OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 31, 2014, 04:03:43 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: Islam and the 21st century: A must see video!  (Read 6383 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #45 on: March 20, 2006, 01:53:54 PM »

Interesting that GiC opposes the death penalty for pedophiles and other child killers - yet he has no qualms about carpet-bombing innocent children simply because their parents are Muslims, or they simply have never been given another option.

But look at the crimes that I do advocate the death penalty for, treason and cowardice and espionage during time of war. Crimes that threaten the the very essence of a society, not merely crimes against one or two people. I believe Islam fits into this category, it is a threat to not only our society but to civilization itself and thus is a crime more akin to treason than murder. Of course, this only applies to people living within our society...for those living outside our society, they should simply be viewed as a hostile enemy force and dealt with in accordince with methods that are used to resolve conflicts between different societies and not methods that are used to resolve conflicts within society.
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
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #46 on: March 20, 2006, 02:01:08 PM »

And you think a child should be killed becasue of his/her parents/societal religion? A child is a threat to us?
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #47 on: March 20, 2006, 02:12:10 PM »

And you think a child should be killed becasue of his/her parents/societal religion? A child is a threat to us?

Actually, if you recall, the posistion that I have posted many times is that I believe we should occupy Islamic states, take the Children from the parents and raise them as non-Moslems (Christian, Secular, Buddhist, whatever...I'm not to concerned about the specifics as long as it is anti-Moslem) in State Schools, outlaw Islam using massive financial penalties rather than bloodshed for violation of said law, and perhaps eliminate those at the top who are the leaders of Islam and over the Course of 50-100 years we could eliminate Islam with as little bloodshed as possible.

However, we are also in the middle of a war, and the Moslems in their attacks from Israel to New York have demonstrated that this is total war, everyone is a valid target Military and 'Civilian,' Man, Woman, and Child. Since one side has clearly demonstrated that they are conducting total war (and are not even wearing military uniforms to distinguish 'Civilian' from 'Military' on their side...essentially eliminating any such distinctions) without being restrained by the rules of war, the other side can not reasonably be expected to be unilaterally handicapped by the rules of war. Furthermore, we are fighting a war against an ideology, making anyone who holds this ideology a potential enemy asset, if not in military terms then in propganda terms.

In short, giving the disregard for the rules of war by the other side we cannot be unilaterally bound by said rules.
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
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #48 on: March 20, 2006, 08:42:11 PM »

Quote
Interesting that GiC opposes the death penalty for pedophiles and other child killers - yet he has no qualms about carpet-bombing innocent children simply because their parents are Muslims, or they simply have never been given another option.

No, you really miss the most interesting blatant contradiction in all this. GiC will oppose the God-inspired conquest of Canaan, to the extent of debasing Scripture of its divine inspiration (i.e. because it was apparently just a made up story by the Jews), upon the basis that an all-loving God could not possibly have been the instigator of such a Holy War excercised for the purpose of pre-emptive self-defense inter alia, yet he will elsewhere not only defend the bombing of an entire non-Christian nation, but he will even defend the slaughter of millions of Orthodox Christians in Egypt, Syria, Jerusalem, Armenia etc.

It is thus obvious that GiC has some personal issues with Islam, and considering his semi-divine worship of unholy emperors, we can most reasonably attribute this personal thorn in GiC's heart to the fact that Islam was the downfall of his unholy emperor (not to the mention that the imprudence of his emperor assissted the spread of Islam in the first place). Glory be to God that Constantinople fell; each according to their deeds. It's funny that although Coptic persecution under Islamic rule is usually a hot topic, most textbooks in describing the transition from Byzantine to Islamic rule in Egypt, usually express the fact that such a transition was the cause of relief for the Copts.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2006, 08:53:53 PM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #49 on: March 20, 2006, 10:03:22 PM »

And you think a child should be killed becasue of his/her parents/societal religion? A child is a threat to us?

This is the problem faced by us; because we're concerned about the safety of others; Islam doesn't have such qualms
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #50 on: March 20, 2006, 10:41:49 PM »

This is the problem faced by us; because we're concerned about the safety of others; Islam doesn't have such qualms

Generalization is the first step down the road of genocide. Please review the history of propoganda.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2006, 10:43:42 PM by TomS » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #51 on: March 20, 2006, 10:48:26 PM »

No, you really miss the most interesting blatant contradiction in all this. GiC will oppose the God-inspired conquest of Canaan, to the extent of debasing Scripture of its divine inspiration (i.e. because it was apparently just a made up story by the Jews), upon the basis that an all-loving God could not possibly have been the instigator of such a Holy War excercised for the purpose of pre-emptive self-defense inter alia, yet he will elsewhere not only defend the bombing of an entire non-Christian nation, but he will even defend the slaughter of millions of Orthodox Christians in Egypt, Syria, Jerusalem, Armenia etc.

