PDA

View Full Version : No more Belgium for burkas



ReallyGreatConcerts
10-05-2010, 07:22
The Belgian "nation" has fallen apart. What remains is a Flemish nation dominated by extreme right-wingers.

An article in the "socialist" (hahahahah!) newspaper The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/09/belgium-flanders-wallonia-french-dutch).

mistygris
10-05-2010, 20:46
Belgium nation fallen appart?

MickeyTong
10-05-2010, 22:48
Bring back the Habsburgs.

yakspeare
10-05-2010, 22:59
i prefer the prussians.

MickeyTong
10-05-2010, 23:00
i prefer the prussians.

But, would the Belgians?

yakspeare
10-05-2010, 23:03
possibly not...but at least i could point on a map and say where my family is from rather than "well yeah its kinda german, used to be germany but now is russia and.." i just thought you were getting nostalgic.

ReallyGreatConcerts
11-05-2010, 02:12
Belgium nation fallen appart?

Belgian nation so dominated by right-wing Flemish extremists. Now a pariah nation with its "anti-burka" laws.

We can expect Flanders to continue to be a Bad European Neighbour in the future under its current leadership. Probably the Walloon part of Belgium will rejoin France, and disown the Flemish fascists.

rusmeister
11-05-2010, 04:54
Belgian nation so dominated by right-wing Flemish extremists. Now a pariah nation with its "anti-burka" laws.

We can expect Flanders to continue to be a Bad European Neighbour in the future under its current leadership. Probably the Walloon part of Belgium will rejoin France, and disown the Flemish fascists.

It seems rather unreasonable to expect peoples all over the world to all agree with your particular philosophy/assumptions about truth. Furthermore, if we pretend to support democracy, then we ought to be clear about when we do not support democracy.

When would you say that a people should NOT have a right to self-determination? When would you take that away and impose your own views and philosophy?

Clearly, if we actually value democracy as an ideal for all nations, then we are going to see peoples making different collective decisions than ones we ourselves might make.

Without that kind of clarity, it is mere hypocrisy to, at one moment, call for/praise the concept of democracy, and the next moment to call for its repealing and imposition by force of our own views. It's saying "I want democracy, as long as I'm in charge - rule of the people is fine as long as I (my ideas) rule them."

ReallyGreatConcerts
11-05-2010, 05:34
When would you say that a people should NOT have a right to self-determination? When would you take that away and impose your own views and philosophy?


I haven't ever said they don't have the democratic right to be a fascist pariah state if they choose to be.

SV1973a
11-05-2010, 08:15
I haven't ever said they don't have the democratic right to be a fascist pariah state if they choose to be.

Now look dude, I am Flemish, and your comments about my country being a fascist pariah state are an insult. Not only to me, but also to all people that have become victims of fascism.

Oh, and by the way, splitting up Belgium would leave the world with 2 or 3 new countries where burkas will be outlawed.

Alek_world
11-05-2010, 09:16
It seems rather unreasonable to expect peoples all over the world to all agree with your particular philosophy/assumptions about truth. Furthermore, if we pretend to support democracy, then we ought to be clear about when we do not support democracy.

When would you say that a people should NOT have a right to self-determination? When would you take that away and impose your own views and philosophy?

Clearly, if we actually value democracy as an ideal for all nations, then we are going to see peoples making different collective decisions than ones we ourselves might make.

Without that kind of clarity, it is mere hypocrisy to, at one moment, call for/praise the concept of democracy, and the next moment to call for its repealing and imposition by force of our own views. It's saying "I want democracy, as long as I'm in charge - rule of the people is fine as long as I (my ideas) rule them."

No one is talking about ones own views or philosophy. In case of Belgium we are talking about the basic human rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a18) to practice and MANIFEST your religion, that is being denied to the Muslim women because of an irrational fear of bourka that objectively does not represent a treat to anyones life nor health. From there on we can choose any exterior sign of any persons clothing or physical appearance and arbitrary use it to pressure that particular or a group of particulars gradually taking away their rights to self determination until we reach the Orwellian anti-utopia where everyone is: uniform, brainwashed and fully subjected to Big-brother, who uses the same techniques of subjection and control (irrational fear from everything that doesn't fit the definition of an obedient citizen) like the far right parties across the world.

The Democracy my friend, stops where the violation of basic human rights of particulars not representing a menace to anyones life and health due to arbitrary reasons begins otherwise it is called the rule of the mob and not a democracy.
What is next lynch parties when a critical mass of crazed housewives decides that the Muslim down street looks like Osama Bin Laden because they were 110% brainwashed by the CNN and alike even though that guy down the street has absolutely nothing in common with Ousama apart maybe his beard. Should we say that is still a democracy after all the majority ruled that he should die...
Think about that :)

Alek_world
11-05-2010, 10:18
Belgian nation so dominated by right-wing Flemish extremists. Now a pariah nation with its "anti-burka" laws.

We can expect Flanders to continue to be a Bad European Neighbour in the future under its current leadership. Probably the Walloon part of Belgium will rejoin France, and disown the Flemish fascists.

It is rather the other way around, the Flemish have been fighting for years now to disown the Wallonians and I am sure they would be more than happy to get rid of the part of the country that they largely consider to be a burden on the economy etc...I know its a technicality but still it should be noted.

Concerning the ones being better than the others tolerance-wise, that's not necessarily true, furthermore I think I would have to agree with the last part of our Flemish visitors' statement, where he claims that with the split of Belgium Europe would end up with several bourka banning states.

PS If they were to join France and France is baning bourka, how is that changing things for the better .....

Alek_world
11-05-2010, 10:24
Now look dude, I am Flemish, and your comments about my country being a fascist pariah state are an insult. Not only to me, but also to all people that have become victims of fascism.

Oh, and by the way, splitting up Belgium would leave the world with 2 or 3 new countries where burkas will be outlawed.

Hmm well when stating the facts about a country becomes insulting its probably the time to start changing something in that country rather than accusing the observer..... :tongue:
PLUS how in the gods name is it insulting to the victims of Fascism to call the country where they have been made to suffer what it is, and that is a Fascist country... :agree:

yakspeare
11-05-2010, 10:39
Hmm well when stating the facts about a country becomes insulting its probably the time to start changing something in that country rather than accusing the observer..... :tongue:
PLUS how in the gods name is it insulting to the victims of Fascism to call the country where they have been made to suffer what it is, and that is a Fascist country... :agree:

What is amusing is that both you and reallygreatconcerts have no problem calling people from various countries different names and accuse them of fascism etc and yet try to preach tolerance. lol.

You see it as an infringement of human rights and an attack on islamic culture.

some of the people here are probably Islamophobic like you accuse all of us of. I have seen a few posts of such but not many.

the rest of us(including myself) see the Burqa as an infringement of human rights and an attack on the rights of a woman

Just because we don't like ONE thing you LABEL all of us anti-islamic. So I think it is the two of you who have the problem in prejudice. Not us.

SV1973a
11-05-2010, 10:53
Hmm well when stating the facts about a country becomes insulting its probably the time to start changing something in that country rather than accusing the observer..... :tongue:
PLUS how in the gods name is it insulting to the victims of Fascism to call the country where they have been made to suffer what it is, and that is a Fascist country... :agree:

So, what facts do you have to claim that Flanders is a fascist country ? The `observer` just made such a `statement`, without any justification.

About this insult to victims of fascism. Are you really going to compare the situation in Belgium with the horrors that cost the lifes of millions of people (26 Million Soviets, 8 Million Germans, 6 Million Jews, ...).
These are some of the characteristics of fascism; no freedom of opinion, no freedom of press, censorship, discrimination based on race or religion, physical elimination of opponents, concentration camps, ...
Please tell me who is suffering from the above in Flanders???

yakspeare
11-05-2010, 10:57
bold emphasis mine.


Integration Overriding Priority for Europe Muslims: Activist
By Ahmad Maher , European Muslims staff




“Europe, though dominated by Christians and white complexions, has become increasingly multi-ethnic,” said Rawi.

CAIRO, April 4, 2005 (IslamOnline.net) – The issue of integration is an overriding priority for the Muslim minorities in Europe which should strike a balance between their identity and the cultures of their new societies, a leading European Muslim activist said.
“Muslims in Europe cannot make a difference unless they wholeheartedly integrate into their new societies,” Ahmad Al-Rawi, Chairman of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE), told IslamOnline.net Monday, April 4, over the phone from London.

“But they have to strike the right balance between their identity and their contributions to their society at all political, economic and cultural levels.”

He said that the 15 million Muslims in Europe “are part and parcel of their societies,” adding that the term “integration” has become the rallying cry for this juncture.

Al-Rawi said the issue is high on the agenda of an FIOE delegation attending an EU interfaith committee meeting later in the day.

“Brussels will also likely host a seminar on the recognition of Islam in Europe later this month,” he added.

The prominent Muslim activist said Europe is no longer a “mono-cultural” continent.

“Europe, though dominated by Christians and white complexions, has become increasingly multi-ethnic,” he noted.

“True that there are some countries that want Muslims to melt away into their pots, but there are others which boost positive integration.”

Difficult Job

The Muslim activist, however, admitted that the integration process is not that easy and needs a great deal of persistence in view of incidents resurfacing every now and then, which tarnish the image of Islam.

He said the Netherlands, for instance, was one of the most receptive European countries to Muslims and used to spend millions every year on their organizations.

The government used to encourage Muslims to play a key role on the political spectrum, he added, recalling that 50 municipal members were Muslims.

“But the killing of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh at the hands of a mad boy has changed every thing and made Muslims there back to square one,” Rawi stressed.

“No doubt that we all as Muslims feel jealous for our religion and our Prophet (PBUH), but there are legal channels through which we can protest and not by such a barbaric way that did more harm than good to Islam.”

Duties

The Muslim activist offered a piece of advice to all Muslim minorities in the West: “Perform your duties before asking for your rights.”

“Muslims who abide by their religion should, by the same token, abide by the laws of their European countries,” he said.

“Integrate positively into your society, keep you non-Muslim fellows acquainted with the precious values of your religion, and I guarantee that your society will, sooner or later, warmly welcome you.”

Not A Priority

On problems facing some Muslims in the Netherlands over refusing to shake hands with women, Rawi said such issues should not be given priority.

He said shaking women’s hands “is by no means a major sin but rather a minor one and a controversial issue on which scholars are divided.”

The Muslim activist asserted that refraining from handshaking is interpreted differently in European countries.

“Some countries see it as a sign of disrespect for women, and others, like Britain, understand it,” he said.

Rawi continued: “We should not give heed to such issues and should focus rather on important issues on which we should make no compromise, and this is our approach at international conferences like the Le Bourget conference in France.”

He recalled that the European Council for Fatwa and Research has issued several statements guiding Muslims on how they can adapt to the values of their Western societies and overcome problems like this.

Some Dutch Muslims have found themselves between a rock and a hard place over the issue of handshaking.

The Hague Municipality deprived last month a Muslim citizen of government social assistance after he refused to shake hands with a female civil servant.

The man tried in vain to justify his position as being purely religious and in no way derogatory.

His lawyer defended him as a victim of racism, asserting that such a behavior was not deemed as disapproving before the November killing of Van Gogh.

Another Dutch Muslim, F. Aniat, could have faced the same punishment if it hand not been for the staunch defense of his non-Muslim work colleagues, Rotterdam newspaper reported on Friday, April 1.

Aniat, who works for the council of social affairs in Rotterdam, was reprimanded by a legal committee for refusing to shake hands with two female members at Rotterdam municipality.

