so completely that they go eagerly to meet it, and themselves become witnesses of the Savior's resurrection from it."

Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #47 on: December 23, 2006, 11:39:19 PM »

Quote
I don't advocate promoting his cultus, but rather am just reacting against people insulting his memory with anachronistic arguments.

That is more or less what I posted - that his cult today is edited to include only the positive things.  Even such things as the sacramental coronation of the emperor and such have slowly fallen out of our Traditional ecclesiology.  

Quote
I don't think he was glorified for his great ruling ability at any rate, but the fact that the Church chose to glorify him means I accept it.

For that matter it isn't clear why he was glorified.  To Moscow he was a "passion bearer" and to the ROCOR a "martyr."  For what cause he was actually a matyr... who knows.  Only time will tell if his cult is a real thing or if it merely fades away in coming generations.  

Still, my initial was point that the cult of Nicholas II is not the historical Nicholas II.  



Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #48 on: December 23, 2006, 11:41:54 PM »

I've read the whole thread, and I have to wonder why you'd expect anyone here to care either way who was a 'true martyr' for Islam?

Islamic militantism is a threat to peace, and perhaps this threat could be lessened if more Muslims realized that it isn't a true expression of their faith. Furthermore, perhaps there would be less intolerance toward Islam in the Western world is more Westerners realized that Islam, at its heart, is not a militant faith.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2006, 11:42:30 PM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #49 on: December 23, 2006, 11:47:11 PM »

Quote
Islamic militantism is a threat to peace, and perhaps this threat could be lessened if more Muslims realized that it isn't a true expression of their faith. Furthermore, perhaps there would be less intolerance toward Islam in the Western world is more Westerners realized that Islam, at its heart, is not a militant faith.

Who are you to tell Muslims which expression of their faith is the true one?  How would you like it if a Muslim told you that Sola Scriptura protestantism is the true expression of Christianity?  Or better yet, that Chalcedon was a true council...
Logged
jaderook
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 113


« Reply #50 on: December 23, 2006, 11:53:05 PM »

Islamic militantism is a threat to peace, and perhaps this threat could be lessened if more Muslims realized that it isn't a true expression of their faith. Furthermore, perhaps there would be less intolerance toward Islam in the Western world is more Westerners realized that Islam, at its heart, is not a militant faith.

Have you read the Quran and Hadith?  I ask this because even though most Muslims out there aren't wanting to throw their lives away and cause violence, one gets a very brutal view of the faith after reading its holy writings.  Islam is a religion that is very missionary and they have been known to use some very strong arm tactics to entice people to become Muslim.  A lot of Christian martyrs died because they wouldn't recant their beliefs when faced with these strong armed Muslim tactics.  They want the world to be Muslim.  Under Islam there are three choices for non-Muslims:  You convert, you are killed, or you live under their subjugation.  Non-Muslims should expect death or becoming dhimmi.  
Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #51 on: December 24, 2006, 12:06:56 AM »

Quote
Furthermore, perhaps there would be less intolerance toward Islam in the Western world is more Westerners realized that Islam, at its heart, is not a militant faith.

Ahhh. I was in need of a little comic relief tonight.
Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #52 on: December 24, 2006, 02:23:01 AM »

 Under Islam there are three choices for non-Muslims:  You convert, you are killed, or you live under their subjugation.  

Then perhaps it's time for a reformation in the Muslim world.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,462


« Reply #53 on: December 24, 2006, 02:49:15 AM »

Then perhaps it's time for a reformation in the Muslim world.

Yeah, you tell 'em.  Then they might listen.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #54 on: December 24, 2006, 09:54:36 AM »

I've read the Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined, which discusses in detail that brutality of the Chalcedonian party. I see little difference between this and the behavior of contemporary Islamic governments.

You have to understand the issue in the historic context...while it may be a religious issue today, at the time it was merely a political issue with religion thrown out as an excuse for behaviour (yes, yes, protest all you want...but the fact of the matter is that no one on either side really cared about the theology at Chalcedon, at least no body that mattered, they were primarially concerned with the political implications of their decisions)...the non-chalcedonian movement was nothing more than an attempted revolution against the emperor, non-chalcedonians were traitors...Justianian realized this political fact, and the fact that the religious issues were an irrelevant smoke-screne, and acted accordingly.

