PDA

View Full Version : how much (church) tower allows ALLAH?



Benedikt
02-12-2009, 08:29
Minarett-Verbot: Wie viel Kirchturm erlaubt Allah? - Politik - Bild.de (http://www.bild.de/BILD/politik/2009/12/02/minarett-verbot/wieviel-kirchturm-erlaubt-allah.html)

this is from a referendum in switzerland. the good 'cheeseburghers' voted AGAINST having minarets build in their good catholic alpine republic.
the news article asks now what christian and special catholic, churches are allowed in moslem dominated countries.
Turkey was actually a shock for me,:jawdrop: never thought that basically nothing but Moslems are allowed public worship.
Iran/Irak is more or less understandable. And while the germans (construction companies) built one of the biggest,largest and tallest Mosques there, they can not even think to put up a catholic bell-tower.
Funny, I never have heard anything like this in Russia...In Moscow, just near the Metro Prospect Mira, believers are building one of the biggest Mosques in town. At Poklona Memorial Park there are worship places of all dominations ( a orthodox church, a jewish synagogue, a Mosque and christian bell tower) all standing and are being used, peacefully.:thumbsup:
Makes me think...:confused:

rusmeister
18-12-2009, 20:02
I say good for the Swiss!

If a people does not have the right to determine what it will and will not tolerate, it is not a free nation. If they must be forced to tolerate minarets because tolerance of all beliefs is fashionable in our time, then the Swiss are not free.

Whatever happened to "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."? Or the Russian "В чужой монастыр со своим уставом не ходят"?

One philosophy or other must always dominate in any society - whether it is one based on specific religious beliefs or one based on the belief that it doesn't matter what you believe (shorthand for "there is no truth").

FatAndy
19-12-2009, 16:14
I never have heard anything like this in Russia...In Moscow, just near the Metro Prospect Mira, believers are building one of the biggest Mosques in town. At Poklona Memorial Park there are worship places of all dominations ( a orthodox church, a jewish synagogue, a Mosque and christian bell tower) all standing and are being used, peacefully. - well... Russian Orthodox Chirch has started to co-exist with muslims since mid-16th century when we caught Kazan' and Astrakhan' populared by tatars and other peoples who are muslims. These areas were included to Empire immediately. Then we moved East and found Buddists. Since 16th century Jews also appear in Russia. Even before, 9-10th centuries (pre-Christian) when Russian dukes took Scandinavian warriors to military service, they allowed them to build their own sacred places to pray and perform other religious actions.
Russian Orthodox (Pravoslavnaya) Chirch of course was recognized as dominating all of these times and all people who was Pravoslavnye had preferences for state/public services but nobody forbidded people of other religions to do what they want (if agreed with Pravoslavnaya Chirch ;))

If Swiss people decided to stop mosques/minarets building - it is their own business. It is so called democracy :D

Wodin
19-12-2009, 17:30
I say good for the Swiss!

If a people does not have the right to determine what it will and will not tolerate, it is not a free nation. If they must be forced to tolerate minarets because tolerance of all beliefs is fashionable in our time, then the Swiss are not free.

Whatever happened to "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."? Or the Russian "В чужой монастыр со своим уставом не ходят"?

One philosophy or other must always dominate in any society - whether it is one based on specific religious beliefs or one based on the belief that it doesn't matter what you believe (shorthand for "there is no truth").

Shocking post.

Although i always disagree with your philosophy, I usually find your posts reasonable and well argued. This one is neither.

Fact: Switzerland has a muslim minority population.
Fact: Switzerland descibes itself as a liberal modern democracy.
Fact: Democracy requires that while the will of the majority is followed, the righst of the minority are upheld, otherwise it becomes a dictatorship of the majority.

Tollerance of beliefs fashionable? Did I read correctly? fashionable? how dare you? The last tiem tollerance was unfasionable we killed 6 million jews, and countless others with them. Tollerance is not a fashion. It is a mandatory requirement. Except of course for religiously inclined people who hanker, even if secretly, after the time when their particular fairy tale carried also political power.

The Swiss not free? Why woukld they have been enslaved by allowing minarets to be built? I put it to you that the decison has now made some Swiss "unfree".

When in Rome do as the Romans do. What a facile, childish argument! You are in Russia. Does that mean that you are drinking yourself to death on vodka? Do you mean to say that all imigrants to Switzerland MUST become christian? Should they bring back the Auto da Fe perhaps?

One philosophy dominate? Why? No philosophy should "dominate". All philosophies are equal. Mine, as an atheist is at least as valid as yours as an Orthodox Christian. We, in the West anyway, moved away from that conecpt half a century ago, when the political power of the churches was broken.

In any case, the vote had noting at all to do with philosophy and everything to do with xenophobia. Take a look at the political parties that supported the Yes vote, and then take a look at the perectage of eligible voters who voted yes.

This is nothing to do with Chesterton. This has all to do with basic human liberties.

As for Egypt...Switzerland holds itself out as a liberal society which does not allow distinction on the basis of race religion etc. Egypt does not. Switzerland therefore is held to a higher standard of behaviour than Egypt. Put another way, Egypt is still saddled with a religion that has political power. Egypt needs to develop further.

drwho
19-12-2009, 18:22
Minarett-Verbot: Wie viel Kirchturm erlaubt Allah? - Politik - Bild.de (http://www.bild.de/BILD/politik/2009/12/02/minarett-verbot/wieviel-kirchturm-erlaubt-allah.html)

this is from a referendum in switzerland. the good 'cheeseburghers' voted AGAINST having minarets build in their good catholic alpine republic.
the news article asks now what christian and special catholic, churches are allowed in moslem dominated countries.
Turkey was actually a shock for me,:jawdrop: never thought that basically nothing but Moslems are allowed public worship.
Iran/Irak is more or less understandable. And while the germans (construction companies) built one of the biggest,largest and tallest Mosques there, they can not even think to put up a catholic bell-tower.
Funny, I never have heard anything like this in Russia...In Moscow, just near the Metro Prospect Mira, believers are building one of the biggest Mosques in town. At Poklona Memorial Park there are worship places of all dominations ( a orthodox church, a jewish synagogue, a Mosque and christian bell tower) all standing and are being used, peacefully.:thumbsup:
Makes me think...:confused:


You have posted a risky thing and now could be called a "racist" or "fascist" by every liberal and human rights activist that may inhabit this forum.