In his defense, Aniat said that the council should understand the cultures of Dutch citizens of different backgrounds.



Read more: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1162385878937&pagename=Zone-English-Euro_Muslims%2FEMELayout#ixzz0nbLqpMC2

yakspeare
11-05-2010, 11:21
and for the slam dunk:

Niqab: Debated Among Muslims

Read About Niqab Debate in Europe
It's rather complicated. Within the Muslim community, the views are more debated than one might ordinarily suppose. For years, there have been debates within the Muslim community, worldwide, about the niqab. To take one such debate, which goes back several centuries — within the Shafi`i rite of Sunni Islamic law — the practice is theoretically considered to be compulsory, at least according to a relied upon position within that collective of scholars. That explains its practice across Yemen, a predominantly Shafi`i community — but it does not explain its rarity across Southeast Asia, where the overwhelming bulk of all Shafi`i is around the world reside.

Why? Southeast Asian culture simply finds the covering of the face to be out of the norm, and as such, Shafi`i scholars in that region relied upon other legitimate positions within the Shafi`i rite, as well as in other Sunni rites, which did not regard the face veil to be compulsory. Regardless of the Taliban's opinion in Afghanistan or the opposing opinion of some government officials in the Arab World, the niqab is not universally agreed upon to be an Islamic obligation nor can one honestly say that it has no basis at all in Islamic law. Both stances are simply false.

How interesting how Islam is flexible enough to adapt to south east asia culture. All that many ask is that they do the same for Europe. European culture ALSO has a culture where covering the face is out of the norm and should be respected also.

Alek_world
11-05-2010, 12:34
So, what facts do you have to claim that Flanders is a fascist country ? The `observer` just made such a `statement`, without any justification.

About this insult to victims of fascism. Are you really going to compare the situation in Belgium with the horrors that cost the lifes of millions of people (26 Million Soviets, 8 Million Germans, 6 Million Jews, ...).
These are some of the characteristics of fascism; no freedom of opinion, no freedom of press, censorship, discrimination based on race or religion, physical elimination of opponents, concentration camps, ...
Please tell me who is suffering from the above in Flanders???

+ You are mixing Fascism with Nazism and the Second World War that has nothing to do with this discussion absent maybe a possible parallel to the hate of the difference preached by certain fascist and Nazi ideologists.

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual .....

>>>>>Please tell me who is suffering from the above in Flanders???
Muslims from discrimination based on religion ????

Alek_world
11-05-2010, 12:43
What is amusing is that both you and reallygreatconcerts have no problem calling people from various countries different names and accuse them of fascism etc and yet try to preach tolerance. lol.

You see it as an infringement of human rights and an attack on islamic culture.

some of the people here are probably Islamophobic like you accuse all of us of. I have seen a few posts of such but not many.

the rest of us(including myself) see the Burqa as an infringement of human rights and an attack on the rights of a woman

Just because we don't like ONE thing you LABEL all of us anti-islamic. So I think it is the two of you who have the problem in prejudice. Not us.

Whats even more amusing is your twisted double standard reasoning.
Calling a racist a racist qualifies me as a hater? LOL
So fighting the crime makes the police criminals?
Objecting to the violations of the human rights makes one intolerant, towards the Human rights violators ??? WTF

Your claims about the bourka are baseless and unfounded since there is a number of women who admitted that they were not pushed into wearing them but chose to wear it on their own free will and even the AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL HAS RECOGNIZED THIS FACT.

But again proving to such a double faced little bigot anything that contradicts his bigoted opinions is a vain job but rest assured I will not let you pollute this forum that is supposed to represent the very example of multiculturalism and tolerance after all we are all foreigners in Russia of different origins and from different cultures and yes from different religions and you just give this place a bad image.

I know that you are not used to any opposition let alone one that can easily rebut you but embrace yourself for a :11513:

PS for the record and for those to whom God was less generous in questions of intellect

I am not , have never and will never accuse entire nations of anything!
I have and will continue to state the facts where the quantity of the racists in the general population has reached a critical mass in one nation, be it due to a media-hater-frenzy or historical hatred between nations (such as the spaces of ex-Yugoslavia or Israel-Palestine....)

I feel it is in fact a duty of every citizen who believes in democracy and freedom to blow a whistle where he sees such phenomena in order to mobilize the attention of the public opinion in an effort to recall the misguided populations to reason and to debunk and outlaw to inspirer of these irrational fears and the ones who try to capitalize on them.

yakspeare
11-05-2010, 13:01
Whats even more amusing is your twisted double standard reasoning.
Calling a racist a racist qualifies me as a hater? LOL
So fighting the crime makes the police criminals?
Objecting to the violations of the human rights makes one intolerant, towards the Human rights violators ??? WTF

Your claims about the bourka are baseless and unfounded since there is a number of women who admitted that they were not pushed into wearing them but chose to wear it on their own free will and even the AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL HAS RECOGNIZED THIS FACT.

But again proving to such a double faced little bigot anything that contradicts his bigoted opinions is a vain job but rest assured I will not let you pollute this forum that is supposed to represent the very example of multiculturalism and tolerance after all we are all foreigners in Russia of different origins and from different cultures and yes from different religions and you just give this place a bad image.

I know that you are not used to any opposition let alone one that can easily rebut you but embrace yourself for a :11513:

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL(re your link) ALSO RECOGNISE THAT AT LEAST SOME WOMEN ARE FORCED INTO WEARING THE BURQA.READ YOUR OWN LINK.

The video interviews also said the same. How much free choice is it when the parents and family expect it of them as a sign of piety? Can she say I don't really feel like wearing it today? What are the views about woman that created the Burqa in the first place?

Your the one who describes a whole nation as fascist, yells about people being bigots, talks about my family and personal life, also describes myself and people with a similar opinion as apologists for Afro-American slavery and YET you say I am polluting this forum? Your the hater. I hate no religion or any people and I am certainly not a racist.

Alek_world
11-05-2010, 13:09
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL(re your link) ALSO RECOGNISE THAT AT LEAST SOME WOMEN ARE FORCED INTO WEARING THE BURQA.READ YOUR OWN LINK.

The video interviews also said the same. How much free choice is it when the parents and family expect it of them as a sign of piety? Can she say I don't really feel like wearing it today? What are the views about woman that created the Burqa in the first place?

Your the one who describes a whole nation as fascist, yells about people being bigots, talks about my family and personal life, also describes myself and people with a similar opinion as apologists for Afro-American slavery and YET you say I am polluting this forum? Your the hater. I hate no religion or any people and I am certainly not a racist.

I have read my own link and you read my previous posts I COMPLETELY CONDEMN THE FORCING OF ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING INCLUDING FORCING WOMEN TO WEAR BOURKAS OR UNDERGO PLASTIC SURGERY TO ENHANCE THEIR BOOOBOOOS! However deciding to systematically put a ban on a bourka and deciding to place it as a symbol of something that it is not, and that is OPPRESSION OF WOMEN and extremism is: discriminatory, arbitrary and further more in breach of INTERNATIONAL LAW

PS for the rest of your rant read the bottom of my post and review the videos, as usually you heard only what you wanted to and you missed the actual women that you are trying to defend (never minds that we know you couldn't care less and you use it as a pretext to pass your bigoted ideas) stating that she wants to wear it. Why in the gods name do you not persecute nuns for being subjected and forced to wear veils maybe some of them would like to be nuns and cardinals yet in the catholic church there are no women cardinals... wtf
PS for the record and for those to whom God was less generous in questions of intellect

Quote from my previous post:

I am not , have never and will never accuse entire nations of anything!
I have and will continue to state the facts where the quantity of the racists in the general population has reached a critical mass in one nation, be it due to a media-hater-frenzy or historical hatred between nations (such as the spaces of ex-Yugoslavia or Israel-Palestine....)

I feel it is in fact a duty of every citizen who believes in democracy and freedom to blow a whistle where he sees such phenomena in order to mobilize the attention of the public opinion in an effort to recall the misguided populations to reason and to debunk and outlaw to inspirer of these irrational fears and the ones who try to capitalize on them.

Also about you being a racist YES YOU ARE ONE and an ISLAMOPHOBE..
I'm not yelling I am writing

Quote from Amnesty International web site:
BELGIUM FULL FACE VEIL BAN WOULD BREACH INTERNATIONAL LAW


There has been growing public debate in Europe on the wearing of full face veils
© AP GraphicsBank

22 April 2010
Amnesty International has urged the Belgian Parliament not to pass a draft law which would prohibit the wearing of full face veils anywhere in public as the country’s Chamber of Deputies prepares to vote on the issue on 22 April 2010.

“A general ban on the wearing of full face veils would violate the rights to freedom of expression and religion of those women who choose to express their identity or beliefs in this way,” said Claudio Cordone, Amnesty International’s Interim Secretary General.

“At the same time the Belgian authorities must make sure that all women who wear the full veil do so without coercion, harassment and discrimination.”

Those who violate the law will be either fined between 15 and 25 Euro or imprisoned between one and seven days, or both. People wearing masks because of the nature of their work or because they take part in festivals are exempted.

Over the last few months there has been growing public debate in Europe on the wearing of full face veils, such as the burqa and the niqab, by Muslim women.

Yesterday, the French government announced that it would shortly be putting a similar draft law before Parliament.

International human rights law guarantees the right to freedom of expression and freedom to manifest their religion or beliefs; these freedoms extend to the way in which people choose to dress.

States must therefore not impose generally applicable requirements that women dress or do not dress in a certain way, and they must protect women from the imposition of such requirements by third parties, including families and communities.

“Women must not be compelled to wear a headscarf or veil, either by the state or by individuals; and it is wrong for them to be prohibited by law from wearing it,” Claudio Cordone said.

“However, some clearly defined restrictions on the wearing of full face veils for the purposes of public safety will be legitimate. For example, it will be perfectly legitimate for women to be asked to lift their veils for identity checks.”

Amnesty International does not believe that a general ban on the wearing of full face veils in public is necessary or proportionate for any legitimate objective.

yakspeare
11-05-2010, 13:35
I have read my own link and you read my previous posts I COMPLETELY CONDEMN THE FORCING OF ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING INCLUDING FORCING WOMEN TO WEAR BOURKAS OR UNDERGO PLASTIC SURGERY TO ENHANCE THEIR BOOOBOOOS! However deciding to systematically put a ban on a bourka and deciding to place it as a symbol of something that it is not, and that is OPPRESSION OF WOMEN and extremism is: discriminatory, arbitrary and further more in breach of INTERNATIONAL LAW

PS for the rest of your rant read the bottom of my post and review the videos, as usually you heard only what you wanted to and you missed the actual women that you are trying to defend (never minds that we know you couldn't care less and you use it as a pretext to pass your bigoted ideas) stating that she wants to wear it. Why in the gods name do you not persecute nuns for being subjected and forced to wear veils maybe some of them would like to be nuns and cardinals yet in the catholic church there are no women cardinals... wtf
PS for the record and for those to whom God was less generous in questions of intellect

Quote from my previous post:

I am not , have never and will never accuse entire nations of anything!
I have and will continue to state the facts where the quantity of the racists in the general population has reached a critical mass in one nation, be it due to a media-hater-frenzy or historical hatred between nations (such as the spaces of ex-Yugoslavia or Israel-Palestine....)

I feel it is in fact a duty of every citizen who believes in democracy and freedom to blow a whistle where he sees such phenomena in order to mobilize the attention of the public opinion in an effort to recall the misguided populations to reason and to debunk and outlaw to inspirer of these irrational fears and the ones who try to capitalize on them.