So judge Justinian for what he did, he put down political revolutionaries, sometimes using violent means (suppressing a revolution by force, who would have thought Roll Eyes).
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #55 on: December 24, 2006, 10:00:33 AM »

It is easy to venerate such "pious" men in twenty first century America.  

While I may not be able to be as indifferent as the Tzar was, why do you doubt that I could be just as despotic and cruel? Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #56 on: December 24, 2006, 09:11:38 PM »

while it may be a religious issue today, at the time it was merely a political issue with religion thrown out as an excuse for behaviour

Couldn't one say the same for "Islamofascist" governments?

So judge Justinian for what he did, he put down political revolutionaries, sometimes using violent means (suppressing a revolution by force, who would have thought Roll Eyes).

Were the non-Chalcedonians, by their ancient faith, revolutionaries against the Empire?
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
alexp4uni
Site Supporter
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: kinda practicing theist
Jurisdiction: ecumenical kind
Posts: 329


« Reply #57 on: December 24, 2006, 11:59:11 PM »

You have to understand the issue in the historic context...while it may be a religious issue today, at the time it was merely a political issue with religion thrown out as an excuse for behaviour...

So judge Justinian for what he did, he put down political revolutionaries, sometimes using violent means (suppressing a revolution by force, who would have thought Roll Eyes).

They dominated the Dark Ages practicing Christianity and CARNAGE, but their Engineering feats topped even the Romans. Aquaducts, amphitheaters, Cathedrals and virtually invincible city walls. And a beacon of light with a dark side.


Stay tuned for the History Channel in the U.S. on (Dec. 25th) Monday Christmas Night Special on 9 PM Eastern/ 8 Central the Byzantines called Engineering an Empire Grin.
Logged
Sloga
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 830



« Reply #58 on: December 26, 2006, 10:34:27 PM »

Wrong forum buddy, its like saying which criminal did a better job of robbing banks? In the end It's still a robber.
Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic
Simayan
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate - GOA
Posts: 816



« Reply #59 on: December 26, 2006, 11:33:54 PM »

Bravo to GiC!

The Orthodox Church is the Imperial Church, and the two cannot be separate. I have nothing but admiration for my Patron Saint Justinian and his Wife; his execution of 30,000 traitors was something that did need to be done at that time. Had he NOT done that, there would be no Hagia Sofia, and most likely, the Empire would have crumbled, as would the power of our church.

Quote
It is not the Church's responsibility to govern the world.

The union of Church and State is needed for perfect unity in any State. It IS the churche's responsibility to govern the world along with the state, both in union.
Logged

"He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death, nor mourning nor crying nor suffering, for the old order of things has passed away."
Thomas
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,829



« Reply #60 on: December 26, 2006, 11:53:24 PM »

Quote
For that matter it isn't clear why he was glorified.  To Moscow he was a "passion bearer" and to the ROCOR a "martyr."  For what cause he was actually a matyr... who knows.  Only time will tell if his cult is a real thing or if it merely fades away in coming generations.  

In  most of the hagiography the reason both ROCOR and Moscow  accept he and his family as saints has to do with their personal belief and devotion as a family to the Church and to the Saints. They cite numerous practices of piety and charity of both the Tsar and Tsarina.  The hagiography notes that the Royal Family continued to try to influence the decadent  Imperial court to do individual acts of charity,nursing of the sick and wounded, sewing, and support of the widowed and the orphan. (Did you know that at the time of the Revolution, 80% of the income of the Royal Family  was being used to support widows, orphans, the private schooling of orphans, scholarships to the seminaries for promising students, monasteries, and convents, shelters for women, industrial education centers and housing programs, cultural schools like the Bolshoi and other arts schools?)

The Tsar's abdication was to prevent additional bloodshed and is noted in the letters of the government and those who witnessed it. Under House arrest first by the Provisional government and the Bolsheviks, the Royal family remembered that they were truely God annointed rulers and accepted abuse and ridicule as a cross they must bear in Christ's love (read the journals of the family and you will see this vividly  in their most personal entries.) Tsar and Tsarina refused to participate in white Russian plots and plans for their rescue for fear of those who would be injured by such action.

To the Moscow Patriarchate, this qualified them for Passionbearers just as Boris and Gleb qualified for passionbearers for the same reason.