You are correct in that I do not believe that the invasion of Canaan was commanded by God, nor were the wars of the Empire. However, I do not believe they are condemned by God...the wars were legitimate in both cases, not in neither case were they directly commanded by God, where such claims are made it's simply an attempt to establish legitimacy. Furthermore, my greatest problems in the old testament do not come from stories made up to justify invasions but elements of the Law of Moses that are theologically contrary to the Christian Faith.

Quote
It is thus obvious that GiC has some personal issues with Islam,

Yes, I personally quite dislike them, I'll admit to that...however, when I do my best to objectively step back and look at Islam from a neutral secular perspective, without the cloud of what they did to the Empire hanging over the issue, I still see a bunch of religious fundamentalists that are encroaching on western civilization and are not conforming, I still see a substantial threat, Religious Issues and the Fall of the Empire aside. From this point of view it still seems rational to neutralize the threat. This is the reason that I do not have the same objection to Hindus, or Buddhists, or Pagans, etc. that I have to Islam, yes from a Christial Religious perspective they can be regarded as just as bad as Islam, but if you step back and look at them objectively, they are not a threat like Islam.

Quote
and considering his semi-divine worship of unholy emperors, we can most reasonably attribute this personal thorn in GiC's heart to the fact that Islam was the downfall of his unholy emperor (not to the mention that the imprudence of his emperor assissted the spread of Islam in the first place).

I hardly worship our most blessed and holy Emperors and Empresses, but I do recognize that they were the Vice Regents of Christ on Earth and I do offer veneration to those who have been decreed Saints by the Holy Church.

Quote
Glory be to God that Constantinople fell;

In all things Glory should be given to God, no matter how hard they are for us to bear; just as he was Glorified in the Death of his Martyrs, so also was he Glorified in the fall of His City and the Noble Deaths of those who fell defending Her.

Quote
It's funny that although Coptic persecution under Islamic rule is usually a hot topic, most textbooks in describing the transition from Byzantine to Islamic rule in Egypt, usually express the fact that such a transition was the cause of relief for the Copts.

Perhaps they should have acted like citizens of the Empire and been more loyal to their Emperor...but I guess you got what you wanted in the end: no longer were you subject to the laws and rule of the God-Appointed Emperor of the Romans, but rather you have been able to enjoy 1400 years of slavery under Islam, of which, from these last posts, it would seem that you have grown quite fond.
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 #52 on: March 20, 2006, 10:53:11 PM »

Generalization is the first step down the road of genocide. Please review the history of propoganda.

I have...probably in far more depth than you ever will. I regard myself as a student and connoisseur of the art.
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
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #53 on: March 21, 2006, 12:19:56 AM »

That was an excellent response greekischristian Wink
Logged
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #54 on: March 21, 2006, 12:25:00 AM »

Quote
You are correct in that I do not believe that the invasion of Canaan was commanded by God, nor were the wars of the Empire. However, I do not believe they are condemned by God...the wars were legitimate in both cases

Did you really think you were going to get away with such deception? Or is it that you have simply forgotten your own arguments and line of reasoning? The very position which lay at the basis of your attempt to discredit the history recounted in the book of Joshua, was that which posited that an all-loving God could not possibly have been the instigator of such events; it is clearly implicit in such an argument that there is a moral dichotomy between the actions and commands of an omnibenevolent God, and the conquest of Canaan. Clearly then, your position did not entail that God simply didn’t do it, but rather that He didn’t do it because He couldn’t do it; so don’t even try to change the story now in a cocky attempt to reconcile an irreconcilable contradiction.

Quote
Yes, I personally quite dislike them, I'll admit to that...however, when I do my best to objectively step back and look at Islam from a neutral secular perspective

Quit the BS rhetoric GiC; you clearly fail to purport a neutral perspective on this issue, hence the afore-exposed blatant contradiction in your position.

Quote
but I do recognize that they were the Vice Regents of Christ on Earth

Your emperors were no more or less the Vice Regents of Christ on earth than the emperor Diocletian, or even Sadam Hussein when he was president of Iraq.