Also about you being a racist YES YOU ARE ONE and an ISLAMOPHOBE..
I'm not yelling I am writing

Quote from Amnesty International web site:
BELGIUM FULL FACE VEIL BAN WOULD BREACH INTERNATIONAL LAW


There has been growing public debate in Europe on the wearing of full face veils
© AP GraphicsBank

22 April 2010
Amnesty International has urged the Belgian Parliament not to pass a draft law which would prohibit the wearing of full face veils anywhere in public as the country’s Chamber of Deputies prepares to vote on the issue on 22 April 2010.

“A general ban on the wearing of full face veils would violate the rights to freedom of expression and religion of those women who choose to express their identity or beliefs in this way,” said Claudio Cordone, Amnesty International’s Interim Secretary General.

“At the same time the Belgian authorities must make sure that all women who wear the full veil do so without coercion, harassment and discrimination.”

Those who violate the law will be either fined between 15 and 25 Euro or imprisoned between one and seven days, or both. People wearing masks because of the nature of their work or because they take part in festivals are exempted.

Over the last few months there has been growing public debate in Europe on the wearing of full face veils, such as the burqa and the niqab, by Muslim women.

Yesterday, the French government announced that it would shortly be putting a similar draft law before Parliament.

International human rights law guarantees the right to freedom of expression and freedom to manifest their religion or beliefs; these freedoms extend to the way in which people choose to dress.

States must therefore not impose generally applicable requirements that women dress or do not dress in a certain way, and they must protect women from the imposition of such requirements by third parties, including families and communities.

“Women must not be compelled to wear a headscarf or veil, either by the state or by individuals; and it is wrong for them to be prohibited by law from wearing it,” Claudio Cordone said.

“However, some clearly defined restrictions on the wearing of full face veils for the purposes of public safety will be legitimate. For example, it will be perfectly legitimate for women to be asked to lift their veils for identity checks.”

Amnesty International does not believe that a general ban on the wearing of full face veils in public is necessary or proportionate for any legitimate objective.

well you added that last bit on the previous post just as i was posting my reply and didnt see it when i posted but it is not in keeping with your previous comments on here about the French, Australians and Belgians.

States must therefore not impose generally applicable requirements that women dress or do not dress in a certain way, and they must protect women from the imposition of such requirements by third parties, including families and communities.

see the second half of that sentence? The problem in the REAL world is this is a major factor. States legislate, a far better tool is to educate and determine why every individual woman wants to wear the burqa. of course legislation is the easy way but a great deal of muslim feminists detest the burqa(but for the most part they are too busy trying to secure the right to vote which is admittedly more important to campaign on).

by the way i have never seen a nun wear a veil. I have seen them wear a uniform, a hat and cowling around the face but never over the face. I have no problem with muslim women wearing headscarfs either.

AGAIN you try to tell me(who is the fascist?) what my motivations and beliefs are behind what I say. I watched the videos and commented on them in the other thread. I even said denying her citizenship on the basis of the Burqa is wrong( assuming it isn't like the french say that she also harbours extremist views) but she might have to accept that soon she won't be able to wear the Burqa in France but she should be welcome at least into the country considering her children and husband.

yakspeare
11-05-2010, 13:41
From Wiki (Islamic Feminism)...

Dress codes
See also: Sartorial hijab, Islam and clothing, Awrah, and Purdah
Another issue that concerns Muslim women is the dress code expected of them. Islam requires both men and women to dress modestly; this concept is known as hijab and covers a wide interpretation of behavior and garments. In some countries such as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia women are expected to wear the all-covering burqa or abaya; in others such as Tunisia and Turkey they are forbidden to wear even the headscarf (often known as the veil) in public buildings. There is mixed opinion among Muslim feminists over extremes of externally imposed control.
A number of Islamic feminists, including Fadela Amara and Hedi Mhenni support bans on the hijab, for various reasons. Amara explained her support for France's ban of the garment in public buildings: "The veil is the visible symbol of the subjugation of women, and therefore has no place in the mixed, secular spaces of France's public school system."[41] When some feminists began defending the headscarf on the grounds of "tradition", Amara saw red. "It's not tradition, it's archaic! French feminists are totally contradictory. When Algerian women fought against wearing the headscarf in Algeria, French feminists supported them. But when it's some young girl in a French suburb school, they don't. They define liberty and equality according to what colour your skin is. It's nothing more than neocolonialism."[41] Mhenni also expressed support for Tunisia's ban on the veil: "If today we accept the headscarf, tomorrow we'll accept that women's rights to work and vote and receive an education be banned and they'll be seen as just a tool for reproduction and housework."[42]

SV1973a
11-05-2010, 13:56
+ You are mixing Fascism with Nazism and the Second World War that has nothing to do with this discussion absent maybe a possible parallel to the hate of the difference preached by certain fascist and Nazi ideologists.

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual .....

Fascism and nazism is `odin hren`, mate. Ever notice that the Russians called talk about the fight against Facism (and not against Nazism). Nazism is just a variant of facism, and both are detestable systems. Again, these systems are not present today, not in Flanders, not in Belgium and no where else in Europe.

>>>>>Please tell me who is suffering from the above in Flanders???
Muslims from discrimination based on religion ????

Muslims are not discriminated!!!

tvadim133
11-05-2010, 14:20
Muslims are not discriminated!!!

Frankly speaking, I am not much of the real situation with muslims in these countries (Belgium, France) if they are discriminated there.

It seems to me the question with Burkas are more dicsussed and raised by and among radical Islamists than usual muslims and some radical politicians.

I read some articles and bloggers in Russia mass media, the attitude of muslims both official and usual in Russia towards banning burkas in Belgium (and probably in France), and comments were quite realistic.

In short:

1. it is understandable from the point of view of security;
2. according to the religion there is no need to wear it and it is more traditional question (in some "radical" countries);
3. burka becomes more "a red rag for a bull" from both sides: local politicians and "Islamists" than a real problem.

I would agree, that if a person wants to express herself (himslef) in wearing burka, rock, Gotts' clothes, in a normal and tolerant community there should not be any problems with that at all.

On the other hand, if polticians establish rules that something is banned (for example, long hair), there will definitely appear people, who will do just "to defend their rights".

SV1973a
11-05-2010, 14:33
Frankly speaking, I am not much of the real situation with muslims in these countries (Belgium, France) if they are discriminated there.

It seems to me the question with Burkas are more dicsussed and raised by and among radical Islamists than usual muslims and some radical politicians.

I read some articles and bloggers in Russia mass media, the attitude of muslims both official and usual in Russia towards banning burkas in Belgium (and probably in France), and comments were quite realistic.

In short:

1. it is understandable from the point of view of security;
2. according to the religion there is no need to wear it and it is more traditional question (in some "radical" countries);
3. burka becomes more "a red rag for a bull" from both sides: local politicians and "Islamists" than a real problem.

I would agree, that if a person wants to express herself (himslef) in wearing burka, rock, Gotts' clothes, in a normal and tolerant community there should not be any problems with that at all.

On the other hand, if polticians establish rules that something is banned (for example, long hair), there will definitely appear people, who will do just "to defend their rights".

And when they do ban something, that does not make them necessarily fascists !!!

tvadim133
11-05-2010, 14:42
And when they do ban something, that does not make them necessarily fascists !!!

Do not know.

I am sure if they ask me if I am against burka, in case of "yes", I will be accusses to be a rasist (hope, not prosecuted).

I do not like Burka, how women look like in wearing it and even afraid of them. :) :) :)

ReallyGreatConcerts
11-05-2010, 14:49
Now look dude, I am Flemish, and your comments about my country being a fascist pariah state are an insult. Not only to me, but also to all people that have become victims of fascism.



Then you need to get your PR together, because the world's press are reporting what they see in Flanders - and it's far from pretty. Very far from pretty.

SV1973a
11-05-2010, 15:00
Then you need to get your PR together, because the world's press are reporting what they see in Flanders - and it's far from pretty. Very far from pretty.

Are they really ? I think they are reporting what they can read in the French language press...
Even the journalist in `the Guardian` conveniently leaves out the nuances.
So, what do you yourself think is so very far from pretty in my little peaceful country ?

ReallyGreatConcerts
11-05-2010, 15:29
So, what do you yourself think is so very far from pretty in my little peaceful country ?


I have no plans to go there, and every intention to stay away. Intolerance and xenophobia may be your style - but they're not mine.


Oh, and by the way, splitting up Belgium would leave the world with 2 or 3 new countries where burkas will be outlawed.


I'm sure you're very proud!

SV1973a
11-05-2010, 15:45
I have no plans to go there, and every intention to stay away. Intolerance and xenophobia may be your style - but they're not mine.

I notice you seem to be very quick in accusing people of being intolerant and xenophobic. Where in my writings do you find that I am such a person ?

tsarski
11-05-2010, 19:40
Just for interests sake, has anybody on this forum actually lived and worked in a Muslim majority country?

rusmeister
11-05-2010, 20:52
No one is talking about ones own views or philosophy. In case of Belgium we are talking about the basic human rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a18) to practice and MANIFEST your religion, that is being denied to the Muslim women because of an irrational fear of bourka that objectively does not represent a treat to anyones life nor health. From there on we can choose any exterior sign of any persons clothing or physical appearance and arbitrary use it to pressure that particular or a group of particulars gradually taking away their rights to self determination until we reach the Orwellian anti-utopia where everyone is: uniform, brainwashed and fully subjected to Big-brother, who uses the same techniques of subjection and control (irrational fear from everything that doesn't fit the definition of an obedient citizen) like the far right parties across the world.

The Democracy my friend, stops where the violation of basic human rights of particulars not representing a menace to anyones life and health due to arbitrary reasons begins otherwise it is called the rule of the mob and not a democracy.
What is next lynch parties when a critical mass of crazed housewives decides that the Muslim down street looks like Osama Bin Laden because they were 110% brainwashed by the CNN and alike even though that guy down the street has absolutely nothing in common with Ousama apart maybe his beard. Should we say that is still a democracy after all the majority ruled that he should die...
Think about that :)

Not sure if responding is a waste of time or not.

I'll go with optimism and assume that we all are capable of thinking here.

When you talk about "basic human rights", you are NECESSARILY talking about them within the framework of a philosophy, aka worldview - which happens to be what you believe to be true about the nature of man and his purpose in life.

So you have a specific philosophy that says that "human rights" - as YOU define them - supercede the right of a people to self-determination. Now I actually could agree with such an idea - but only if that idea were the truth about human nature - and talk about there being "different truths" were tossed out the window.

There are a few assumptions in your post that bear questioning - I wonder if you have actually examined these assumptions?

1) That all objections to the burka are based on irrational fear. If there are objections that are not (and there are) then these must be dealt with and cannot be dismissed with a "fear card".

2) That the worst threat to a person is to their life and health. Agreed that these may be considered serious dangers. Not agreed that they are the greatest dangers.

3) That those who object are brainwashed (by CNN or whatever media).

It's ALL about philosophy. That's what drives everything else - even science.

rusmeister
11-05-2010, 21:02
I notice you seem to be very quick in accusing people of being intolerant and xenophobic. Where in my writings do you find that I am such a person ?
Just a general comment:
People in general are practically programmed, via public schools and the media, to be quick in using rhetorical weapons like "intolerant" and "xenophobic", with false understandings behind the words. The words are thrown out there even though their meanings are fuzzy and the effect is something like bait-and-switch. The children's equivalent is false accusations of being "a 'fraidy cat'. That goes for "xenophobic", "homophobic" etc, as if using Greek somehow made the accusations more true.