To the ROCOR Synod, the facts behind the decision of Lenin to assure that the royal, annointed bloodline of the Romanovs was fully eliminated as Christian rulers coincided withthe planned distruction of the Russian Orthodox Church which included not only the Royal family but the other New Martyrs of the Bolshevik Yoke that includes Rishops, Monks, Nuns, Priests, Nobleman, and peasant. Lenin's writings descibe the need to eliminate the Tsar as the focal point of Holy Russia and the Orthodox Church.

Tsar Nicholas II was not glorified for his actions as a ruler, but for personal piety, and passionbearing in the presence of actions that many of us might run from.  His diary , written in English by the way, presents the trumoil that he often felt as an autocratic ruler and the fact that he felt wholly unprepraed for this role. His retreat into his family and their spiritual practices show the true life of The Holy Passionbearer Tsar Nicholas II, His Tsarina, and his children.  The effect of a Orthodox Christian  rearing of children in a home filled with Christian Love led them to become passionbearers and exemplify Christian behavior to those who sought to destroy them physically and spiritually. They were destroyed in the flesh but they retained their spiritual witness.  This is the value of the Romanov Passionbearer's witness to me.

For this reason  members of my family(1 daughter and three grandchildren)bear as their patronal saints, the names of the Romanov family .

In Christ,
Thomas
« Last Edit: December 27, 2006, 12:01:21 AM by Thomas » Logged

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #61 on: December 27, 2006, 12:17:25 AM »

The Orthodox Church is the Imperial Church, and the two cannot be separate.

If that is true, then the Eastern Orthodox Church is the Antichrist. The mixture of church and state power corrupts both, as history has proved again and again.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2006, 12:17:45 AM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Simayan
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate - GOA
Posts: 816



« Reply #62 on: December 27, 2006, 12:40:23 AM »

I would like to see where in the Bible it states that Church and State mixing will, without a doubt, corrupt both.
Logged

"He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death, nor mourning nor crying nor suffering, for the old order of things has passed away."
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #63 on: December 27, 2006, 12:43:37 AM »

I would like to see where in the Bible it states that Church and State mixing will, without a doubt, corrupt both.

Did the New Testament church merge state and ecclesiastical power? Again and again and again, every Christian theocracy has been a corruption of both government and Christianity. Jesus was not a fascist.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2006, 12:44:14 AM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #64 on: December 27, 2006, 03:10:59 AM »

Quote
To the ROCOR Synod, the facts behind the decision of Lenin to assure that the royal, annointed bloodline of the Romanovs was fully eliminated as Christian rulers coincided withthe planned distruction of the Russian Orthodox Church which included not only the Royal family but the other New Martyrs of the Bolshevik Yoke that includes Rishops, Monks, Nuns, Priests, Nobleman, and peasant. Lenin's writings descibe the need to eliminate the Tsar as the focal point of Holy Russia and the Orthodox Church.

While that is nice, it just wasn't the historical reality.  The Church benefitted from the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II and freedom that entailed for the Church. 

Quote
Tsar Nicholas II was not glorified for his actions as a ruler, but for personal piety, and passionbearing in the presence of actions that many of us might run from.  His diary , written in English by the way, presents the trumoil that he often felt as an autocratic ruler and the fact that he felt wholly unprepraed for this role. His retreat into his family and their spiritual practices show the true life of The Holy Passionbearer Tsar Nicholas II, His Tsarina, and his children.  The effect of a Orthodox Christian  rearing of children in a home filled with Christian Love led them to become passionbearers and exemplify Christian behavior to those who sought to destroy them physically and spiritually. They were destroyed in the flesh but they retained their spiritual witness.  This is the value of the Romanov Passionbearer's witness to me.

There is more to being pious than that.  True piety isn't sitting around and being "religious" while one's population is being slaughtered and suffering.

I don't understand why these political saints are so popular.  But if they have to exist, why not at least venerate those who sacrificed themselves in an effort to save lives and protect their citizens?  It amazes me that Tsar Boris III of Bulgaria is almost unknown, as are the heroic bishops of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church during WWII. 
« Last Edit: December 27, 2006, 04:04:40 AM by Νεκτάριος » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #65 on: December 27, 2006, 04:56:59 AM »

Moderation:
I've just split off some posts in which Eastern Orthodox Saints were blasphemed by an OO poster.
Don't make me have to do anything similar to this thread again.
George
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
dantxny
OC.net Mineshaft gap
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 769



« Reply #66 on: December 27, 2006, 12:18:51 PM »

Quote
While that is nice, it just wasn't the historical reality.  The Church benefitted from the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II and freedom that entailed for the Church.