Quote
In all things Glory should be given to God

Indeed, especially when He serves due justice to doers of Evil — just putting my initial statement into context just in case you misunderstand.

Quote
Perhaps they should have acted like citizens of the Empire and been more loyal to their Emperor

Fortunately, they were too busy acting like citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven (you know, the children of God); their loyalty was towards the Almighty God, rather than human politicians; their loyalty was towards the Orthodox Truth and the Tradition of the Church, and not towards political compromise of that Truth and Tradition.

Quote
but I guess you got what you wanted in the end

And you go what you deserved in the end, and now look at Constantinople; a weak and feeble city. There are even more Armenian Orthodox in Constantinople than Greek Chalcedonians.

Quote
no longer were you subject to the laws and rule of the God-Appointed Emperor of the Romans

Right, for now we were subject to the laws and rule of the more lenient God-Appointed Caliphs of Islam (which is how we would regard the Caliphs if we were to logically extend the whole “God-Appointed political ministers” principle of St Paul, objectively).
« Last Edit: March 21, 2006, 12:34:34 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #55 on: March 21, 2006, 12:27:46 AM »

That was an excellent response greekischristian Wink

It is quite understandable that you would appeal to a Marcionite and a defender of murderers, in your desparation to justify (within yourself that is) your apostasy from the True Church of God.  Wink

P.S. How was the cheeeeeese?
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Yiannis
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 81

Behold the Lamb of God


« Reply #56 on: March 21, 2006, 01:42:58 AM »

It's funny that although Coptic persecution under Islamic rule is usually a hot topic, most textbooks in describing the transition from Byzantine to Islamic rule in Egypt, usually express the fact that such a transition was the cause of relief for the Copts.

My question is: Do you still prefer the Islamic rule since the Christians have become a small minority in Egypt, after the mass conversion of Coptic Christians to Islam? It reminds me of the conversion of the Albanians,with the difference that the majority of Albanians are pseudo-muslims and many of them convert nowdays to Orthodoxy or to Catholicism. If the majority of the Copts really believe so, then they should not look to the Orthodox (=Chalcedonian) Christians for sympathy. However, I don't think at all that our brothers, the Coptic Christians of Egypt, are really glad to live under so many discriminations on behalf of a semi-Islamic state, as they actually do.
A second point: Armenia during the 5th and the 6th c., that means during the conflict over Chalcedon, wasn't a part of the Byzantine Empire. Writing that anti-Chalcedonian Armenians perished under the "blood-thirsty" Byzantine Emperors (by the way, Severus was made patriarch by the Byzantine Emperor Anastasius I!), is an inaccuracy. You project the present relationship between the Armenian and the Coptic non-Chalcedonian churches to the historical facts of the 5th-6th c.! This is more than an over-simplification. Let's avoid the libels please.
A third point: Oppression on behalf of a state against a part of its population doesn't necessarily mean "massacres". By the way, Alexandria was a city with a tradition in riots, as it is proven also by a couple of well-known serious incidents that happened there during the patriarchate of St Cyril. Let's be more accurate please and avoid using strong expressions for the sake of impressions.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2006, 01:58:38 AM by Yiannis » Logged

Christ, the true Light!
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #57 on: March 21, 2006, 02:41:32 AM »

Yiannis,

Quote
My question is: Do you still prefer the Islamic rule since the Christians have become a small minority in Egypt, after the mass conversion of Coptic Christians to Islam?

No, I certainly do not. I was simply making an historical observation. The persecution under Byzantine rule was so harsh at the time that when the Muslim’s took over, there was a sense of relief amongst the Copts. I have no reason to believe that Chalcedonian rule today would result in the re-persecution of the Copts, especially considering the friendly and warm relations presently shared between our hierarchs.

Quote
A second point: Armenia during the 5th and the 6th c., that means during the conflict over Chalcedon, wasn't a part of the Byzantine Empire. Writing that Armenians perished under the "blood-thirsty" Byzantine Emperors (by the way, Severus was made patriarch by the Byzantine Emperor Anastasius I!), is an inaccuracy. Let's avoid the libels please.

"At the beginning of the 7th century Heraklios (610-641 A.D.) ascended the throne of the East-Roman Empire. After he defeated the Persians and conquered Mesopotamia, he forced his way into Syria in 612 A.D. In 629 A.D. he occupied Damascus. Following that he tried earnestly to restore the religious unity in his empire to unite the Syrians, Copts and Armenians with the Byzantines. This happened on the one hand through promises and on the other hand through threats. Very often he used ruthless oppression through which many Syrians, Copts, and Armenians became martyrs. The persecution of the Syrian Church by the Byzantine Empire did not end until the appearance of Islam." From, "A Short Overview of the Common History of the Syrian Church with Islam through the Centuries", Patriarchal Journal (of the Syrian Orthodox Church), Vol. 33 - June 1995 - No. 146, pp. 322-344.