If something should not be tolerated, then it is right to not tolerate it. But in a climate that treats "tolerance" as an unqualified virtue, that would cross the minds of few.

ReallyGreatConcerts
11-05-2010, 21:45
Just a general comment:
People in general are practically programmed, via public schools and the media, to be quick in using rhetorical weapons like "intolerant" and "xenophobic", with false understandings behind the words. The words are thrown out there even though their meanings are fuzzy and the effect is something like bait-and-switch. The children's equivalent is false accusations of being "a 'fraidy cat'. That goes for "xenophobic", "homophobic" etc, as if using Greek somehow made the accusations more true.

If something should not be tolerated, then it is right to not tolerate it. But in a climate that treats "tolerance" as an unqualified virtue, that would cross the minds of few.


We are still waiting to hear strong, valid arguments why the burka "must not be tolerated". So far we've only heard that it's "a problem". The kind of terminology which demands "a solution", or perhaps even "a final solution".

SV1973a
11-05-2010, 22:48
We are still waiting to hear strong, valid arguments why the burka "must not be tolerated". So far we've only heard that it's "a problem". The kind of terminology which demands "a solution", or perhaps even "a final solution".

And here come the fascists and nazis again...
Stop making such childish insinuations.

tsarski
11-05-2010, 22:56
We are still waiting to hear strong, valid arguments why the burka "must not be tolerated". So far we've only heard that it's "a problem". The kind of terminology which demands "a solution", or perhaps even "a final solution".

I know a very strong argument why they shouldn't be tolerated is look to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. They don't tolerate any women without burkas. In fact, they pretty much don't tolerate women going out by themselves! Does any country in Europe share values with this Kingdom? Why would you want more of these people in your country when they are not interested in intergrating into that society. Should the muslims in Europe become more westernised and reform Islam? Or should the west become more Islamized?

ReallyGreatConcerts
11-05-2010, 22:57
And here come the fascists and nazis again...
Stop making such childish insinuations.


This evening I went to see a dramatic reenactment of the Diary Of Anne Frank. It's anything but childish.

yakspeare
11-05-2010, 22:57
France’s Burka Dilemma
March 18, 2010 by TMO



Proposals to ban face veils provoked debate in France’s Muslim community
By Zubeida Malik

France could become the first country in Europe to ban the burka. A draft law submitted to the French parliament would make it illegal for a woman to cover her face in public spaces such as hospitals and trains. But the proposal has divided the country’s five million-strong Muslim community.
26 year-old Anisa wears a bright blue niqab, a piece of clothing that covers her completely except for her eyes and perfectly arched eyebrows.
You can’t miss her among the crowds: maybe it is because of the colour of the niqab or because there is no other woman around who is covered up to this extent.
She has been wearing it for a year-and-a-half. Anisa’s family, who are originally from Morocco, are against her wearing the niqab. But Anisa believes it is her religious duty.
According to official figures there are just 1900 women who wear the burka in France. Most of them are young and a quarter are converts.
But a report from the French intelligence services put this figure much lower at 367, out of an estimated population of five million Muslims, the largest in Europe.
When I met Anisa in the suburbs of Seine-Saint Denis, an area with the highest concentration of Muslims in France, she says that ever since she started wearing the niqab she has had unwelcome attention from the police, has been insulted in the street and is frequently stared at.
Women wearing the burka – a veil which covers the whole face – or the niqab in France are not as visible as those in Britain. But look hard enough in the suburbs and you can find them.
The mosque in the town of Drancy, on the outskirts of Paris, is currently the most controversial in France because the imam here has come out in support of the government’s decision to ban the burka.
Imam Hassan Chalghoumi is now facing death threats and has been given police protection. Ignoring the advice of his advisors he spoke to the Today programme.
He says the burka has nothing to do with religion but the wearing of it was down to tradition.
And the imam added that the burka debate was diverting attention from the real problems facing the Muslim community, including racism, integration and young people dropping out of school early. The imam, who is originally from Tunisia, has the support of the mayor of Drancy.
Tempers are running high at the mosque and there are some it is hard to tell how many want the imam to leave. And there is also a lot of anger and frustration with the media and the police.
Friday prayers when I was there were tense. There were policemen present, plain clothes officers filming and an ambulance on standby, in case anyone got hurt.
Multiculturalism in France is different to that in Britain and the United States. One of the core principles of the Fifth Republic is “laicite”, the separation of church and state.
Religion here is seen as a highly private matter, even more than in the US, where church and state are also constitutionally separated.
Pierre Rousselin from Le Figaro newspaper says that in France people still believe that ‘’foreigners can adapt to the French way of life’’
A commission has spent six months looking into the burka in a review which took evidence from more than 200 people. It recommended proposing a ban on women wearing either the burka or the niqab in hospitals, schools, government offices and on public transport.
It is not the first time that the Muslim community in France feels that its been put under the spotlight. In 2004 a law was passed banning the hijab – or headscarf – and all other religious symbols, from state schools. Although the ban affects all religions, the Muslim community here feels that it was aimed at them.
Wider debate
The current controversy comes in the wake of months of debate and President Sarkozy’s speech last year where he said the veils were not welcome in France, but which stopped short of calling for an outright ban.
A draft law has been submitted to parliament but any further action has been put on the back-burner until after the regional elections in France this month.
Sihem Habchi, who describes herself as a Muslim feminist, is director of Ni Putes Ni Soumise – “Neither Whores Nor Submissives”, an influential feminist organisation. She says it is not a question of how many women wear the burka, but one of ‘’democratic principle’’. And she too wants the burka banned.
Ms Habchi says that a ban would ‘’liberate’’ the Muslim community from those who want to hold it back and ‘’use our religion’’.
Adding that her Algerian background allows her to understand this issue and the wider one of women’s rights as a whole, Ms Habchi says ‘’laicite’’ actually protects religion because it means all religions have an equal footing.
Catherine De Wenden, an expert in the history of immigration in France, believes the timing of the current debate is political and is tied in with the regional elections in France.
Although she is personally against banning the burka, she says there it is part of a wider debate in France about national identity, adding that there are many forms of multiculturalism and that France regards religion as a private matter.
Ms De Wenden is concerned that if the ban happens then France will not be seen as a country which practises toleration, a core value of the French Revolution.
But any legislation could have the reverse effect. The young women I spoke to in Drancy said that if the ban became law then they would start to wear the burka for the first time.

SV1973a
11-05-2010, 23:14
This evening I went to see a dramatic reenactment of the Diary Of Anne Frank. It's anything but childish.

Well, good for you.
I trust that now you`ll think twice before you start calling people fascists.

rusmeister
12-05-2010, 05:00
We are still waiting to hear strong, valid arguments why the burka "must not be tolerated". So far we've only heard that it's "a problem". The kind of terminology which demands "a solution", or perhaps even "a final solution".
Hi, RGC,
The problem is that we don't agree on the ideal. No argument of mine will convince you, because your worldview is different from mine. We may all agree that there is a problem, but we won't agree on the solution because we are pulling in different directions.

Now there ARE arguments opposing the Burka - and the spread of Islam in general, and they even disagree with each other.

The pluralist multicultural view says that truth doesn't matter - it is relative, and therefore that everybody ought to be able to live together and accept each others' differences - but with the prime (unstated and usually unthought-out) assumption that whatever they believe cannot represent actual truth that also affects me.

The Christian view - primarily the most ancient forms of Christianity which actually had historical dealings with Islam (Catholic and Orthodox), but pretty much including those that attempt to preserve what Christians have always believed (with varying degrees of success) see Islam as a denial of the absolute truth as the Christian sees it, and something that works directly against what they see to be true. The faiths are incompatible, just as they are both incompatible with pluralism, because they can only be made "compatible" by effectively saying that one can believe what one wants, but that what they believe doesn't matter, that what you believe cannot represent real truth that also affects others. That is the base doctrine of pluralism.

The trouble with the pluralist is that he, generally speaking, does not really understand a POV that insists that there IS ultimate truth, and that it IS possible to learn/discover it. And so the problem from the pluralist perspective
is in encountering Islam's (or traditional Christianity's) insistence on absolute truth and the need for people to conform to that truth as a threat to the ideal of pluralism. So the pluralist is in a quandary, which for him can only be resolved by getting said religions to abandon their central idea that their faith is actually true and affects everyone universally. (This has been successfully done with many forms of so-called "liberal Christianity" and "moderate Islam".)

But since we don't agree on what the truth is, we are bound to only argue without ever arriving at a common conclusion. It's useless offering solutions when your solution is my poison, and vice-versa.

ReallyGreatConcerts
12-05-2010, 05:46
Hi, RGC,
The problem is that we don't agree on the ideal. No argument of mine will convince you, because your worldview is different from mine. We may all agree that there is a problem, but we won't agree on the solution because we are pulling in different directions.

Now there ARE arguments opposing the Burka - and the spread of Islam in general, and they even disagree with each other.

The pluralist multicultural view says that truth doesn't matter - it is relative, and therefore that everybody ought to be able to live together and accept each others' differences - but with the prime (unstated and usually unthought-out) assumption that whatever they believe cannot represent actual truth that also affects me.

The Christian view - primarily the most ancient forms of Christianity which actually had historical dealings with Islam (Catholic and Orthodox), but pretty much including those that attempt to preserve what Christians have always believed (with varying degrees of success) see Islam as a denial of the absolute truth as the Christian sees it, and something that works directly against what they see to be true. The faiths are incompatible, just as they are both incompatible with pluralism, because they can only be made "compatible" by effectively saying that one can believe what one wants, but that what they believe doesn't matter, that what you believe cannot represent real truth that also affects others. That is the base doctrine of pluralism.

The trouble with the pluralist is that he, generally speaking, does not really understand a POV that insists that there IS ultimate truth, and that it IS possible to learn/discover it. And so the problem from the pluralist perspective
is in encountering Islam's (or traditional Christianity's) insistence on absolute truth and the need for people to conform to that truth as a threat to the ideal of pluralism. So the pluralist is in a quandary, which for him can only be resolved by getting said religions to abandon their central idea that their faith is actually true and affects everyone universally. (This has been successfully done with many forms of so-called "liberal Christianity" and "moderate Islam".)

But since we don't agree on what the truth is, we are bound to only argue without ever arriving at a common conclusion. It's useless offering solutions when your solution is my poison, and vice-versa.

And there is not a single word in any of the above about why you want to ban the burka ;)

tsarski
12-05-2010, 08:07
And there is not a single word in any of the above about why you want to ban the burka ;)

RGC, you read but without understanding.

yakspeare
12-05-2010, 09:00
What Rusmeister is saying, is that the Christianity and Islam if truly practiced by their believers as they are supposed to(fundamental belief as compared to the misused "fundamentalism") are completely hostile and intolerant of each other and can't really exist together. I mean ,for example, the punishment for apotasy(rejecting the faith and maybe joining a new religion)in islam is death. this IS the belief. A christian's "job" is to convert as many people to his thinking as possible, likewise the job of a muslim. this creates quite a serious problem.

Only the religions that reject absolute truth allow others to share different views such as Hindus, Buddhist and new age religions(many paths and ways to God).

There are two ways for muslims and christian to co-exist together. One is for them to be mostly nominal in their beliefs, ie to reject a lot of what they both believe. Neither religion likes this and this is why muslims are fobidden to live in western countries(kaffir) for extended periods.(but of course they do).

The other way for them to live together is under a secular state as both a Christian or Muslim one(if following their religion correctly) won't really tolerate the practices of the other. So a secular state(with true separation like France) or partial separation(Uk and the USA) and external laws keep the two living side by side. Thus when a secular state makes rules "curbing" your religious freedom it is merely trying to keep law and order on what,without them, would be a powderkeg.