Maybe rightly, maybe wrongly??? I am saying nothing. Perhaps all religion should be canceled at least in public, including churches for all religions then no one will be offended and no one will claim to be in a minority or claim to be victimized by the majority in any country, city or town. Religion is a hornets nest as a topic- stay clear of it. :shhhhhh: For the record, Muslim religion will soon overtake all others according to world stats. So convert now.

Why do you call the Swiss "cheeseburghers" highly offensive to any Swiss? yes? no? They are famous for chocolate, cheese, the Fondue, clocks and beautiful nature. Or were! Now who knows?

alouette
19-12-2009, 20:26
Why in countries where they profess Islam, why they don't tolerate any kind of other religions? Have they got any Catholic or Orthodox churches?

Benedikt
19-12-2009, 21:58
Why in countries where they profess Islam, why they don't tolerate any kind of other religions? Have they got any Catholic or Orthodox churches?

which IS an islamic country, we were shown on the city tour the catholic church. and quite a big one in the 'church' style, not something hidden or a non descript building.

drwho
19-12-2009, 22:39
which IS an islamic country, we were shown on the city tour the catholic church. and quite a big one in the 'church' style, not something hidden or a non descript building.

To quote you plus 1 .."good food, one of the few pleasures left to mankind..."

..good food, one of the few pleasures left to mankind...and good sex !!!!!

rusmeister
20-12-2009, 17:59
You have posted a risky thing and now could be called a "racist" or "fascist" by every liberal and human rights activist that may inhabit this forum.

Maybe rightly, maybe wrongly??? I am saying nothing. Perhaps all religion should be canceled at least in public, including churches for all religions then no one will be offended and no one will claim to be in a minority or claim to be victimized by the majority in any country, city or town. Religion is a hornets nest as a topic- stay clear of it. :shhhhhh: For the record, Muslim religion will soon overtake all others according to world stats. So convert now.


Hi, Dr Who!
I quite agree with your first statement. That was one of my points; that people will only be allowed freedom of choice if they agree with the fullness of a certain modern philosophy called pluralism. If they disagree at any point with that philosophy, they are to be browbeaten with such reasoning as is available, heavily-laden with emotional attacks.

I object to your second idea; that of "staying clear of religion". Religion is a response to the question of truth; by gagging that (forcing it into the purely private sphere) you are actually gagging the search for truth and denying existing claims on what has been found. By examining religion (as college courses on "comparative religion" pretend to do, at least we are engaging in the search for and question of truth. I think the basis on which your idea stands is not entirely unfounded; in fact, I would agree that people tend to become unreasonable when discussing the nature of truth, especially when it happens to contradict their own view. I don't think it impossible, though, to discuss those differences in a civil manner, and to identify the bases of thought whereby people disagree. The challenge is identifying not only what others hold to be true on a dogmatic basis, but what you yourself hold as unquestionable (and quite possibly unquestioned) truth.

PS to Wodin: I'll get to your comments later; I assure you there is reason behind them that you likely have merely not considered. And I said nothing there about Chesterton, btw.

drwho
20-12-2009, 18:26
Hi, Dr Who!
I quite agree with your first statement. That was one of my points; that people will only be allowed freedom of choice if they agree with the fullness of a certain modern philosophy called pluralism. If they disagree at any point with that philosophy, they are to be browbeaten with such reasoning as is available, heavily-laden with emotional attacks.

I object to your second idea; that of "staying clear of religion". Religion is a response to the question of truth; by gagging that (forcing it into the purely private sphere) you are actually gagging the search for truth and denying existing claims on what has been found. By examining religion (as college courses on "comparative religion" pretend to do, at least we are engaging in the search for and question of truth. I think the basis on which your idea stands is not entirely unfounded; in fact, I would agree that people tend to become unreasonable when discussing the nature of truth, especially when it happens to contradict their own view. I don't think it impossible, though, to discuss those differences in a civil manner, and to identify the bases of thought whereby people disagree. The challenge is identifying not only what others hold to be true on a dogmatic basis, but what you yourself hold as unquestionable (and quite possibly unquestioned) truth.

PS to Wodin: I'll get to your comments later; I assure you there is reason behind them that you likely have merely not considered. And I said nothing there about Chesterton, btw.

Never talk about, colour, religion, immigration, gender and pay, gender, left/right politics, politics, euthanasia and sex unless you want to upset a few who feel its their right to tell us we are anti this or anti that or off our heads. :10241:

I'll say no more and move onto lighter topics such as are eggs best sunny side up?, what better a bath or a shower, blonds or brunets, size over quality, cooking, wine, TV and movies a lot safer!! :ninja:

rusmeister
20-12-2009, 20:50
Never talk about, colour, religion, immigration, gender and pay, gender, left/right politics, politics, euthanasia and sex unless you want to upset a few who feel its their right to tell us we are anti this or anti that or off our heads. :10241:

I'll say no more and move onto lighter topics such as are eggs best sunny side up?, what better a bath or a shower, blonds or brunets, size over quality, cooking, wine, TV and movies a lot safer!! :ninja:

...until your doctor tells you you have inoperable cancer and things like eggs, blondes, TV, etc. cease to matter.

Talk about completely missing my point.

rusmeister
20-12-2009, 23:03
Shocking post.

Although i always disagree with your philosophy, I usually find your posts reasonable and well argued. This one is neither.

Fact: Switzerland has a muslim minority population.
Fact: Switzerland descibes itself as a liberal modern democracy.
Fact: Democracy requires that while the will of the majority is followed, the righst of the minority are upheld, otherwise it becomes a dictatorship of the majority.

Tollerance of beliefs fashionable? Did I read correctly? fashionable? how dare you? The last tiem tollerance was unfasionable we killed 6 million jews, and countless others with them. Tollerance is not a fashion. It is a mandatory requirement. Except of course for religiously inclined people who hanker, even if secretly, after the time when their particular fairy tale carried also political power.

The Swiss not free? Why woukld they have been enslaved by allowing minarets to be built? I put it to you that the decison has now made some Swiss "unfree".

When in Rome do as the Romans do. What a facile, childish argument! You are in Russia. Does that mean that you are drinking yourself to death on vodka? Do you mean to say that all imigrants to Switzerland MUST become christian? Should they bring back the Auto da Fe perhaps?

One philosophy dominate? Why? No philosophy should "dominate". All philosophies are equal. Mine, as an atheist is at least as valid as yours as an Orthodox Christian. We, in the West anyway, moved away from that conecpt half a century ago, when the political power of the churches was broken.