Yet, I would dispute this.  The Church was being brought closer to its origins under Tsar Nicholas II.  He encouraged them to find a patriarch and at first when no suitable canidate could be found, if memory serves me correctly, he approached the Holy Synod on bended knee and told them that if need be he would willingly abdicate, his wife would go into a monastery and he would accept the position.  Also, as history clearly shows, the abdication of Tsar Nicholas and the bloodbath that arose afterwards did not help the Church but rather brought it to one of the lowest points in Russian history.
Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.
Simayan
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate - GOA
Posts: 816



« Reply #67 on: December 27, 2006, 12:22:38 PM »

Did the New Testament church merge state and ecclesiastical power? Again and again and again, every Christian theocracy has been a corruption of both government and Christianity. Jesus was not a fascist.

The Byzantine Empire, though corrupted by a few Emperors, did not become corrupted because the two were merged. Our faith would not exist today if it was a secular state, preaching "equality for all". It was a Christian Empire, and the greatest one that existed, in my opinion. It is the people in an autocratic position that corrupt, not the unity of the country. I'd say the Byzantines did quite a good job considering what they had to deal with, and without the support of the state, and vice versa, we would have been overwhelmed by Mohammedans.

However, you still have not stated where in the NT or OT that Christ told us never to merge the two. Simply because he did not say to do it doesn't mean he was condemning it.
Logged

"He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death, nor mourning nor crying nor suffering, for the old order of things has passed away."
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,238


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #68 on: December 27, 2006, 03:07:07 PM »

Quote
However, you still have not stated where in the NT or OT that Christ told us never to merge the two.

Yeah, it's almost like Matthew is getting this idea from a letter written by a man in the 18th century... . . Smiley
Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #69 on: December 27, 2006, 03:17:54 PM »

Yeah, it's almost like Matthew is getting this idea from a letter written by a man in the 18th century... . . Smiley

What? The exact same people cannot be used for authorities in every subject? I can't quote a biologist to make an appeal to authority in regard to physics? I can't quote an engineer as an appeal to authority in regard to biology? And I can't quote 18th century politicians as an appeal to authority in theology?

They must have skipped over this in community college.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Edmund
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« Reply #70 on: December 30, 2006, 02:20:09 AM »

King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain who reconquerd Spain from the Muslims, oh yeah and St James the Moor slayer.  Wink
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #71 on: December 12, 2012, 01:01:42 PM »

Malcolm X as a model for Catholic/Christian theological reflection
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: AOCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #72 on: December 12, 2012, 01:26:24 PM »

I wonder, if he lived longer, maybe Malcolm X would'ave been led to Christianity?

It would have been wonderful if he had traveled to Ethiopia and experienced Orthodoxy there, or to Egypt and experienced it there, seeing Christianity is for blacks, as well as whites and all ethnicities.
Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,892


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #73 on: December 13, 2012, 01:18:31 AM »

I don't know, but Malcolm X was a true bad-butt, he stood up for racial equality even amongst the worst circumstances and NEVER backed down. What I love most about him is that unlike Martin Luther King, Caeser Chavez and every other social activisit who advocated peaceful change and still submitted to the oppressors, Malcolm X never caved in. He publically challenged them, insulted them and made a stand that the minorities would not stay quiet. His religion on the other hand was crazy--as is all Islam. But hey, Christian governments are bad too. I don't think anything Islam has done compared to Roman Catholic conquistadores baptising my ancestors' infants and then bashing their heads against the trees so that they wouldn't grow up worshipping pagan gods.

...seeing Christianity is for blacks, as well as whites and all ethnicities.

REALLY resisting the urge to make inappropriate comment about Orthodoxy's militant ethnocentrism
« Last Edit: December 13, 2012, 01:19:55 AM by JamesR » Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 3,001


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #74 on: December 13, 2012, 05:38:52 AM »

Since he did eventually leave The Nation of Islam, I have no particular reservations against Malcolm X, but the fact still remains that he spend most of his adult life in an organisation, that promoted racism.
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,892


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #75 on: December 13, 2012, 05:56:55 AM »

...that promoted racism

The difference--something that many White folks never realize--is that Malcolm X's "racism" was reactionary against the years of oppression and discrimination that minorities faced from Europeans, and thus is somewhat more understandable, whereas the racism of White people has no good reason behind it other than greed and Satanic pride, and thus is worse than Malcolm X's racism.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 3,001