My personal belief(and why I am not the least bit racist) is that the Jew, the Christian and the Muslim all pray to the same God. Christianity is the fulfillment of the first and is a Jewish religion. Islam is an offshoot of the Jewish religion via Ishmael. Arabs(not muslims as a whole) and Jews are children of Abraham. Christians are children of Abraham BY FAITH. I see Muslims as sincere believers who follow a false prophet much the same way as I see Jehovah Witness or Mormon following a false prophet...i don't really see it as a different "religion" but essentially a sect who is misguided. They are the prodigal son and we await their return to the fold. Non Arab muslims have about the same chance of salvation as the Jehovah's witness and Mormons do. It is up to God's grace...i prefer a sure thing myself. Arab muslims may not fair much better but the odds might be slightly higher.

In Summary ISLAM teaches a muslim cannot live in a secular state for an extended period and that a non muslim state is the enemy of its religion. The only way for a muslim to live in a secular state is to abandon some of their beliefs and practices. The secular state decides which practices it will allow(taking into account all the other religions there). The muslim either concedes and integrates where he/she is welcomed into the community or they don't and are viewed as hostile and with some "agenda" for change.

Christianity though teaches us to obey all rulers and for civil obedience in secular society but if it moves try and convert it!

ReallyGreatConcerts
12-05-2010, 14:38
Well, good for you.
I trust that now you`ll think twice before you start calling people fascists.


On the contrary, it was the failure of Europe to recognise and contain fascist aggression early enough, that permitted the Nazis to achieve their evil aims for nearly a decade in power.

Vlaams Blok are Nazis. Just the same way that Goebbels was a Nazi, and with the same aims.

ReallyGreatConcerts
12-05-2010, 14:40
RGC, you read but without understanding.

No, I read looking for the word "burka" in this gutless fascist screed. And y'know what? I don't find the word "burka" at all!!!

SV1973a
12-05-2010, 14:44
No, I read looking for the word "burka" in this gutless fascist screed. And y'know what? I don't find the word "burka" at all!!!

Read the Belgian Law Proposal that bans the `burka`.
You won`t find the word `burka` there neither !

About your obsession with fascism, `Da sam takoy`

objective
12-05-2010, 21:01
No one is talking about ones own views or philosophy. In case of Belgium we are talking about the basic human rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a18) to practice and MANIFEST your religion, that is being denied to the Muslim women because of an irrational fear of bourka that objectively does not represent a treat to anyones life nor health. From there on we can choose any exterior sign of any persons clothing or physical appearance and arbitrary use it to pressure that particular or a group of particulars gradually taking away their rights to self determination until we reach the Orwellian anti-utopia where everyone is: uniform, brainwashed and fully subjected to Big-brother, who uses the same techniques of subjection and control (irrational fear from everything that doesn't fit the definition of an obedient citizen) like the far right parties across the world.

The Democracy my friend, stops where the violation of basic human rights of particulars not representing a menace to anyones life and health due to arbitrary reasons begins otherwise it is called the rule of the mob and not a democracy.
What is next lynch parties when a critical mass of crazed housewives decides that the Muslim down street looks like Osama Bin Laden because they were 110% brainwashed by the CNN and alike even though that guy down the street has absolutely nothing in common with Ousama apart maybe his beard. Should we say that is still a democracy after all the majority ruled that he should die...
Think about that :)

Actually, I am given to understand that the 'bourka' really has nothing to do with 'Islam', that it is, rather, a carry-over from some other system (Zoroastrian, I think) that was absorbed by early Islam.:bowdown:

rusmeister
12-05-2010, 21:34
And there is not a single word in any of the above about why you want to ban the burka ;)

As Tsarski said, you evidently didn't understand what I said. If you had, you would have understood that my "whys" wouldn't matter to you because you don't share my worldview, and therefore, my ideals.


What Rusmeister is saying, is that the Christianity and Islam if truly practiced by their believers as they are supposed to(fundamental belief as compared to the misused "fundamentalism") are completely hostile and intolerant of each other and can't really exist together. I mean ,for example, the punishment for apotasy(rejecting the faith and maybe joining a new religion)in islam is death. this IS the belief. A christian's "job" is to convert as many people to his thinking as possible, likewise the job of a muslim. this creates quite a serious problem.

Only the religions that reject absolute truth allow others to share different views such as Hindus, Buddhist and new age religions(many paths and ways to God).

There are two ways for muslims and christian to co-exist together. One is for them to be mostly nominal in their beliefs, ie to reject a lot of what they both believe. Neither religion likes this and this is why muslims are fobidden to live in western countries(kaffir) for extended periods.(but of course they do).

The other way for them to live together is under a secular state as both a Christian or Muslim one(if following their religion correctly) won't really tolerate the practices of the other. So a secular state(with true separation like France) or partial separation(Uk and the USA) and external laws keep the two living side by side. Thus when a secular state makes rules "curbing" your religious freedom it is merely trying to keep law and order on what,without them, would be a powderkeg.

My personal belief(and why I am not the least bit racist) is that the Jew, the Christian and the Muslim all pray to the same God. Christianity is the fulfillment of the first and is a Jewish religion. Islam is an offshoot of the Jewish religion via Ishmael. Arabs(not muslims as a whole) and Jews are children of Abraham. Christians are children of Abraham BY FAITH. I see Muslims as sincere believers who follow a false prophet much the same way as I see Jehovah Witness or Mormon following a false prophet...i don't really see it as a different "religion" but essentially a sect who is misguided. They are the prodigal son and we await their return to the fold. Non Arab muslims have about the same chance of salvation as the Jehovah's witness and Mormons do. It is up to God's grace...i prefer a sure thing myself. Arab muslims may not fair much better but the odds might be slightly higher.

In Summary ISLAM teaches a muslim cannot live in a secular state for an extended period and that a non muslim state is the enemy of its religion. The only way for a muslim to live in a secular state is to abandon some of their beliefs and practices. The secular state decides which practices it will allow(taking into account all the other religions there). The muslim either concedes and integrates where he/she is welcomed into the community or they don't and are viewed as hostile and with some "agenda" for change.

Christianity though teaches us to obey all rulers and for civil obedience in secular society but if it moves try and convert it!

I agree with a lot of what you said. Differences:
1)Your two ways of co-existence are really one. Living under a secular state DOES call for treating their beliefs as unimportant, and in effect, to abandon all those that are inconvenient to the state.
2) We cannot say it is the same God if they describe God's nature in radically different ways. The differences between a purely monistic God and a Trinitarian God produce radically different religions, and therefore cultures. Since Christians say that Jesus IS God, and Muslims say He isn't, we don't pray to the same God. I pray to Jesus. They think He was just a prophet and don't pray to Him at all. Ergo, we don't pray to the same God. They pray to what they imagine God to be - as we do - with the difference that they are wrong. But you can't call it the same God.

yakspeare
12-05-2010, 22:10
Well i believe that it is in the heart and a pious muslim who has never encountered christianity at all(it is still possible) and does everything of the old testament, for example, that he believes he is true MAY have some case for God's grace(only the Lord knows and i don't presume).

I don't agree with a difference between a trinitarian and an unitarian really. Simply, God has revealed MORE of himself to the Christian and thus shows more of his true nature. The Jew and the Muslim aren't blessed with this so they describe God in the only fashion they know(actually they both try to avoid that at all costs). It is 100% the same God- we just know him better. Doesn't make Jewish and Muslim practices equally correct-man has added his own things to what is true.

Jesus himself worshipped the Father and the Jewish God and said this is how to pray " Our father who art in Heaven..."....whether you pray to the father, son or holy ghost it still ends up in the same postcode.

Some contend that the "Angel of the Lord" etc of old testament was manifestation of the son(i have no opinion) and it also seems clear that of Jesus:

"by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him" (Col 1:16). Thus creation itself and the foundation of the old testament(which both Jews and muslims believe in) and the promise to Abraham comes from Jesus originally and for all those centuries of Jewish Prophets etc Jesus was involved in some capacity so unless you tear up the old testament-the Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the same God as much to their understanding of who that is.

yakspeare
12-05-2010, 22:19
Those not inclined to religion feel free to ignore my post.


I agree with a lot of what you said. Differences:
1)Your two ways of co-existence are really one. Living under a secular state DOES call for treating their beliefs as unimportant, and in effect, to abandon all those that are inconvenient to the state.

This isn't correct as exemplied by Christ teachings “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

Romans 13: 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

ReallyGreatConcerts
12-05-2010, 22:30
As Tsarski said, you evidently didn't understand what I said. If you had, you would have understood that my "whys" wouldn't matter to you because you don't share my worldview, and therefore, my ideals..


No, I asked you to give a convincing rationale (or even any kind of rationale)for the banning of the burka.

Not only did you entirely fail, you didn't even mention the burka once in the strange screed of "pluralist"/"multilateralist" mumbo-jumbo off-topic twaddle that you did, in fact, write.

Epic fail.

tsarski
12-05-2010, 22:34
Well i believe that it is in the heart and a pious muslim who has never encountered christianity at all(it is still possible) and does everything of the old testament, for example, that he believes he is true MAY have some case for God's grace(only the Lord knows and i don't presume).

I don't agree with a difference between a trinitarian and an unitarian really. Simply, God has revealed MORE of himself to the Christian and thus shows more of his true nature. The Jew and the Muslim aren't blessed with this so they describe God in the only fashion they know(actually they both try to avoid that at all costs). It is 100% the same God- we just know him better. Doesn't make Jewish and Muslim practices equally correct-man has added his own things to what is true.

Jesus himself worshipped the Father and the Jewish God and said this is how to pray " Our father who art in Heaven..."....whether you pray to the father, son or holy ghost it still ends up in the same postcode.

Some contend that the "Angel of the Lord" etc of old testament was manifestation of the son(i have no opinion) and it also seems clear that of Jesus:

"by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him" (Col 1:16). Thus creation itself and the foundation of the old testament(which both Jews and muslims believe in) and the promise to Abraham comes from Jesus originally and for all those centuries of Jewish Prophets etc Jesus was involved in some capacity so unless you tear up the old testament-the Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the same God as much to their understanding of who that is.

Your first part is correct in that we cannot presume how God will judge the world when he comes.
However I would have to disagree with you on the point that we worship the same God as the Muslims. There is many points to discuss on this on the major differences between the 2 main people of each faith. Christ only preached for 3 years and Mohammed spent the majority of his life fighting to establish his religion. Christ performed miracles and yet there is none atributated to Mohammed. The major one for me is that Mohammed permits his followers to deny him and lie to other people. He permits this in 3 accounts, a muslim may lie to a fellow muslim to settle an argument, a muslim may lie to his wife to keep her happy and a muslim can lie to his enemy to decieve him. Christ told us that if we denied him then he would deny us before his Father. The lives of the Saints are attestament to this, as they didn't deny Christ is Lord before their accusers.

yakspeare
12-05-2010, 23:00
there is a massive difference between who you pray to and the beliefs of that religion as taught in doctrine. I have said i believe Muslims follow a false prophet who loads them up with a whole bunch of unnecessary stuff and tries to turn them from truth. But the muslims do believe in the old testament and that God. That is who they are aiming their prayers towards in name.