In any case, the vote had noting at all to do with philosophy and everything to do with xenophobia. Take a look at the political parties that supported the Yes vote, and then take a look at the perectage of eligible voters who voted yes.

This is nothing to do with Chesterton. This has all to do with basic human liberties.

As for Egypt...Switzerland holds itself out as a liberal society which does not allow distinction on the basis of race religion etc. Egypt does not. Switzerland therefore is held to a higher standard of behaviour than Egypt. Put another way, Egypt is still saddled with a religion that has political power. Egypt needs to develop further.

Hi Wodin,

I would hope, given modern fashions in philosophy, to shock a little.
On your facts:
#1) OK. I'm sure two dozen other minorities could be quickly identified. So what?
2). When you use words like "describe", and "liberal", I would ask for more precise speech. Who exactly does the describing, and what exactly does "liberal" mean? (a more imprecise word is hard to come up with)
3) Democracy means a rather specific thing: that on any question, the will of the majority rules. Your claim, while having an understandable raison d'etre, is not actually part of the definition of "democracy".

There seem to be a number of underlying dogmas on your part that need to be aired, and probably have some justice behind them.

The first is "tolerance". If one must tolerate anything and everything, then one must tolerate all things. This includes poisonous and destructive things and ideas. You might as well tell me that I must tolerate poisonous mushrooms. What exactly a society must tolerate should be up to the society, insofar as we can speak of it as a collective unit. if it is not up to the society, then the society is, obviously, not a free society.

A democracy assumes that some individuals and groups - minorities - will be losers on some questions. If the society determines that their very philosophy is harmful, then that will impact that group in a rather total way. On that basis societies can, and have, excluded groups such as the KKK. This is unfortunate from the point of view of members of that group, but it is precisely how democracy works. The minority can react by either fighting, or leaving. And yes, the members of a democracy are bound to live by the decisions of that democracy, and so, are in that sense, not free. That is an inevitable corollary to any democracy. If I object to treating the union of same-sex couples as "marriage" in my state or country, then I am not free, except to leave, if my state or country decides otherwise. (Oh, yeah, I have! :D ) From that, it would seem that you only object if the democracy makes a decision that you, personally, disagree with.

The case you bring up - Jews in the 2nd WW - is indeed an example of unjust treatment of a minority. but was it actually conducted by a democracy? (If it was, then we have a serious problem with the decisions a democracy can make, and we might wish to prevent that democracy from enacting its will, based on our own philosophy.
When you speak of religion as fairy tales, you yourself cease to be reasonable. I would not be so insulting as to call Islam or Hinduism fairy tales, even though I deny that their description of the nature of the world and man is the true one. I take them very seriously, and ask whether they are true or not.

Another dogma on your part seems to be the idea that all philosophies are equal. if I reply that the philosophy of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is equally worthy of honor and a valid philosophy for a society to adopt, then that is consistent with your claim that all philosophies are equal, and you have no business therefore objecting to Hitler's kampf.

Before we can begin to disagree about anything we must first determine what we agree on, and that involves hashing out the dogmas that operate silently, without being examined, but that determine how you perceive everything. In short, your worldview - your philosophy.

drwho
21-12-2009, 13:31
...until your doctor tells you you have inoperable cancer and things like eggs, blondes, TV, etc. cease to matter.

Talk about completely missing my point.

Eh???? I fully agree!!!! I was simple mentioning it and as a topic to avoid on a forum for expats in Russia. Who is missing the point? Keep it light and fun but each to their own freedom of topic to discuss. :10475:

Benedikt
25-12-2009, 00:39
read in the news today, this yo yo from egypt, mullah or something wants to forbid in ALL Arab countries the celebration of the birth of Christ.:verymad: He says the moslems don't celebrate the birth of the prophet, so why should the christians be allowed to celebrate the birth of christ. :verymad:Nice fellow indeed. let him eat camel dung and joke on it.:verymad:

drwho
25-12-2009, 01:39
read in the news today, this yo yo from egypt, mullah or something wants to forbid in ALL Arab countries the celebration of the birth of Christ.:verymad: He says the moslems don't celebrate the birth of the prophet, so why should the christians be allowed to celebrate the birth of christ. :verymad:Nice fellow indeed. let him eat camel dung and joke on it.:verymad:

"and joke on it" don't you mean choke on it??? or maybe he will tell a few jokes?? I see your point. That religion wants us all to bow down to Allah... Oh dear now I am in big trouble with the left wing fanatics !! :locked:

Benedikt
25-12-2009, 07:56
"and joke on it" don't you mean choke on it??? or maybe he will tell a few jokes?? I see your point. That religion wants us all to bow down to Allah... Oh dear now I am in big trouble with the left wing fanatics !! :locked:

because it is no joke..Apologies for the typo:yellowcard:

MickeyTong
03-01-2010, 13:14
...until your doctor tells you you have inoperable cancer and things like eggs, blondes, TV, etc. cease to matter.


Hello Rusmeister

Being conscious of the possibility of imminent death (an exercise recommended by many spiritual traditions [and innovations]) certainly brings about a paradigm shift in personal values and motivations.

A rationale for giving cholinesterase-inhibiting drugs to people with early stage Alzheimer's disease is that this may give them more time to prepare for the inevitable time when they will be incapable of attending to any aspect of their lives. These drugs can, in some people, counter the reduced levels of acetylcholine in an Alzheimer's afflicted brain (this neurotransmitter is vital to thought, judgement and memory).

But the disease will continue to progress, destroying more and more brain cells and the associated mental "software" that is a "person". Eggs, blondes and TV will cease to matter, and so will everything else. A cruel and horrific affliction.

rusmeister
03-01-2010, 20:07
Hello Rusmeister

Being conscious of the possibility of imminent death (an exercise recommended by many spiritual traditions [and innovations]) certainly brings about a paradigm shift in personal values and motivations.

A rationale for giving cholinesterase-inhibiting drugs to people with early stage Alzheimer's disease is that this may give them more time to prepare for the inevitable time when they will be incapable of attending to any aspect of their lives. These drugs can, in some people, counter the reduced levels of acetylcholine in an Alzheimer's afflicted brain (this neurotransmitter is vital to thought, judgement and memory).

But the disease will continue to progress, destroying more and more brain cells and the associated mental "software" that is a "person". Eggs, blondes and TV will cease to matter, and so will everything else. A cruel and horrific affliction.