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #76 on: December 13, 2012, 06:28:35 AM »

...that promoted racism

The difference--something that many White folks never realize--is that Malcolm X's "racism" was reactionary against the years of oppression and discrimination that minorities faced from Europeans, and thus is somewhat more understandable, whereas the racism of White people has no good reason behind it other than greed and Satanic pride, and thus is worse than Malcolm X's racism.
It is still racism. And it is never an excuse. I can tell you about black people who have done the exact same thing. No matter what, I still don't think that the stance, which people like Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammed took was the right one.
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #77 on: December 13, 2012, 08:48:06 AM »

...that promoted racism

The difference--something that many White folks never realize--is that Malcolm X's "racism" was reactionary against the years of oppression and discrimination that minorities faced from Europeans, and thus is somewhat more understandable, whereas the racism of White people has no good reason behind it other than greed and Satanic pride, and thus is worse than Malcolm X's racism.
It is still racism. And it is never an excuse. I can tell you about black people who have done the exact same thing. No matter what, I still don't think that the stance, which people like Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammed took was the right one.
Malcolm repudiated the Nation of Islam's racism.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 3,001


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #78 on: December 13, 2012, 08:55:46 AM »

...that promoted racism

The difference--something that many White folks never realize--is that Malcolm X's "racism" was reactionary against the years of oppression and discrimination that minorities faced from Europeans, and thus is somewhat more understandable, whereas the racism of White people has no good reason behind it other than greed and Satanic pride, and thus is worse than Malcolm X's racism.
It is still racism. And it is never an excuse. I can tell you about black people who have done the exact same thing. No matter what, I still don't think that the stance, which people like Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammed took was the right one.
Malcolm repudiated the Nation of Islam's racism.
Not in the beginning.
Quote
"Thoughtful white people know they are inferior to Black people. Even [Senator James] Eastland knows it. Anyone who has studied the genetic phase of biology knows that white is considered recessive and black is considered dominant."
(The Playboy Interview: Malcolm X, interviewed by Alex Haley, Playboy Magazine, May 1963).
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #79 on: December 13, 2012, 08:58:22 AM »

...that promoted racism

The difference--something that many White folks never realize--is that Malcolm X's "racism" was reactionary against the years of oppression and discrimination that minorities faced from Europeans, and thus is somewhat more understandable, whereas the racism of White people has no good reason behind it other than greed and Satanic pride, and thus is worse than Malcolm X's racism.
It is still racism. And it is never an excuse. I can tell you about black people who have done the exact same thing. No matter what, I still don't think that the stance, which people like Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammed took was the right one.
Malcolm repudiated the Nation of Islam's racism.
Not in the beginning.
Quote
"Thoughtful white people know they are inferior to Black people. Even [Senator James] Eastland knows it. Anyone who has studied the genetic phase of biology knows that white is considered recessive and black is considered dominant."
(The Playboy Interview: Malcolm X, interviewed by Alex Haley, Playboy Magazine, May 1963).
Malcolm was still a member of the Nation of Islam in May 1963.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 3,001


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #80 on: December 13, 2012, 09:04:23 AM »

...that promoted racism

The difference--something that many White folks never realize--is that Malcolm X's "racism" was reactionary against the years of oppression and discrimination that minorities faced from Europeans, and thus is somewhat more understandable, whereas the racism of White people has no good reason behind it other than greed and Satanic pride, and thus is worse than Malcolm X's racism.
It is still racism. And it is never an excuse. I can tell you about black people who have done the exact same thing. No matter what, I still don't think that the stance, which people like Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammed took was the right one.
Malcolm repudiated the Nation of Islam's racism.
Not in the beginning.
Quote
"Thoughtful white people know they are inferior to Black people. Even [Senator James] Eastland knows it. Anyone who has studied the genetic phase of biology knows that white is considered recessive and black is considered dominant."
(The Playboy Interview: Malcolm X, interviewed by Alex Haley, Playboy Magazine, May 1963).
Malcolm was still a member of the Nation of Islam in May 1963.
Yes, exactly. Notice that I did state that he left the organization later on. I am referring to the time when he was a member. It's nice that he adobted a more embracing attitude to white people before he died.   
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
Tags: Islam 
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.22 seconds with 108 queries.