Armenians were apparently nonetheless persecuted, whatever political position the state of Armenia may have had with respect to the Byzantine Empire at the time, and I think that's the relevant point here.

As for St. Severos, he was persecuted by subsequent Emperors. I don’t think I have made a categorical statement with respect to any and every emperor being a source of persecution and slaughter of non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Christians.

Quote
A third point: Oppression on behalf of a state against a part of its population doesn't necessarily mean "massacres".

According to our own history books, and many secular historical accounts also, the persecutions that took place were on a level of massacre at times, especially under the reign of Justinian.

Quote
By the way, Alexandria was a city with a tradition in riots, as it is proven also by a couple of well-known serious incidents that happened there during the patriarchate of St Cyril.

Indeed; in fact, such riots took place subsequent to Chalcedon also, and were responsible for the murder of the first Chalcedonian Patriarch of Alexandria, who was burned alive and dragged through the streets by a crowd of rioters. I don’t however recall that such actions were either a) being instigated or endorsed by authorities of the Church, or b) being on wide-scale.

Quote
Let's be more accurate please and avoid using strong expressions for the sake of impressions.

I am sorry if I have offended you, but I assure you I do not have an agenda — I am not trying to make an “impression”. GiC is known to have praised and glorified the persecution of our Fathers, and my primary purpose within the context of this thread is to prove that such a position, in addition to his position on how we should deal with Muslims (i.e. annhilation "by all means necessary") clearly contradicts his position on the conquest of Canaan (as recounted in the book of Joshua), which he has denied as being historically true, by virtue of the notion that to have commanded such a conquest would have been uncharacteristic of God.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Yiannis
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 81

Behold the Lamb of God


« Reply #58 on: March 21, 2006, 06:55:33 AM »

"At the beginning of the 7th century Heraklios (610-641 A.D.) ascended the throne of the East-Roman Empire. After he defeated the Persians and conquered Mesopotamia, he forced his way into Syria in 612 A.D. In 629 A.D. he occupied Damascus. Following that he tried earnestly to restore the religious unity in his empire to unite the Syrians, Copts and Armenians with the Byzantines. This happened on the one hand through promises and on the other hand through threats. Very often he used ruthless oppression through which many Syrians, Copts, and Armenians became martyrs. The persecution of the Syrian Church by the Byzantine Empire did not end until the appearance of Islam." From, "A Short Overview of the Common History of the Syrian Church with Islam through the Centuries", Patriarchal Journal (of the Syrian Orthodox Church), Vol. 33 - June 1995 - No. 146, pp. 322-344.
In fact, Heraclius looked for a compromise between Chalcedonians and their opponents. He was not an ardent defenser of Chalcedon. I has to be noticed that the Persians, during the time they occupied the Byzantine territories, showed themselves favorable to the Anti-Chalcedonians. "They made some effort to placate the population, by favoring Monophysites and expelling the Jews from Jerusalem in 617 in favor of Christian settlers" (W. Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, Stanford University Press, 1997, p. 292). But I'll look for further reading on this subject (there are more than one monographies on Heraclius and his era, which I have to consult whenever I find some time).
It is interesting that during the same period, the Orthodox/Chalcedonian Patriarch of Alexandria St John the Almsgiver, by his personal virtue and holiness, managed not only to attract quite a few Monophysites/Non-Chalcedonians to the Orthodox/Chalcedonian Church , but he was also negotiating a Church union with the Non-Chalcedonian majority.

Indeed; in fact, such riots took place subsequent to Chalcedon also, and were responsible for the murder of the first Chalcedonian Patriarch of Alexandria, who was burned alive and dragged through the streets by a crowd of rioters.

So, the historical reality is much more complicated than the stereotypes. The victims might become persecutors and vice versa. In fact, the followers of Dioscoros did to St Proterios, the Orthodox/Chalcedonian Patriarch of Alexandria (+457), murdered in a cruel manner in a baptistery at the very night of the Holy Resurrection, what they had done some years earlier to the Pagan philosopher Hypatia, during the patriarchate of St Cyril (a very sad incident, that caused the reaction of St Isidore of Pelousion and didn't favor at all Cyrill's reputation; he was not personally responsible for that murder and I am sure he would like to prevent it, but...). The oncle of St Cyrill, Patriarch Theophilus (he has never been regarded as a saint by the Orthodox Church) has gained the surname of "Christian Pharaoh", because of his secular power and his hyper-autocratic character.