Agreed.
But I'm talking about people as a rule and you're talking about exceptions. Not that we disagree here...

MickeyTong
20-01-2010, 04:25
Agreed.
But I'm talking about people as a rule and you're talking about exceptions.

Aren't truly-believing Christians (Muslims, etc) also exceptions? Not to mention the saintly role models.....

orlando771
20-01-2010, 11:17
i dont understand why do you generalize, you take up one country or person and make it look like every other one them is the same, there are countrys (muslim)and people who are celebrating jesus's or Hz.Muhammed's birthday. and there are chuches or sinegogs in these countrys also. for example Turkey you can do whatever you want you can worship whoever you want. but if you go for a referandum to build churches i am sure the answer would be no.

rusmeister
21-01-2010, 07:02
Aren't truly-believing Christians (Muslims, etc) also exceptions? Not to mention the saintly role models.....
Not sure if you're serious, or just messing around.
Exceptions to what rule?

SpinaPubica
21-01-2010, 11:26
It would be better, much better if there was a Muslim here to answer some of the questions asked here untill now. Contrary to common knowledge, there are a lot of churches in some Muslim countries, like Turkey, Syria, Tunisia, Lebanon, Jordan etc. It's not hidden in some apartaments or dark alleys, they are at the service of citizens.

For information of some friends here who are giving examples from Arabs ;please remember Arabs are not the owner or authorized represents of Islam just like Vatican isn't represent of Christianity.So pls dont accuse all the Muslim community for the things that those ignorant, misguided extremists say or do.

I would understand if they forbid prayer calling from minarets, outloud five times a day. But forbidding construction is against minority rights, Arabs never call themselves "democratic countries" or "they have minority rights" so it would be nonsense to compare their bad examples, with the norms and regulations of modern world countries.

rusmeister
21-01-2010, 13:12
It would be better, much better if there was a Muslim here to answer some of the questions asked here untill now. Contrary to common knowledge, there are a lot of churches in some Muslim countries, like Turkey, Syria, Tunisia, Lebanon, Jordan etc. It's not hidden in some apartaments or dark alleys, they are at the service of citizens.

For information of some friends here who are giving examples from Arabs ;please remember Arabs are not the owner or authorized represents of Islam just like Vatican isn't represent of Christianity.So pls dont accuse all the Muslim community for the things that those ignorant, misguided extremists say or do.

I would understand if they forbid prayer calling from minarets, outloud five times a day. But forbidding construction is against minority rights, Arabs never call themselves "democratic countries" or "they have minority rights" so it would be nonsense to compare their bad examples, with the norms and regulations of modern world countries.

Some of us actually know that Islam is not monolithic, even if it is excessively mono in its theism. I would compare Islam to protestant Christianity, as authority is indeed very individualized - AFAIK, it seems that the individual is the basic unit that determines what the Koran means - which is very like Protestant "Sola Scriptura" - the idea that the individual can read the Bible and determine theology for him/herself.

I'm not sure any questions are being asked.

On what basis do you think rights should be based? Should the KKK, as a minority, be granted minority rights? You're kind of assuming a philosophy, as if we all agreed what it was. Everything needs to be defined, and you need to start from what we agree on, rather than disagree on.

SpinaPubica
21-01-2010, 14:45
Some of us actually know that Islam is not monolithic, even if it is excessively mono in its theism. I would compare Islam to protestant Christianity, as authority is indeed very individualized - AFAIK, it seems that the individual is the basic unit that determines what the Koran means - which is very like Protestant "Sola Scriptura" - the idea that the individual can read the Bible and determine theology for him/herself.

I'm not sure any questions are being asked.

On what basis do you think rights should be based? Should the KKK, as a minority, be granted minority rights? You're kind of assuming a philosophy, as if we all agreed what it was. Everything needs to be defined, and you need to start from what we agree on, rather than disagree on.

The thread itself is a sarcastic question, and there are a couple of other questions i was referring to.
I think (or lets say feel) that we agree on the basics (you and me), but it needs to be clarified, underlined for some reason. If you "google" or "wiki" words minority rights you may find thousands of definitions, explanations.
But we dont need them do we? It's really very easy for an average educated and a little bit self-improved person (i am not sure such a term exist in English or not) to respect others rights, love and protect the planet and nature, draw a line between good and bad ( in most cases this line will be very thin) and try to live with his/her predetermined aspects.
I am trying to live like that and i am not an optimistic, naive character isolated from the community.
The answer to your questions is, yes we should find what we agree on first but isnt that the most difficult part? It's in the stubborn nature of human beings to dictate their own thoughts to others, try to convince others that his/her own "truth" is better than theirs.
This is a matter that people couldnt solve for centuries, and i dont think that they will be able to find a common sense.

robertmf
21-01-2010, 15:07
The thread itself is a sarcastic question, and there are a couple of other questions i was referring to.

ADMIN/MOD/Начальник/босс can we get the/a "sarcasm" emoticon :question: Perhaps someone has artistic ability to do the graphic ? You can then upload the emoticon image into the emoticon folder/ (wherever that is in vBulletin). :smokin:

MickeyTong
21-01-2010, 15:10
Not sure if you're serious, or just messing around.
Exceptions to what rule?

You wrote that you had been talking about people as a rule and that I'd referred to exceptions. So I said that devout Christians are also an exception to the rule of how most people are, and that saints are even more exceptional.

I posted elsewhere about having saints as role models (to which Bogatyr replied), my contention being that having unattainable ideals will produce a feeling of failure which will, in turn, produce a feeling of guilt and sin - undeservedly so.

(20% of people over the age of 85 have some form of dementia: for the very old it isn't particularly exceptional.)

MickeyTong
21-01-2010, 15:40
I would compare Islam to protestant Christianity, as authority is indeed very individualized - AFAIK, it seems that the individual is the basic unit that determines what the Koran means - which is very like Protestant "Sola Scriptura" - the idea that the individual can read the Bible and determine theology for him/herself.

Orthodox Islamic tradition is very, very much opposed to individual interpretations of the Koran.

Bogatyr
21-01-2010, 16:15
You wrote that you had been talking about people as a rule and that I'd referred to exceptions. So I said that devout Christians are also an exception to the rule of how most people are, and that saints are even more exceptional.

I posted elsewhere about having saints as role models (to which Bogatyr replied), my contention being that having unattainable ideals will produce a feeling of failure which will, in turn, produce a feeling of guilt and sin - undeservedly so.