Allah, Elohim, Jehovah, YHWH, L_rd, Hashem are not a pantheon of Gods>they are all the same God. Before Muhammed came around, a great deal of the Arab world had similar view of God as the Jews. They are all the children of Abraham and they all know who their father is and who he worshipped. I don't know if the most pious of muslims can escape Hellfire(we are judged on what we know of the truth) but i am certain Muhammed himself will be at the big barbeque down there. That is my personal conviction and in no way reflects on those who follow him mistakenly.

tvadim133
12-05-2010, 23:10
Yakspeare: may it is a strange question from my side, but does "your head office" in Moscow situate not far from Sokol Metro (Vrubely str.)?

:)

yakspeare
12-05-2010, 23:27
you mean this?

http://www.streetrealty.ru/catalog/metro/sokol/

That is the same company I worked for in Australia, my heart and home(the company not Australia!) and if i could get my russian up a notch I would jump back to what I know best.

that's my old company here:

http://www.realestateportdouglas.com.au/Mowbray

that's a dead listing of mine(deleted) but that's me.

tvadim133
12-05-2010, 23:30
Oh, I have forgotten, you told about the business you had worked in.

I did not mean that with my question!

yakspeare
12-05-2010, 23:33
then i am clueless...i used google to see what came up on that street and apart from a place to rent for $1500 a month was century 21 lol

tvadim133
12-05-2010, 23:39
Some of your posts made me feel and think, you are a member of one organization (not commercial), which has it's representative office there.


:)

I am mistaken as I see.

yakspeare
12-05-2010, 23:51
there's a polyclinic, several libraries, justice of the peace, two security companies, tax inspectorate, a maternity hospital and the office of social protection...which one did you have me pegged for?

yakspeare
12-05-2010, 23:59
LDS? MORMON! HAHA

I did mention once I was excommunicated from the Mormon church which i joined for six months(because of the girls) I think when I was about 17(17-19 is a bit of a blur for me). I am proudly EXcommunicated which means those guys if they even talk to me(according to their religion) they go to Hell. lol.

I am on the do not disturb list, which others are probably jealous of.

By the way the Mormons believe in many ways to God(and infact God was once a man and we can become Gods too with our own little planets). They really aren't in the christian camp and are a cult that brainwashes its members.

tvadim133
13-05-2010, 00:07
Oh, yes! You work with Google very efficient.

I worked with this organization some years ago (just business) and form me it was very difficult not to laugh at the negotitaion.

All the topics for discussion were always switched to talking about religion.

ReallyGreatConcerts
13-05-2010, 00:17
All the topics for discussion were always switched to talking about religion.


Unlike here :Loco:

yakspeare
13-05-2010, 00:18
My views are complete opposite of theirs. When a discussion is about politics i stick to politics(and love talking about it btw as well as economics-even though i dream of sex lol). When discussing issues with islam then that falls into the religious sphere so the nature of religion(so often misunderstood by people who usually don't care) gets brought into debate.

rusmeister
13-05-2010, 05:53
No, I asked you to give a convincing rationale (or even any kind of rationale)for the banning of the burka.

Not only did you entirely fail, you didn't even mention the burka once in the strange screed of "pluralist"/"multilateralist" mumbo-jumbo off-topic twaddle that you did, in fact, write.

Epic fail.

As I said, there is no rationale that I could give you that could possibly convince you, as we have different ideas about what is right. We may both agree that prostitution is wrong, but we do not agree that purity and chastity are good.
Anything I wrote you would (evidently) write off as "mumbo-jumbo" and "twaddle". If you honestly wanted to understand any explanation, you would begin by asking what I mean instead of insulting what I do say to you. If you go with insults, you are already hostile to anything I would say (unless I happened to agree with you) before I have said anything.
The person who really wants to win a debate (in the sense of intellectually prove one's truth and rightness) carefully studies his opponent's arguments for weaknesses - as well as acknowledging strengths - and makes sure he understands everything. It doesn't look like you have attempted that. I have just explained why offering rationales is useless.

rusmeister
13-05-2010, 06:28
Granted that we all have opinions. The question is, which ones can we provide objective and convincing argument?


Well i believe that it is in the heart and a pious muslim who has never encountered christianity at all(it is still possible) and does everything of the old testament, for example, that he believes he is true MAY have some case for God's grace(only the Lord knows and i don't presume).

I don't agree with a difference between a trinitarian and an unitarian really. Simply, God has revealed MORE of himself to the Christian and thus shows more of his true nature. The Jew and the Muslim aren't blessed with this so they describe God in the only fashion they know(actually they both try to avoid that at all costs). It is 100% the same God- we just know him better. Doesn't make Jewish and Muslim practices equally correct-man has added his own things to what is true.

Jesus himself worshipped the Father and the Jewish God and said this is how to pray " Our father who art in Heaven..."....whether you pray to the father, son or holy ghost it still ends up in the same postcode.

Some contend that the "Angel of the Lord" etc of old testament was manifestation of the son(i have no opinion) and it also seems clear that of Jesus:

"by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him" (Col 1:16). Thus creation itself and the foundation of the old testament(which both Jews and muslims believe in) and the promise to Abraham comes from Jesus originally and for all those centuries of Jewish Prophets etc Jesus was involved in some capacity so unless you tear up the old testament-the Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the same God as much to their understanding of who that is.

On pious believers, I actually agree. The Apostle Paul wrote in Romans of "the law written on their hearts".

On not agreeing on the differences... What exactly do you mean by "the same God"? Obviously something radically different from what I mean. If you mean "any address to a heavenly being that one sees as supreme", then people of all faiths worship the same god. If you mean (as I think likely) that because both Christianity and Islam historically developed from the original understanding of the Judaic God, that it is the same God, then I agree. They do have common historical development. But what I mean is that the God would have to have the same characteristics and nature, which clearly He doesn't.
So the expression "the same God" is then misleading and more precise language is called for.
The logical conclusion of what you are saying is that it ultimately doesn't matter which faith you follow - which indicates inconsistency, as I don't think you really mean that. Saying that "it all ends up at the same post code" is inconsistent with Christ saying "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man cometh to the Father, but by Me."


for all those centuries of Jewish Prophets etc Jesus was involved in some capacity Muslims and Jews specifically deny this!!!

Your manner of reconciling the religions is elaborate, but self-contradictory.



Those not inclined to religion feel free to ignore my post.


I agree with a lot of what you said. Differences:
1)Your two ways of co-existence are really one. Living under a secular state DOES call for treating their beliefs as unimportant, and in effect, to abandon all those that are inconvenient to the state.

This isn't correct as exemplied by Christ teachings “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”
I apologize. I was unclear. I should have said that the modern secular state is pluralist all across the western world, and pluralism specifically demands that one's views be personal, not corporate, and that as "personal views"rather than expressions of objective truth, they not be allowed to influence public policy. Christ's saying, as well as the Apostle's - aimed at Christians living under any form of state - do not change that. Furthermore, their statements give the Christian guidance on how to live under any form of state - but do not tell them to treat their teachings as personal opinions, and the pluralist state does.




Allah, Elohim, Jehovah, YHWH, L_rd, Hashem are not a pantheon of Gods>they are all the same God. Before Muhammed came around, a great deal of the Arab world had similar view of God as the Jews. They are all the children of Abraham and they all know who their father is and who he worshipped. I don't know if the most pious of muslims can escape Hellfire(we are judged on what we know of the truth) but i am certain Muhammed himself will be at the big barbeque down there. That is my personal conviction and in no way reflects on those who follow him mistakenly.

I bolded the confusing statement in your comment. If you are speaking of Muslims or Jews, it is precisely that their god does/did not worship anybody.
(I won't comment on the images of hell except to say that in Orthodoxy the understanding is a little more sophisticated than the traditional Protestant views.) In any event, we have the problem of authority in understanding Scripture in any discussion between us. Since we disagree on the nature of the authority that determines what Scripture means, quoting of it is very likely to be meaningless - we could not, in a great many cases, achieve a common meaning.
Again, we can't say "the same God" because we don't mean the same thing by the terminology. We must first have a common language and common understandings before we can even begin to disagree.

yakspeare
13-05-2010, 06:59
Allah, Elohim, Jehovah, YHWH, L_rd, Hashem are not a pantheon of Gods>they are all the same God. Before Muhammed came around, a great deal of the Arab world had similar view of God as the Jews. They are all the children of Abraham and they all know who their father is and who he worshipped. I don't know if the most pious of muslims can escape Hellfire(we are judged on what we know of the truth) but i am certain Muhammed himself will be at the big barbeque down there. That is my personal conviction and in no way reflects on those who follow him mistakenly.
I bolded the confusing statement in your comment. If you are speaking of Muslims or Jews, it is precisely that their god does/did not worship anybody.

forgive me,

I am referring to Abraham as their Father and who he worshipped. They are the children of Abraham. I wasn't talking about ":God the Father".

yakspeare
13-05-2010, 07:33
On pious believers, I actually agree. The Apostle Paul wrote in Romans of "the law written on their hearts".

On not agreeing on the differences... What exactly do you mean by "the same God"? Obviously something radically different from what I mean. If you mean "any address to a heavenly being that one sees as supreme", then people of all faiths worship the same god. If you mean (as I think likely) that because both Christianity and Islam historically developed from the original understanding of the Judaic God, that it is the same God, then I agree. They do have common historical development. But what I mean is that the God would have to have the same characteristics and nature, which clearly He doesn't.
So the expression "the same God" is then misleading and more precise language is called for.
The logical conclusion of what you are saying is that it ultimately doesn't matter which faith you follow - which indicates inconsistency, as I don't think you really mean that. Saying that "it all ends up at the same post code" is inconsistent with Christ saying "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man cometh to the Father, but by Me."

for all those centuries of Jewish Prophets etc Jesus was involved in some capacity
Muslims and Jews specifically deny this!!!

Your manner of reconciling the religions is elaborate, but self-contradictory.

same postcode= Heaven. If a muslim or indeed a non believer cried out to God for help in a time of need is is entirely possible that he would be heard. A muslim is praying to the maker of the universe, creator of Adam and Eve, the giver of the covenant to Abram etc. It isn't to vishnu, ahura mazda, Buddha, his ancestors or anything else.

What is in the heart is the most important thing to God. However he does say a free pass to Heaven is subject to acceptance of his son. Those who don't get to know the son(because us lot are all too darn lazy) are judged on what they know. My personal opinion is that monotheism is actually the natural state of man and not polytheism. That when a child(or one with the heart of a child) looks upon the skies at night, he sees and knows there is a God who did this. He also instinctively pretty much knows the ten commandments. I am sure plenty on here would disagree but that is ok. As i said earlier, i view a muslim really as no different to a Jehovah's witness or Mormon...all desire to follow the one God but have been led astray by false prophets. Their salvation is entirely upon God's grace as they don't follow the rules, thus the sure thing(and it is important enough to want a sure thing) is to be Christian. Anything else is incredibly risky. If you pray to shiva, vishnu or anyone else then your chances are 0%.

Just because Jews and Muslims reject Jesus, doesn't change the fact of what he has done. Spiritual blindness and lack of education on the matter are the problem here. Equally just because someone is a Jew or Muslim doesn't mean they are actively seeking the truth of this with God. They follow their works and rules in hope it will save them.

Jesus didn't suddenly invent the "i am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh to the Father except by me". Which means the same was true of the Old Testament. A Jew 3000 years ago following the covenant didn't pray to the name of Jesus but irrespective of that Jesus was and is the high priest and interceder in prayer. Nothing gets around him. Thus in the Jewish daily life , Jesus was there. Thus this can equally apply today-they just lack the revelation that we have about the nature of God, who was hidden much in mystery before but now chooses to reveal himself. It is not something to be taken lightly and with humility we should show our brothers the truth and set them free. A muslim living within the ten commandments, not worshipping idols or foreign Gods is quite a fair way down the road(as compared to a Hindu or Buddhist etc) and as i have said, I liken much to our prodigal son who needs to understand things clearly to welcome him back to the fold ie accept the son is who he said he was and reject mohammedism.

just because we disagree on the bible itself in terms of solo scriptus doesn't mean we cant discuss aspects and parts of it and share each other's opinions. I always welcome a different point of view and I feel privelaged to be in a position to hear an Orthodox person share their faith.