GiC is known to have praised and glorified the persecution of our Fathers, and my primary purpose within the context of this thread is to prove that such a position, in addition to his position on how we should deal with Muslims (i.e. annhilation "by all means necessary")
GiC's posts about Muslims contradict the basic principles not only of the Orthodox faith, but, generally of the Christian attitude towards our ennemies. In other posts I remarked that the "objective" manner he interprets the Fathers of the Church as merely extremely intelligent and well-educated Christian intellectuals, who followed and developped the heritage of Platon, has nothing to do with the "Orthodox way" of theology, as the Church has been experiencing it through the centuries, from the time of the Apostles to our times, that we were marked by such great and deep Orthodox theologians (considered by many as true Church Fathers) as Fr Sophrony Sakharov, Fr Justin Popovich, Fr Dimitriu Staniloae (not to mention others such Fr George Florovsky and Vladimir Lossky).
"Objective view" of the Fathers doesn't exist; a secular view of them, yes, it does exist. But even the secular view, which may follow some modern academic standards, is not by no means an objective view. There is no "objective view" of history and, perhaps even more, there is no "objective view" of theology. Either you try to be faithful to the mind of the Fathers and combine occupation with theology with intense prayer and spiritual struggle or not. I posted the Life of St Gregory the Wonderworker by St Gregory of Nyssa as a proof that the Fathers weren't just gifted intellectuals, but also grace-filled men of God (see: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=8503.msg112369#msg112369). The term "God-bearing Fathers" is more than common in the Church litterature and it does have a content! Theology without the Grace of the Holy Spirit (which has nothing to do with magic!) is a dead letter. It is not accidental that St Symeon, whom we would call today "a non-academic theologian", was called "the New Theologian". I would strongly recommend the book of Archimandrite Zacharias on the theology of Elder Sophrony, which follows the academic standards Wink, for everyone who wants to undestand what "truly patristic mind" means.
Of course, everyone is free to believe and say whatever he wants and even to bring forward numerous arguments and wasting his time in endless discussions. However, for someone who wants to be a humble member of the Orthodox Church, that means a member of Christ's Body, there is no "Orthodoxy a la carte". I'm afraid this is not the case of GiC who, even if he still considers himself to be an Orthodox Christian (I have my doubts about this), he has been for sure greatly deceived.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2006, 07:42:55 AM by Yiannis » Logged

Christ, the true Light!
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #59 on: March 21, 2006, 08:34:32 AM »

Quote
but he was also negotiating a Church union with the Anti-Chalcedonian majority.

The primary interest of these emperors was imperial unity, which was contingent upon Church unity by virtue of the fact that the Church and State were intertwined at the time. These emperors would indeed seek compromises, even of the faith, for the sake of Imperial unity (as we Orthodox/non-Chalcedonian believe occurred at Chalcedon in particular), yet when such attempts failed, they nonetheless resorted to other means of achieving such unity, by, for example, instigating fear in the opposing party via persecution for the sake of compelling their submission.

Quote
It is interesting that during the same period, the Orthodox/Chalcedonian Patriarch of Alexandria St John the Almsgiver, by his personal virtue and holiness, managed not only to attract quite a few Monophysites/Anti-Chalcedonians to the Orthodox/Chalcedonian Church ,


You can interpret history as you will, but I would recall that despite severe imperial persecution, the vast and predominant majority of Orthodox Christians in Egypt remained steadfast to the Orthodox/non-Chalcedonian Patriarch of Alexandria, St Dioscoros the Confessor, by virtue of his personal virtue and holiness, as opposed to the Chalcedonian Patriarch who was merely an imperial puppet. It was largely the spiritual character of St Dioscoros that confirmed the Orthodox Copts of Egypt in the faith despite his exile, and the shedding of the blood of their brothers and sisters. Historian Professor J. Neale provides a balanced depiction of St. Dioscoros' character, describing him as a “man of excellent disposition and much beloved for his humility. These virtues were adorned with his fiery zeal for the faith and his presence of mind" (History of the Holy Eastern Church, Vol. 1, page 278, 301) Even Theodoret of Cyrus, the arch-enemy of St Dioscoros, “whose testimony in [St Dioscorus’] favour cannot be suspected, declared in a letter to Dioscorus, soon after his consecration, that the fame of his virtues, and particularly of his modesty and humility, was widely spread (Ep. 60)” ÂÂ (Wace, H., A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies)

The dominating population of the OO in the present day ancient Patriarchal lands is testimony to the steadfast faith of the Orthodox faithful despite their always being the persecuted party, whether under pagan, Byzantine, or Islamic authorities.