(20% of people over the age of 85 have some form of dementia: for the very old it isn't particularly exceptional.)

I'll just clarify again for those who are reading here: Orthodox teaching is quite realistic about the fact that most people will not achieve sainthood. We're all encouraged to keep trying, however, and to continue to pick ourselves up when we stumble, ask God for help, turn ourselves towards God (this is called "repentance", and it is a life-long process, not an isolated 'saying-I'm-sorry-and-be-done-with-it' action), and try again. Certain authors like Blessed Seraphim Rose were also quite specific in their advice that people new to Orthodoxy not to try to take on too much all at once. It is understood that achieving the high levels of ascetism achieved by the saints takes many years of dedication and prayer.

You continue to put words in the mouths of the Church which just don't exist, at least not in the Orthodox Church. The OC does *not* promote "unattainable ideals [which] will produce a feeling of failure which will, in turn, produce a feeling of guilt and sin". The use of the word "sin" there is also incorrect. The Church teaches us about the Truth and "how we should be" in order to align ourselves with it.

In fact, the Church teaches us that we should be joyous, not cowering in fear or guilt. In fact, despondency is a sin (remember, sin means "sickness that needs to be healed", not "crime that should be punished and felt guilty for").

rusmeister
21-01-2010, 20:31
You wrote that you had been talking about people as a rule and that I'd referred to exceptions. So I said that devout Christians are also an exception to the rule of how most people are, and that saints are even more exceptional.

I posted elsewhere about having saints as role models (to which Bogatyr replied), my contention being that having unattainable ideals will produce a feeling of failure which will, in turn, produce a feeling of guilt and sin - undeservedly so.

(20% of people over the age of 85 have some form of dementia: for the very old it isn't particularly exceptional.)

Thanks, Mickey,

Bogatyr already responded to the points on sainthood. I'll just say that I wouldn't want to mix and match rules. The Christian experiences the same temptations as everyone else. He's just learned that giving in is generally not good for you - it's a matter of choice. When I speak about your exceptions, though, we're talking about extraordinary cases that really are exceptions, and not through choice. IOW, let's not mix apples and oranges.

MickeyTong
22-01-2010, 17:12
...(remember, sin means "sickness that needs to be healed", not "crime that should be punished and felt guilty for").

So, sin doesn't cause earthquakes?

MickeyTong
22-01-2010, 19:09
Thanks, Mickey,

Bogatyr already responded to the points on sainthood. I'll just say that I wouldn't want to mix and match rules. The Christian experiences the same temptations as everyone else. He's just learned that giving in is generally not good for you - it's a matter of choice. When I speak about your exceptions, though, we're talking about extraordinary cases that really are exceptions, and not through choice. IOW, let's not mix apples and oranges.

You are very welcome, Rusmeister

Indeed, dementia is not a personal choice but a pathological condition affecting the material substance which allows us to have thoughts and make choices.

There is a proven link between temporal lobe epilepsy and religious experiences. I'm not suggesting that religious visionaries are necessarily epileptic, but that the capacity to have religious experiences may depend on having particularly sensitive temporal lobes. For those of us who don't have this exceptional brain architecture faith in supernatural beings such as gods, demons and angels may be as physically impossible as it is for people with dementia to understand the reality of where they are.

http://www.parascope.com/articles/slips/fs22_3.htm

rusmeister
22-01-2010, 20:19
So, sin doesn't cause earthquakes?


C'mon, Mickey, you should know by now that we won't claim there is natural 'cause and effect' there. That doesn't mean that God wouldn't or couldn't use suffering to bring people to Him, just as a doctor sometimes causes pain to effect a real cure - and you should remember that from our POV, even a person's physical life is negotiable for the sake of their eternal welfare. (I suppose illustration would help, but I'm kind of out of time...)


There is a proven link between temporal lobe epilepsy and religious experiences. I'm not suggesting that religious visionaries are necessarily epileptic, but that the capacity to have religious experiences may depend on having particularly sensitive temporal lobes. For those of us who don't have this exceptional brain architecture faith in supernatural beings such as gods, demons and angels may be as physically impossible as it is for people with dementia to understand the reality of where they are.

The thought this brings up in me is how I have zero 'religious experience'. I have no special feelings, visions, or anything - zip. So I guess I don't have that sensitivity. At any rate, when I converted, I took special guard against any effort to generate feelings to justify conversion. I call it "the factory of feelings", a trap that I can easily see converts falling into. So I guess the point is that no special experiences or ability to experience things are required to accept faith - in fact, I can see how it could be dangerous; again referring to prelest.

is4fun
22-01-2010, 21:16
You continue to put words in the mouths of the Church which just don't exist, at least not in the Orthodox Church. The OC does *not* promote "unattainable ideals [which] will produce a feeling of failure which will, in turn, produce a feeling of guilt and sin". The use of the word "sin" there is also incorrect. The Church teaches us about the Truth and "how we should be" in order to align ourselves with it.

In fact, the Church teaches us that we should be joyous, not cowering in fear or guilt. In fact, despondency is a sin (remember, sin means "sickness that needs to be healed", not "crime that should be punished and felt guilty for").

The solitary word "church" is offensive to those who are non-believers; for the believers are mere sheep to those who wish power over the weak. (getting the hang of the evangelical prose) LOL You feel people are placing words in you mouth? Only vomit spews from those who proclaim they believe. LOL Maybe I should become an evangelist? LOL There has, is, and never been a creator!

Get a grip on yourself and your family Bogatyr, I understand that it is easy to forward responsibility to imaginary deities but in this life (the only one you and everyone else will ever know) is it.

MickeyTong
22-01-2010, 22:03
C'mon, Mickey, you should know by now that we won't claim there is natural 'cause and effect' there. That doesn't mean that God wouldn't or couldn't use suffering to bring people to Him, just as a doctor sometimes causes pain to effect a real cure - and you should remember that from our POV, even a person's physical life is negotiable for the sake of their eternal welfare. (I suppose illustration would help, but I'm kind of out of time...)


I suppose a suitable illustration would be the tortures inflicted by the Inquisition in an effort to get heretics to return to The One And Only True Faith: whatever suffering the victims endured could be justified as merciful kindness if it saved them from an eternity of fiery torment.

For some reason this brings to mind the experience of Winston Smith in Room 101. He found that he truly loved Big Brother only after he insisted that his beloved Julia be tortured instead of him. Victory over himself through vicarious atonement?