Voodoo
13-05-2010, 10:39
At least for Islam I wasn't aware that it 'rejected Jesus'. Islam might reject the fact that he is the direct Son of God, but they revere him as the greatest prophet (even greater than Mohamed) and as the eventual saviour of mankind on the day of judgement and the battle with Satan.

yakspeare
13-05-2010, 11:00
At least for Islam I wasn't aware that it 'rejected Jesus'. Islam might reject the fact that he is the direct Son of God, but they revere him as the greatest prophet (even greater than Mohamed) and as the eventual saviour of mankind on the day of judgement and the battle with Satan.

probably a better way is to say they reject Jesus' claim to be the Son of God/God etc.

The fact muslims acknowledge Jesus as a prophet but not the son of God, is not a lot different than thinking he is the Angel Michael(Jehovah's witness), or originally lucifer's brother and from the planet kolob(Mormons) or a whole bunch of other sects. Thus the fate of the muslim is no different to them. Misguided, in my opinion, certainly. Entirely different to us and following a different God, then no. Them getting into Heaven? I have no idea. Me getting to Heaven? I hope so!

FlakeySnowballer
13-05-2010, 12:49
All normal people must not wear burkas. Burkas wear only freaks.
I hope that in Europe all countries will prohibit wearing burkas soon.

If muslims women want to wear burkas they are welcome to qatar or bahrein.

Europe, Scandinavia and America do not need these sh1t:devil:

yakspeare
13-05-2010, 13:14
I don't agree with your stance flakey....people in Burqas are not "freaks" and a great deal do not have the choice to wear them or not.

rusmeister
13-05-2010, 13:22
On pious believers, I actually agree. The Apostle Paul wrote in Romans of "the law written on their hearts".

On not agreeing on the differences... What exactly do you mean by "the same God"? Obviously something radically different from what I mean. If you mean "any address to a heavenly being that one sees as supreme", then people of all faiths worship the same god. If you mean (as I think likely) that because both Christianity and Islam historically developed from the original understanding of the Judaic God, that it is the same God, then I agree. They do have common historical development. But what I mean is that the God would have to have the same characteristics and nature, which clearly He doesn't.
So the expression "the same God" is then misleading and more precise language is called for.
The logical conclusion of what you are saying is that it ultimately doesn't matter which faith you follow - which indicates inconsistency, as I don't think you really mean that. Saying that "it all ends up at the same post code" is inconsistent with Christ saying "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man cometh to the Father, but by Me."

for all those centuries of Jewish Prophets etc Jesus was involved in some capacity
Muslims and Jews specifically deny this!!!

Your manner of reconciling the religions is elaborate, but self-contradictory.

same postcode= Heaven. If a muslim or indeed a non believer cried out to God for help in a time of need is is entirely possible that he would be heard. A muslim is praying to the maker of the universe, creator of Adam and Eve, the giver of the covenant to Abram etc. It isn't to vishnu, ahura mazda, Buddha, his ancestors or anything else.

What is in the heart is the most important thing to God. However he does say a free pass to Heaven is subject to acceptance of his son. Those who don't get to know the son(because us lot are all too darn lazy) are judged on what they know. My personal opinion is that monotheism is actually the natural state of man and not polytheism. That when a child(or one with the heart of a child) looks upon the skies at night, he sees and knows there is a God who did this. He also instinctively pretty much knows the ten commandments. I am sure plenty on here would disagree but that is ok. As i said earlier, i view a muslim really as no different to a Jehovah's witness or Mormon...all desire to follow the one God but have been led astray by false prophets. Their salvation is entirely upon God's grace as they don't follow the rules, thus the sure thing(and it is important enough to want a sure thing) is to be Christian. Anything else is incredibly risky. If you pray to shiva, vishnu or anyone else then your chances are 0%.

Just because Jews and Muslims reject Jesus, doesn't change the fact of what he has done. Spiritual blindness and lack of education on the matter are the problem here. Equally just because someone is a Jew or Muslim doesn't mean they are actively seeking the truth of this with God. They follow their works and rules in hope it will save them.

Jesus didn't suddenly invent the "i am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh to the Father except by me". Which means the same was true of the Old Testament. A Jew 3000 years ago following the covenant didn't pray to the name of Jesus but irrespective of that Jesus was and is the high priest and interceder in prayer. Nothing gets around him. Thus in the Jewish daily life , Jesus was there. Thus this can equally apply today-they just lack the revelation that we have about the nature of God, who was hidden much in mystery before but now chooses to reveal himself. It is not something to be taken lightly and with humility we should show our brothers the truth and set them free. A muslim living within the ten commandments, not worshipping idols or foreign Gods is quite a fair way down the road(as compared to a Hindu or Buddhist etc) and as i have said, I liken much to our prodigal son who needs to understand things clearly to welcome him back to the fold ie accept the son is who he said he was and reject mohammedism.

just because we disagree on the bible itself in terms of solo scriptus doesn't mean we cant discuss aspects and parts of it and share each other's opinions. I always welcome a different point of view and I feel privelaged to be in a position to hear an Orthodox person share their faith.

Thanks!
It looks like we mean different things by the words "the same God". You mean definition (2), above, while I mean definition (3). Only I don't think definition (2) matters very much for purposes of our discussion (although I do think the history very important, and far less known than imagined), and it certainly is not how most people understand the expression today. They don't think in terms of history, but only of what they see today, and from that standpoint, they are certainly very different Gods. It is dangerous, then, to say they are the same because of the great probability that you will be misunderstood. For surely we agree at least that the conceptions ceased to mean the same thing when (first) Christianity developed, and later when Islam appeared.

A lot of what you say is quite compatible with Orthodoxy, and certainly with how I understand salvation, and seems rather far from the views of the northern Baptists I grew up with. What denomination do you consider yourself a part of?

FlakeySnowballer
13-05-2010, 13:31
I don't agree with your stance flakey....people in Burqas are not "freaks" and a great deal do not have the choice to wear them or not.

Yakspear it is know that people from the muslims far east countries (quatar, bahrein and so on) used to use drugs from the youth, they don't drink although but...so they can't be normal people.
Regarding the choice - Europe is a civilian part of the world and it is supposed not to wear religion clothes.
If the woman form the Europe visit Qatar for example and if she wears short skirt during the walking in the street city then police will arrested her immediately. So where is the choice?
If they want to have a choice here in Europe then they must give it in the muslims countries

yakspeare
13-05-2010, 13:43
Yakspear it is know that people from the muslims far east countries (quatar, bahrein and so on) used to use drugs from the youth, they don't drink although but...so they can't be normal people.
Regarding the choice - Europe is a civilian part of the world and it is supposed not to wear religion clothes.
If the woman form the Europe visit Qatar for example and if she wears short skirt during the walking in the street city then police will arrested her immediately. So where is the choice?
If they want to have a choice here in Europe then they must give it in the muslims countries

which drugs do do you refer to? there is one particular plant that is chewed in yemen which is considered narcotic in USA but available from speciality stores in the UK.

Define what a normal person? That's very dangerous grounds you are on Flakey. I don't like to run around branding me with names but every human is a part of the one actual race and that is the human race. No one is better than anyone else. A lot of the migrants to France are not even from the region you describe and are often French speakers not Arabic speakers.

Also just because some cultures have customs we think are outdated and even barbaric and don't show tolerance, doesn't mean we should copy them and do the same.

tvadim133
13-05-2010, 14:31
Well, in reading comments and posts here I would say there are two wings or two directions, two sides in speaking about banning Burkas:

The first one:

People consider burka to be something connected too much with islam world and do not like Europe to be impacted much with any signs of arabic or islam culture in "traditional" for Europe enviorenment.

Here they can use different "arguements" from neutral (like women' rights, "it is not healthy") to rasist.

The second one:

In a free society, people are free to express their own religion, cultural and other identifications. To wear or not to wear something is a choice of a person and the state must not intereven people's need.

That is interesting, but they started discussing banning Burka, not because of cultural differences, but because of security reasons (hiding faces in public spaces).

Are there ways out?

Politicians must be politicians frist of all.

They should take into considereation attitudes of majority citizens towards the problem but adapt the laws and rules not to break the minority's humain rights.

As for "Burka", it is quite easy to underline the spaces where Burka and other pieces of clothes (masks and so on) are banned from the point of security reasons. For example: transport, bank, courts.

Again, in the law there must not be mentionned Burka, but any kinds of fully face cover.

That makes sence and quite understandable for all citizens of the community.

You know, Nobody argues, that it is forbidden to smoke in public spaces, to go naked, to come to the theatre with a dog and so on.

SV1973a
13-05-2010, 14:46
Again, in the law there must not be mentionned Burka, but any kinds of fully face cover.

And so it is, the word `burka` is not even mentioned in the Belgian Law Proposal. It is simply forbidden to fully cover your face in such a degree that you become unrecognisable. So, a ban on burka, but also on wearing motorhelmets (when not driving, of course).

tsarski
13-05-2010, 14:51
probably a better way is to say they reject Jesus' claim to be the Son of God/God etc.

The fact muslims acknowledge Jesus as a prophet but not the son of God, is not a lot different than thinking he is the Angel Michael(Jehovah's witness), or originally lucifer's brother and from the planet kolob(Mormons) or a whole bunch of other sects. Thus the fate of the muslim is no different to them. Misguided, in my opinion, certainly. Entirely different to us and following a different God, then no. Them getting into Heaven? I have no idea. Me getting to Heaven? I hope so!

I am enjoying sharing this discussion with you yakspeare. I understand your position better now. If you didn't know, I am Orthodox also.
One thing that I have heard about what muslims believe is they reject the bible how it is today because they say that it has been corrupted over time. I don't know if you are aware of this? I think they have incoperated scripture from the Old Testement into the Koran. I'll have to look this one up.

Voodoo
13-05-2010, 15:03
I am enjoying sharing this discussion with you yakspeare. I understand your position better now. If you didn't know, I am Orthodox also.
One thing that I have heard about what muslims believe is they reject the bible how it is today because they say that it has been corrupted over time. I don't know if you are aware of this? I think they have incoperated scripture from the Old Testement into the Koran. I'll have to look this one up.

Substantial chunks of the OT are indeed in the Quran, maybe not word for word, but all the key concepts and histories are there. Muslims do indeed believe that the NT is not accurate, although they do revere Jesus as the greatest figure/person in Islam. Mary is mentioned more times apparently in the Quran than in the NT.

Regarding the NT, muslims feel it has been corrupted and does not convey the true message of Jesus. And it is true that not all of the gospels were included in the bible (be they gnostic or not), and that some of the messages have been changed - however, as I am not a theologic historian I can't really comment on this, just reporting their beliefs. Islam does teach that Allah (the Arabic word for God) is the same God of the Jews and the Christians, and that we are all children of Abraham.

In general, Islam has a lot in common with Judaism and Christianity (at least the basic tenets - excluding the trinity, divinity of Jesus and the virgin birth). You might even consider that Islam is just as divergent from modern Christianity as some modern Christian sects.

tsarski
13-05-2010, 15:12
Substantial chunks of the OT are indeed in the Quran, maybe not word for word, but all the key concepts and histories are there. Muslims do indeed believe that the NT is not accurate, although they do revere Jesus as the greatest figure/person in Islam. Mary is mentioned more times apparently in the Quran than in the NT.