As for conversions, they occurred both ways during such times of confusion; ultimately however, there was always the political factor on the Chalcedonian side, which forced many to convert for their own well being - economic and physical. The same cannot be said of the conversions made to the Orthodox/non-Chalcedonian Church, many of which St Severos in particular was responsible for, not merely by virtue of the example of holiness set through his life of asceticism, but also by virtue of his highly intellectual polemical arguments; Fr. Meyendroff in his Christ in Eastern Thought recounts how weak Chalcedonian apologetics/polemics were in the face of Orthodox/non-Chalcedonian polemics/apologetics at the time.

On a sidenote in relation to John the Chalcedonian Patriarch of Alexandria, we have a positive perspective of this man in our own history, especially with respect to his co-operation with the Orthodox/non-Chalcedonian Patriarch St Anastasius in helping those who sought refuge in Egypt:

"The arrival of these hordes of refugees was a great challenge to the people of Egypt. In pity of them and in a surge of the spirit of Christian charity, Abba Anastasius and his Bishops, together with the faithful, did all that was humanly possible to help them and alleviate their plight. But with all their good will and their charity, the services they could render were limited due to their own circumstances. The struggle with Constantinople had already taken a big toll of their property. Amidst the gloom of the situation, however, a silver lining shone through the dark clouds. God, in his infinite mercy, softened the heart of John, the intruding Patriarch and made him see the necessity of his co-operation with the Copts and their Pope to offer relief and hospitality to the refugees. Thus the legal successor of St. Mark found an ally in the man intruding upon his chair. Christian charity prevailed then." (Irish Habib, The Story of the Copts, page 359)

Quote
The victims might become persecutors and vice versa.

Please do not evade the significant and relevant dissimilarity here. There is no valid analogy between a small mob of Orthodox Copts being fueled with passion to kill one Chalcedonian, and Chalcedonian Saints (i.e. Saints and Fathers of the Chalcedonian Church) rationally commanding, ordering and instigating wide-scale slaughters of Orthodox Christians.

Quote
The oncle of St Cyrill, Patriarch Theophilus (he has never been regarded as a saint by the Orthodox Church) has gained the surname of "Christian Pharaoh", because of his secular power and his hyper-autocratic character.

“Pharoah” is a nickname that was assigned to St Dioscoros, St Cyril and St Theophilus, and sometimes even St Athanasios, by anti-Alexandrian polemics, usually advocated by Western RC or Protestant scholarship - for it was Rome after all (particularly via the figure of Leo), that saw Alexandria as a threat to its self-attributed Supremacy. Chalcedonians are usually just inconsistent when they launch attacks exclusively upon St Dioscoros. He was in fact the least of them who showed a desire for power; his sole desire was to preserve the Cyrillian Orthodoxy of Ephesus 431. The same cannot be said of his Chalcedonian opponents, including the patriarch of Jerusalem who betrayed him at the last minute, the imperial authorities, and especially Leo of Rome.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2006, 08:38:56 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
annaspencer
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox
Posts: 102


« Reply #60 on: March 21, 2006, 04:27:59 PM »

I didn't suspect the moslems would change much on their own and our letting them re-establish their government without our assistance is a joke. Oh well, hopefully we can turn this into an excuse to bomb them...if they want to live in the 7th century I'm more than happy to keep them there. I understand that random carpet-bombing of densely populated areas probably wont help things on the ground too much, but, heck, it's easier than an occupation and free-falling bombs arn't that expensive and it would be a step closer to what our ultimate goal should be...the Complete Destruction of Islam by ALL Means Necessary. I mean, with a 99% Moslem population, even with random and indiscriminate carpet-bombing you can be certain you're hitting a legitimate target, well 99% of the time.

GiC, this made me feel sick. Are you serious? God gave people free choice to do what they want, to work toward their own salvation or not, and you want to take that choice away - why? Do you know better? And to say treason is worse than murder, well who gave moses the 10 comandments? Do you think he forgot to put treason above all the rest? Perhaps you think he wanted to put treason on there but murder was easier to spell.