What about Patriarch Kiril's remarks about Haiti's earthquake?

rusmeister
22-01-2010, 23:34
I suppose a suitable illustration would be the tortures inflicted by the Inquisition in an effort to get heretics to return to The One And Only True Faith: whatever suffering the victims endured could be justified as merciful kindness if it saved them from an eternity of fiery torment.

For some reason this brings to mind the experience of Winston Smith in Room 101. He found that he truly loved Big Brother only after he insisted that his beloved Julia be tortured instead of him. Victory over himself through vicarious atonement?

What about Patriarch Kiril's remarks about Haiti's earthquake?

On the first comment - I gave you more credit for being reasonable than that.

Since it is impressed on us from the outset of the novel that the desirable thing is Winston's freedom, I can only say that the faith I accept grants me freedom that was not granted WS - making that a case of casuistry. I am really free to choose regardless of circumstances - and to "own", or accept, my choices.

As to Haiti - yes, I would wish that the Patriarch had expressed his thoughts a little more circumspectly. My defense is that on the one hand, he is only human and what he says is actually not Church dogma - that tends to take hundreds of years, even for a Patriarch, for any of his words to get accepted on that level - but that there is a reasonable element of truth in them nevertheless. At the very least, the general comments on crisis as judgement are right on - they ARE a translation of the word "crisis" from the Greek, and yet, people feign shock when someone points this out - even though any real shock is in the fact that they just plain didn't know that. For the rest, he could be right - but of course, we have no way of knowing that for sure, so I see that as a slip on his part. But I, on the other hand, have surely made worse slips. If God's judgement does work towards our eternal cure, then it is ultimately a mercy.

An illustration that I would attempt - being no Lewis, mind you, would be that of people who perceive imminent death. If they even had a second to cry out, "Lord have mercy!", that might be all they needed, from an eternal perspective, to place them facing the right direction, so to speak. We ALL must die, and it comes as no surprise to learn that we all do. But after this, the Judgement. We agree that death is generally speaking an evil, that it was not supposed to happen, and that we are right to mourn our dead. But until you see a larger context (at least for the sake of understanding believers), until you see that from our POV death (and even torture) is NOT the end, and does not hold the final horror that it does for the unbeliever, you probably won't get much of what we are saying.

is4fun
23-01-2010, 00:01
On the first comment - I gave you more credit for being reasonable than that.

Since it is impressed on us from the outset of the novel that the desirable thing is Winston's freedom, I can only say that the faith I accept grants me freedom that was not granted WS - making that a case of casuistry. I am really free to choose regardless of circumstances - and to "own", or accept, my choices.

As to Haiti - yes, I would wish that the Patriarch had expressed his thoughts a little more circumspectly. My defense is that on the one hand, he is only human and what he says is actually not Church dogma - that tends to take hundreds of years, even for a Patriarch, for any of his words to get accepted on that level - but that there is a reasonable element of truth in them nevertheless. At the very least, the general comments on crisis as judgement are right on - they ARE a translation of the word "crisis" from the Greek, and yet, people feign shock when someone points this out - even though any real shock is in the fact that they just plain didn't know that. For the rest, he could be right - but of course, we have no way of knowing that for sure, so I see that as a slip on his part. But I, on the other hand, have surely made worse slips. If God's judgement does work towards our eternal cure, then it is ultimately a mercy.

An illustration that I would attempt - being no Lewis, mind you, would be that of people who perceive imminent death. If they even had a second to cry out, "Lord have mercy!", that might be all they needed, from an eternal perspective, to place them facing the right direction, so to speak. We ALL must die, and it comes as no surprise to learn that we all do. But after this, the Judgement. We agree that death is generally speaking an evil, that it was not supposed to happen, and that we are right to mourn our dead. But until you see a larger context (at least for the sake of understanding believers), until you see that from our POV death (and even torture) is NOT the end, and does not hold the final horror that it does for the unbeliever, you probably won't get much of what we are saying.

This is absolute Bulllllll Shitttttttt! I have never read anything so absolutely ridiculous in my life... (other than Alice in Wonderland; and that was an admitted story) But to actually believe in this crapppppp?

Please, perhaps Bugaltar would like to explain? LOL

MickeyTong
23-01-2010, 13:11
On the first comment - I gave you more credit for being reasonable than that.

Since it is impressed on us from the outset of the novel that the desirable thing is Winston's freedom, I can only say that the faith I accept grants me freedom that was not granted WS - making that a case of casuistry. I am really free to choose regardless of circumstances - and to "own", or accept, my choices.

As to Haiti - yes, I would wish that the Patriarch had expressed his thoughts a little more circumspectly. My defense is that on the one hand, he is only human and what he says is actually not Church dogma - that tends to take hundreds of years, even for a Patriarch, for any of his words to get accepted on that level - but that there is a reasonable element of truth in them nevertheless. At the very least, the general comments on crisis as judgement are right on - they ARE a translation of the word "crisis" from the Greek, and yet, people feign shock when someone points this out - even though any real shock is in the fact that they just plain didn't know that. For the rest, he could be right - but of course, we have no way of knowing that for sure, so I see that as a slip on his part. But I, on the other hand, have surely made worse slips. If God's judgement does work towards our eternal cure, then it is ultimately a mercy.

An illustration that I would attempt - being no Lewis, mind you, would be that of people who perceive imminent death. If they even had a second to cry out, "Lord have mercy!", that might be all they needed, from an eternal perspective, to place them facing the right direction, so to speak. We ALL must die, and it comes as no surprise to learn that we all do. But after this, the Judgement. We agree that death is generally speaking an evil, that it was not supposed to happen, and that we are right to mourn our dead. But until you see a larger context (at least for the sake of understanding believers), until you see that from our POV death (and even torture) is NOT the end, and does not hold the final horror that it does for the unbeliever, you probably won't get much of what we are saying.

I think the of the Inquisition is an apt illustration of pain and suffering being used to "heal" people (not that the early Protestants behaved differently when they had power. Your apparent acceptance of the Inquisition's validity parallels some people's acceptance that Stalin's gulags were a "good thing" because they "rehabilitated" those who displayed a "false consciousness".

Whilst I understand that the Patriarch's statements don't carry the infallible authority of the Pope's they will, I'm sure, have considerable influence on the attitudes of huge numbers of the faithful. Leaders do not have the freedom to make "casual" remarks. I occupy this position with many of the people I deal with - colleagues and patients - and, particularly with patients, because of their vulnerability and neediness, I am aware that what I say, how I say it, my bodily posture, my eye contact, the amount of time I give, what I say next, how I display my own emotional responses....can have a powerful impact, therapeutic or otherwise (and often beyond my awareness).

I am reminded of what was said by a prominent Free Presbyterian minister after the 2004 tsunami: that it was a judgement from God on the hedonism of the Thai tourist industry - ignoring the fact that most of those who died (or were otherwise catastrophically affected) had nothing to do with that industry (and were, in fact, children). Is it wrong of me to expect more compassion from someone who claims to have had Christ in his life for many, many years?

"Crisis", indeed, implies judgement, decision, choice. It is a point where change will happen - for the better or worse. It is a point where help is definitely needed - a point where dependency is an incontrovertible fact.

If God is actually being merciful towards the 1 000 000 new orphans in Haiti, would it not be to the eternal benefit of the rest of us if he now made that mercy obviously apparent?

Your assumption that death is a "final horror" for non-believers is inaccurate. Personally, I regard death as a fact of life. It's not something I look forward to with great anticipation and, where there is a possibility that it can be avoided, I have millions of years' of biological heritage that will struggle against it. But I don't fear any judgement after it happens.

Best regards
Mick

is4fun
23-01-2010, 19:34
I would consider Mr. Tong's quote as very accurate and one of the best I've read in this forum. Thanks Mickey


"Your assumption that death is a "final horror" for non-believers is inaccurate. Personally, I regard death as a fact of life. It's not something I look forward to with great anticipation and, where there is a possibility that it can be avoided, I have millions of years' of biological heritage that will struggle against it. But I don't fear any judgement after it happens."

rusmeister
23-01-2010, 21:24
I think the of the Inquisition is an apt illustration of pain and suffering being used to "heal" people (not that the early Protestants behaved differently when they had power. Your apparent acceptance of the Inquisition's validity parallels some people's acceptance that Stalin's gulags were a "good thing" because they "rehabilitated" those who displayed a "false consciousness".

Whilst I understand that the Patriarch's statements don't carry the infallible authority of the Pope's they will, I'm sure, have considerable influence on the attitudes of huge numbers of the faithful. Leaders do not have the freedom to make "casual" remarks. I occupy this position with many of the people I deal with - colleagues and patients - and, particularly with patients, because of their vulnerability and neediness, I am aware that what I say, how I say it, my bodily posture, my eye contact, the amount of time I give, what I say next, how I display my own emotional responses....can have a powerful impact, therapeutic or otherwise (and often beyond my awareness).

I am reminded of what was said by a prominent Free Presbyterian minister after the 2004 tsunami: that it was a judgement from God on the hedonism of the Thai tourist industry - ignoring the fact that most of those who died (or were otherwise catastrophically affected) had nothing to do with that industry (and were, in fact, children). Is it wrong of me to expect more compassion from someone who claims to have had Christ in his life for many, many years?

"Crisis", indeed, implies judgement, decision, choice. It is a point where change will happen - for the better or worse. It is a point where help is definitely needed - a point where dependency is an incontrovertible fact.

If God is actually being merciful towards the 1 000 000 new orphans in Haiti, would it not be to the eternal benefit of the rest of us if he now made that mercy obviously apparent?

Your assumption that death is a "final horror" for non-believers is inaccurate. Personally, I regard death as a fact of life. It's not something I look forward to with great anticipation and, where there is a possibility that it can be avoided, I have millions of years' of biological heritage that will struggle against it. But I don't fear any judgement after it happens.

Best regards
Mick

It seems that more clarification is in order...

Conflating something that we universally agree to have been an evil of the post-Middle Age period - even though we will differ on whether there were valid and logical ideas driving what was turned to evil ends - with the Christian view that death is not a final end (and therefore speaking of things like judgements) and thereby supposing that the latter will necessarily lead to the former, or is at least of the same moral character as the former, is to completely misunderstand what we believe - which is what the Church teaches, and has always taught.
The Inquisition was based on a right idea - that there IS truth and that it is necessary to prevent teaching that works against that truth. An analogy would be permission to teach creationist versions of science on equal terms with evolutionary ones. I think a majority of the scientific community would do everything in its power to prevent that, and would not be terribly surprised if it stooped to Inquisition-level methods - but I digress. That it resorted to methods clearly opposed to what the Church has always taught was where it went wrong. Stopping with whacking a heretic upside the head, as St Nicholas did in the 4th century, would've been good enough, imo. And St Nicholas really did stop there.
So, no, I don't accept the Inquisition as a good thing. I accept its attitude that the truth matters and something ought to be done to preserve truth and expand knowledge - which can only be done if one has a handle on truth.

On the Patriarch, I'll say that his remarks are fine by me - for "internal consumption" - by people who don't need 500 things explained to them. My objections to them are how they are externally perceived, as you demonstrate adequately. You need the 500 things explained to you to get how it is not a callous expression and that there is no lack of compassion in it. if you refuse to attempt to understand how we see such words; ie, accept our POV conditionally for the time necessary to understand them in their context, then that's your refusal, not Christian callousness.

I'm not sure how you connect crisis to dependency - I certainly do, but on the basis of my worldview, and the dependency needs to be ultimately on God.

Your last question is (merely) yet another variation on the problem of pain and the question "Why does a(n ostensibly) good God allow so much suffering?" I found Lewis's "The Problem of Pain" to be tremendously helpful in putting that question to rest for me.

Finally, I would say that my words probably need to be rephrased. Replace "final horror" with "a final end" and understand that to be the ultimate tragedy - the worst thing that could happen to a person - which is what the materialist atheist generally does. Since for the Christian it is not, then death is preferable to things that are worse, for existence continues - we are immortal. If wrongs are righted in eternity, then the death of innocents, while tragic, is not a final injustice to them; justice is promised. But that involves a willingness to get inside the worldview. Then maybe the charges of callousness will be dropped.

MickeyTong
24-01-2010, 14:06
It seems that more clarification is in order...