"when I do my best to objectively step back and look at Islam from a neutral secular perspective"

It seems like you don't know what objective or neutral is. You say that any moslem is a legitimate target, you are so wrong. I hope you rethink this. I don't know how someone can have so little compassion for human life. People living in moslem countries are still people, you have no right to take that away, and you shouldn't want to. I don't understand why you call yourself Christian.
Logged
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #61 on: March 21, 2006, 04:41:35 PM »

And to say treason is worse than murder, well who gave moses the 10 comandments? Do you think he forgot to put treason above all the rest? Perhaps you think he wanted to put treason on there but murder was easier to spell.

This is a nice try, but GiC would probably dismiss the Ten Commandments as culturally relative.

Quote
I don't know how someone can have so little compassion for human life.

He probably justifies his low view of human life with his heretical view on eschatology i.e. the notion that no matter how one lived their life, they will "all ultimately return to the One from whom they came".

Anyways, that's enough speaking on behalf of GiC; it's just that he has a lot to answer to, so I thought id do the charitable thing and relieve him of making some responses.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Yiannis
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 81

Behold the Lamb of God


« Reply #62 on: March 21, 2006, 05:17:11 PM »

Fr. Meyendroff in his Christ in Eastern Thought recounts how weak Chalcedonian apologetics/polemics were in the face of Orthodox/non-Chalcedonian polemics/apologetics at the time.

Ouff! End of sermon! I don't suppose however that Fr John Meyendorff (who was Orthodox/Chalcedonian) considered the arguments of Severus to be stronger than the those of St Maximus the Confessor (who lived a few decades after Severus' death)!
Interestingly enough, all the (secular) dictionaries and scholar works call the Non-Chalcedonians of the 5th-6th c. "Monophysites". Could you give us one (1)exemple of scholar work in which they are called simply "Orthodox"? If it so, it would be more helpful to call them at least OO (Oriental Orthodox), so that there is no confusion.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2006, 05:18:47 PM by Yiannis » Logged

Christ, the true Light!
Yiannis
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 81

Behold the Lamb of God


« Reply #63 on: March 21, 2006, 05:32:16 PM »

Please do not evade the significant and relevant dissimilarity here. There is no valid analogy between a small mob of Orthodox Copts being fueled with passion to kill one Chalcedonian, and Chalcedonian Saints (i.e. Saints and Fathers of the Chalcedonian Church) rationally commanding, ordering and instigating wide-scale slaughters of Orthodox Christians.
It seems that murders by the Alexandrian mobs were not a rare phaenomenon. In 415 Hypatia was killed by fanatic supporters of patriarch Cyrill; in 421/2 the Eparch of Alexandria Kallistos was murdered by his slaves; in 435/6 there was a terrible riot in the amphitheater of the city with more than 500 victims; in 443 there was another riot, against Eparch Charmosynos, who was killed by the mob! The Pagan rhetorician Libanius gives a very negative account of the population of Alexandria.
As for Chalcedonian Saints "rationally commanding, ordering and instigating wide-scale slaughters" of the Non-Chalcedonians, NAMES and REFERENCES PLEASE!
Well, frankly speaking, I am not interested in apologizing for the acts of the Byzantine Emperors (it would be just ridiculous), but I would like that our arguments are based on fact.
I have the impression that a few Non-Chalcedonians consider the mondern (Eastern) Orthodox to bear a collective responsibility for all the insults, humiliations or persecutions (true or imaginary) of their forefathers on behalf of the Orthodox/Chalcedonians (in fact, by the Imperial government) 14-15 c. ago! The Coptic and Syriac Christians rejoice at the fall of Constantinople in 1453 while they have become a small - and quite oppressed - minority in their own countries! They demand respect by victimizing themselves and by believing that the Orthodox/Chalcedonians are indebted to them. They even ignore the fact that the actual revival of the Coptic monasticism has been strongly influenced by the revival of the (Eastern) Orthodox monasticism through the movement of Philocalia. Sorry for adopting a polemic tone, I love the Coptic church, but I suppose that in this forum the (Eastern) Orthodox have the same rights as the OO (or not? Huh). Well, the moderator may move my post, I really don't care, I prefer speaking in public and not in private groups.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2006, 06:01:51 PM by Yiannis » Logged

Christ, the true Light!
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #64 on: March 21, 2006, 07:05:41 PM »

Quote
Well, the moderator may move my post, I really don't care, I prefer speaking in public and not in private groups.