Conflating something that we universally agree to have been an evil of the post-Middle Age period - even though we will differ on whether there were valid and logical ideas driving what was turned to evil ends - with the Christian view that death is not a final end (and therefore speaking of things like judgements) and thereby supposing that the latter will necessarily lead to the former, or is at least of the same moral character as the former, is to completely misunderstand what we believe - which is what the Church teaches, and has always taught.
The Inquisition was based on a right idea - that there IS truth and that it is necessary to prevent teaching that works against that truth. An analogy would be permission to teach creationist versions of science on equal terms with evolutionary ones. I think a majority of the scientific community would do everything in its power to prevent that, and would not be terribly surprised if it stooped to Inquisition-level methods - but I digress. That it resorted to methods clearly opposed to what the Church has always taught was where it went wrong. Stopping with whacking a heretic upside the head, as St Nicholas did in the 4th century, would've been good enough, imo. And St Nicholas really did stop there.
So, no, I don't accept the Inquisition as a good thing. I accept its attitude that the truth matters and something ought to be done to preserve truth and expand knowledge - which can only be done if one has a handle on truth.

On the Patriarch, I'll say that his remarks are fine by me - for "internal consumption" - by people who don't need 500 things explained to them. My objections to them are how they are externally perceived, as you demonstrate adequately. You need the 500 things explained to you to get how it is not a callous expression and that there is no lack of compassion in it. if you refuse to attempt to understand how we see such words; ie, accept our POV conditionally for the time necessary to understand them in their context, then that's your refusal, not Christian callousness.

I'm not sure how you connect crisis to dependency - I certainly do, but on the basis of my worldview, and the dependency needs to be ultimately on God.

Your last question is (merely) yet another variation on the problem of pain and the question "Why does a(n ostensibly) good God allow so much suffering?" I found Lewis's "The Problem of Pain" to be tremendously helpful in putting that question to rest for me.

Finally, I would say that my words probably need to be rephrased. Replace "final horror" with "a final end" and understand that to be the ultimate tragedy - the worst thing that could happen to a person - which is what the materialist atheist generally does. Since for the Christian it is not, then death is preferable to things that are worse, for existence continues - we are immortal. If wrongs are righted in eternity, then the death of innocents, while tragic, is not a final injustice to them; justice is promised. But that involves a willingness to get inside the worldview. Then maybe the charges of callousness will be dropped.

I'm not conflating the Inquisition with the Christian belief in an afterlife, nor do I assume that the Inquisition was a necessary consequence of belief in an afterlife and I certainly don't think the Inquisition exemplifies the moral character of Christian faith.

"That it resorted to methods clearly opposed to what the Church has always taught was where it went wrong."

The Inquisition was part of the Church for hundreds of years. For centuries the Catholic Church taught that the Inquisition, its methods and its results were a "good thing", a service to humanity and pleasing to God - to question that was seen as heresy.

"An analogy would be permission to teach creationist versions of science on equal terms with evolutionary ones. I think a majority of the scientific community would do everything in its power to prevent that, and would not be terribly surprised if it stooped to Inquisition-level methods"

Creationist versions of science, or creationist versions of the origins of the universe and life? I don't think that creationists would allow all supernatural accounts of existence to be taught....just their own parochial version.
Creation myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:God2-Sistine_Chapel.png" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/God2-Sistine_Chapel.png/300px-God2-Sistine_Chapel.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/7/73/God2-Sistine_Chapel.png/300px-God2-Sistine_Chapel.png
And I doubt that even Richard Dawkins would advocate torture to get people to see sense.

Yes, I can see where the Patriarch was coming from (conditionally), from the "internal consumption" perspective, cajoling the faithful into more moral behaviour out of concern for their eternal well-being. But I stand by my comparison of it with the Presbyterian minister's crassly ignorant assessment of the 2004 tsunami - which was also probably for "internal consumption" (I certainly doubt that it won any converts).

I'll get back to your other points.

rusmeister
24-01-2010, 14:49
I'm not conflating the Inquisition with the Christian belief in an afterlife, nor do I assume that the Inquisition was a necessary consequence of belief in an afterlife and I certainly don't think the Inquisition exemplifies the moral character of Christian faith.

"That it resorted to methods clearly opposed to what the Church has always taught was where it went wrong."

The Inquisition was part of the Church for hundreds of years. For centuries the Catholic Church taught that the Inquisition, its methods and its results were a "good thing", a service to humanity and pleasing to God - to question that was seen as heresy.

"An analogy would be permission to teach creationist versions of science on equal terms with evolutionary ones. I think a majority of the scientific community would do everything in its power to prevent that, and would not be terribly surprised if it stooped to Inquisition-level methods"

Creationist versions of science, or creationist versions of the origins of the universe and life? I don't think that creationists would allow all supernatural accounts of existence to be taught....just their own parochial version.
Creation myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth)
And I doubt that even Richard Dawkins would advocate torture to get people to see sense.

Yes, I can see where the Patriarch was coming from (conditionally), from the "internal consumption" perspective, cajoling the faithful into more moral behaviour out of concern for their eternal well-being. But I stand by my comparison of it with the Presbyterian minister's crassly ignorant assessment of the 2004 tsunami - which was also probably for "internal consumption" (I certainly doubt that it won any converts).

I'll get back to your other points.

Hi Mickey!
Since we disagree on worldviews I have no hope of convincing you that mine is right. I can only hope to show that it is at least equally based on reason as well as faith, however much you might disagree with the reason.


I'm not conflating the Inquisition with the Christian belief in an afterlife, nor do I assume that the Inquisition was a necessary consequence of belief in an afterlife and I certainly don't think the Inquisition exemplifies the moral character of Christian faith.
Neither do I.


The Inquisition was part of the Church for hundreds of years
I thought you knew enough about the Orthodox POV to know that it does not see the Catholic Church as the Church - after the Great Schism, it was basically a large schismatic group going off in a wrong direction. Thus, the Crusades, indulgences and the Inquisition are not things that Orthodox need defend or explain. As far as we are concerned, they were wrong, and the reasons they were wrong had everything to do with the nature of the schism.
The RCC is fairly close to Orthodoxy, we can sympathize a lot with its positions and followers - but they ain't - and wasn't and haven't been - Orthodox for roughly a thousand years.

Your stand is understandable. I can claim to understand it. The trouble, and objection you raise, is that we can't necessarily be sure what is the cause of what. So far I agree with you.
But I also see truth in the Patriarch's words. Sometimes events in this world, while largely left to free will, can be worked to bring about the salvation of all - or at least as many as possible. If the POV is accepted at all, then we would have to acknowledge that possibility. So like I said, I would wish, for your sake, that the patriarch might have spoken a little differently. But then, how do I know what would work towards your salvation? Maybe in the long term you'll come to appreciate outspokenness for all I know.