I’d prefer that the EO/OO discussion group were public also, but unfortuanately it isn’t, and I don’t want to push the moderator’s patience any longer, especially considering that I highly respect the moderator of this particular section (SS99). So I have posted my lengthy response to your latest posts here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=8523.msg112589#msg112589

For those who wish to follow up on the discussion, you simply have to register with the Robert to have access to it.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,371



« Reply #65 on: March 21, 2006, 10:33:58 PM »

The major difference between Islam and Christianity today is that Islam does the same things done in Biblical times, while Christians have evolved (as a sub-culture) to a point where they cannot countenance such barbaric acts. If you read histories of sexuality, slavery, divorce, war, the believed psychological/spiritual mindset of heretics, and other subjects, it becomes quite clear that the difference between Christians now and a thousand or two years ago is so apparent that you couldn't possibly miss it unless you were purposely trying to. When once asked confrontationally about the poor treatment of Jews in Russia, Fr. Seraphim Rose replied "I don't have to defend something that is obviously not Christian."  I suppose it would be nice if every Christian adopted that attitude... but then that might interfere with some beliefs about the Scripture, Fathers, etc. Wink
« Last Edit: March 21, 2006, 10:35:03 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

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

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #66 on: March 23, 2006, 10:24:57 PM »

Quote
The major difference between Islam and Christianity today is that Islam does the same things done in Biblical times, while Christians have evolved (as a sub-culture) to a point where they cannot countenance such barbaric acts.

The difference is far greater than that.  Evil things happened within societies composed of Christians in spite of the presence of Christianity.  Whereas Islam glorifies the sensual and immoral as the reward of believers.  

Quote
f you read histories of sexuality, slavery, divorce, war, the believed psychological/spiritual mindset of heretics, and other subjects, it becomes quite clear that the difference between Christians now and a thousand or two years ago is so apparent that you couldn't possibly miss it unless you were purposely trying to.


You are looking past the inherint anti-political nature of Christianity (and I mean anti- politics in the Vaclav Havel/ Charter 77 sense).  Nowhere in the New Testament is there a concept of Christ coming to create a social enterprise or political system.  Instead one finds a message to individuals to repent, changing their own lives - while still living under an existing political system.  Of course things changed the powers that be in the world became Christian - at least nominally so.  After all pletny of Fool for Christs found an earthly end by being critical of various Tsars - so I don't think the real anti-political nature of Christianity ultimately changed.  As for the sexual issue with the Slavs that you seem to be so fond of - even the desert fathers struggled with a host of passions (including fornication and homosexuality!), the thing is they struggled, repented, fought and fought to the death.  So why would all members of a society have a high Christian morality when most were probably Christians simply because of when and where they were born?

Quote
When once asked confrontationally about the poor treatment of Jews in Russia, Fr. Seraphim Rose replied "I don't have to defend something that is obviously not Christian."  I suppose it would be nice if every Christian adopted that attitude... but then that might interfere with some beliefs about the Scripture, Fathers, etc.

Only someone that has put ethnicity and nationalism over Christianity could adopt a position contrary to Fr. Seraphim's.  As for the rest I answer with this from Khomiakov:

The grace of faith is not to be separated from holiness of life, nor can any single community or any single pastor be acknowledged to be the custodian of the whole faith of the Church, any more than any single community or any single pastor can be looked upon as the representative of the whole of her sanctity.
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #67 on: March 23, 2006, 10:37:57 PM »

Another general observation I'd add to my preceding post is that it is important to make the distinction between Christianity and Christendom - while the two overlap here and there, they are ultimately two very different things.  In his Attack on Christendom. Kierkegaard does make this distinction and I think it is quite relevant to this discussion.  
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #68 on: September 28, 2009, 11:01:41 AM »

Just an update: despite the speculation of Ms. Sultan emminent demise, she is very much still alive. She had this to say comparing her video to Obama's Cairo Speech:
http://www.hudsonny.org/2009/06/who-should-we-believe.php

No, I don't credit peace loving Islam for her continued survival.

^No, there isn't much difference between Christianity now and a thousand years ago.  Constantinople, for instance, had a Mosque in it LOOONG before the conquest, for the use of Muslims who happened to be in the city.  Such examples of supposed "modern" thinking can be multipled many fold, e.g. St. Vladimir's abolition of the death penalty.

And yes, Kierkegaard is right on: read his "Exercises in Christianity."
« Last Edit: September 28, 2009, 11:16:14 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags:
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 0.11 seconds with 51 queries.