Regarding the NT, muslims feel it has been corrupted and does not convey the true message of Jesus. And it is true that not all of the gospels were included in the bible (be they gnostic or not), and that some of the messages have been changed - however, as I am not a theologic historian I can't really comment on this, just reporting their beliefs. Islam does teach that Allah (the Arabic word for God) is the same God of the Jews and the Christians, and that we are all children of Abraham.

In general, Islam has a lot in common with Judaism and Christianity (at least the basic tenets - excluding the trinity, divinity of Jesus and the virgin birth). You might even consider that Islam is just as divergent from modern Christianity as some modern Christian sects.

Yes, I have read that Mohammed gets a little confused about the Trinity in the Koran as he mentions the Virgin Mary as a part. I'm not a theologic historian either but I do know that they have original texts of the NT from the 4th century and from my understanding is that it shows that the NT hasn't been corrupted like the muslims say as they only came about in the 6th century.
From memory, Islam is very similar with Mormans in the way that their faith was revealed to them.

MickeyTong
13-05-2010, 16:06
Muslims do indeed believe that the NT is not accurate...

It's an article of Islamic faith that Nabi Isa (Jesus) brought a message from God to the Jews (who, yet again apparently, had gone astray). A nabi is a prophet who brings a revealed book, in this case a book known as the Injil. Since Jesus is believed to be a prophet of Judaism and Islam (monotheistic) the Injil would have contained no mention of any "son" of God.

Furthermore, Muslims believe that Jesus was not crucified (Judas apparently looked like him and was crucified instead), but was raised to Heaven, alive. He will return to earth, marry, father children and be the leader of all Muslims. But this won't happen until all Islamic lands have been overrun by the kufaar...(as divine punishment for their laxity in matters of their faith).

FlakeySnowballer
13-05-2010, 16:39
Again, in the law there must not be mentionned Burka, but any kinds of fully face cover.

WHy not? We must name things by their real name.
Muslims wear burkas not helmet or smth more. (When i was in Israel i saw one English tourist who weared sort of burka and the policeman didn't ask his documents because seems to me he saw that this man
didn't ideate any danger )

tsarski
13-05-2010, 18:02
Again, in the law there must not be mentionned Burka, but any kinds of fully face cover.

WHy not? We must name things by their real name.
Muslims wear burkas not helmet or smth more. (When i was in Israel i saw one English tourist who weared sort of burka and the policeman didn't ask his documents because seems to me he saw that this man
didn't ideate any danger )

Yes but like SV1973a has said, the word burka is not mentioned in the law. It is simply forbidden to fully cover your face in such a degree that you become unrecognisable. A burka comes under that law because of what it does. If someone decided to wear a gasmask whilst he was walking about outside in Belgium this too would be illegal.

rusmeister
13-05-2010, 20:21
In general, Islam has a lot in common with Judaism and Christianity (at least the basic tenets - excluding the trinity, divinity of Jesus and the virgin birth). You might even consider that Islam is just as divergent from modern Christianity as some modern Christian sects.

From the Christian standpoint, the things excluded are non-negotiable and central, and by no means peripheral. The entire faith stands on them. Remove them and you don't have Christianity at all. But if you see Mormonism, for example, as a "modern Christian sect" you might almost be right. But I would still disagree because you need an objective standard to determine whether a faith is "Christian" or not. The most commonly accepted standard is the Nicene Creed, and it is something that neither Mormons nor Muslims can accept - ergo, they are not Christian.

Voodoo
13-05-2010, 22:48
...The most commonly accepted standard is the Nicene Creed, and it is something that neither Mormons nor Muslims can accept - ergo, they are not Christian.


....and nobody has suggested otherwise. Far from it. My only point in that last post was that Islam as a faith has not arrived from Mars, but is a semitic, Abrahamic religion with common roots, tenets and precepts to Christianity. It most certainly is NOT Christianity, and neither is it Judaisim, but it is of the same flock.

yakspeare
13-05-2010, 23:29
....and nobody has suggested otherwise. Far from it. My only point in that last post was that Islam as a faith has not arrived from Mars, but is a semitic, Abrahamic religion with common roots, tenets and precepts to Christianity. It most certainly is NOT Christianity, and neither is it Judaisim, but it is of the same flock.

Exactly my view and the nicene creed is a is very good barometer of christianity.

For those who talk about the bible, they have around 20,000 manuscripts dating back to 1-2 generations of authorship now. 100-200 AD. There is no discernable change between them, nor with the books of the old testament.
http://www.carm.org/manuscript-evidence

As for my denomination- I haven't been in a denomination for 14 years. I was christened Church of England and raised Baptist and Salvation Army. Of my own volition I went Pentecostal Assemblies of God etc. Although I believe a lot of what AOG profess I didn't see the "power" manifested in it and rung hollow. I was called at the age of 19 to Siberia. That is when my fascination with Russia began. I never went and refuse to go. My basis on belief is the bible only, trying to ask why a belief is just accepted and where it came from originally. I know the book very well, many times in my life it was the only thing to read(whether being in Navy Jail or just being in countries where there is no English!)

Charles Grandison Finney and CS Lewis are my inspiration. I believe logic and science are a natural part of Christian life and validate the message,but of course our knowledge of science is limited.

I consider myself in a fortunate and most cursed position. I have seen and experienced much in my life so that "belief" and "faith" have little requirement. One was falling off a waterfall when I was 19 on a youth camp and the fact I was walking again several hours later(which was by medicine impossible-but it wouldnt be believed here anyway) and the fact that 500 people were at the camp and witnessed it-somehow didn't stop me from backsliding later. I know exactly my calling and what the reward install for me. Knowing this and living as I do, means I am at far greater risk of Hellfire than some.

Afterall even the devil believes in Jesus. How I wish I was blissfully ignorant!

rusmeister
14-05-2010, 07:05
Exactly my view and the nicene creed is a is very good barometer of christianity.

For those who talk about the bible, they have around 20,000 manuscripts dating back to 1-2 generations of authorship now. 100-200 AD. There is no discernable change between them, nor with the books of the old testament.
http://www.carm.org/manuscript-evidence

As for my denomination- I haven't been in a denomination for 14 years. I was christened Church of England and raised Baptist and Salvation Army. Of my own volition I went Pentecostal Assemblies of God etc. Although I believe a lot of what AOG profess I didn't see the "power" manifested in it and rung hollow. I was called at the age of 19 to Siberia. That is when my fascination with Russia began. I never went and refuse to go. My basis on belief is the bible only, trying to ask why a belief is just accepted and where it came from originally. I know the book very well, many times in my life it was the only thing to read(whether being in Navy Jail or just being in countries where there is no English!)

Charles Grandison Finney and CS Lewis are my inspiration. I believe logic and science are a natural part of Christian life and validate the message,but of course our knowledge of science is limited.

I consider myself in a fortunate and most cursed position. I have seen and experienced much in my life so that "belief" and "faith" have little requirement. One was falling off a waterfall when I was 19 on a youth camp and the fact I was walking again several hours later(which was by medicine impossible-but it wouldnt be believed here anyway) and the fact that 500 people were at the camp and witnessed it-somehow didn't stop me from backsliding later. I know exactly my calling and what the reward install for me. Knowing this and living as I do, means I am at far greater risk of Hellfire than some.

Afterall even the devil believes in Jesus. How I wish I was blissfully ignorant!

The dates for NT authorship actually stretch back earlier, some as early as 50 A.D. (Few things seem sillier to me than the desperate efforts of some moderns to change "A.D." and "B.C." to "C.E" and "B.C.E." - a more obvious effort to erase the references to Christ - and a more useless one - could hardly be imagined, but I digress). It's important, of course. The scholars who claim the later dates mostly want to establish that the various books and letters could not have been written in the lifetimes of the witnesses of the Resurrection - and yet they were.

I recognized the Baptist references and assumptions that I myself grew up with. My own life path came to firmly convince me - via the study of foreign languages and cultures - that it is impossible for a person to be able to fully understand what he is reading from the Bible on his own (never mind the more silly ideas that dominated in my time: "The King James Bible is the only Bible..."); that we simply have little idea of the enormous problems of translation, not only of text, but of the cultural assumptions behind the text.

If you don't mind at some point sharing why you were in a Navy brig (I'm ex-Navy, myself) publicly or privately, I'm interested.

And Lewis, of course, is an outstanding thinker and teacher, and the first one I would recommend to most. He did have a fatal weakness - he knew that the issue of authority was important, and yet refused to discuss it, because of his public policy of "mere Christianity". It enabled Christians of all stripes to love his work, and use it to justify their own position, but did nothing to help the person who realizes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God to navigate the modern labyrinth (One that didn't exist a thousand years ago) of what is called Christianity. In a word, he felt that the Church was not important, and need not be defined or expounded on.
Finney's assumptions are so far from anything I now accept that I won't comment on him.
I myself have found G.K. Chesterton to be the deepest and most accurate thinker I have ever encountered. That he got the Church wrong is a much more excusable error - he did the best he could with the knowledge available to him(which, while more than Lewis's, had a black hole in regards to eastern Christian history - like most people today).

rusmeister
14-05-2010, 07:09
....and nobody has suggested otherwise. Far from it. My only point in that last post was that Islam as a faith has not arrived from Mars, but is a semitic, Abrahamic religion with common roots, tenets and precepts to Christianity. It most certainly is NOT Christianity, and neither is it Judaisim, but it is of the same flock.
Thanks, Voodoo.
I'd just say that what "of the same flock" means would need to be clarified. The problem is when people do take them to be similar enough that the differences don't matter.
As an imperfect analogy, I could say that biology and chemistry are both sciences, and not only that, but they share similar roots and tenets and forms of inquiry.

yakspeare
14-05-2010, 07:30
Finney I wouldn't use for doctrine, I believe in absolute justification by faith and that it is all on the cross. What I like though about Finney is his general manner of Evangelism and that he taught "both sides" of the gospel (take up your cross etc) which many in modern church lack(where it is often "hey there was this dude who died 2000 years ago who if you believe in him he will make you rich, happy , successful and be your friend and you get to go to heaven. sign here please").

Navy brig, i was 20 years old. Discovered girls and alcohol and drank like they were going to ban it tomorrow. The Navy police came ashore as they were worried about me but broke procedure and when you are drunk that somehow matters more-so i tried to run away when i was under guard for my own safety. A guy grabbed me and I pushed him off-this was enough for a later assault charge. Mind you they were waiting for me at the gate and i got a solid beating with truncheons and a few kicks when i went down for being stubborn. Thus i went to cells. Oh boy did I become a model sailor after that!

tsarski
14-05-2010, 09:57
Navy brig, i was 20 years old. Discovered girls and alcohol and drank like they were going to ban it tomorrow. The Navy police came ashore as they were worried about me but broke procedure and when you are drunk that somehow matters more-so i tried to run away when i was under guard for my own safety. A guy grabbed me and I pushed him off-this was enough for a later assault charge. Mind you they were waiting for me at the gate and i got a solid beating with truncheons and a few kicks when i went down for being stubborn. Thus i went to cells. Oh boy did I become a model sailor after that!

Seems like we had similar paths, except when I was in the Army I wasn't caught! lol

yakspeare
14-05-2010, 10:13
N.A.V.Y

Never
Again
Volunteer
Yourself

rusmeister
14-05-2010, 13:12
N.A.V.Y

Never
Again
Volunteer
Yourself

The Navy - it's not just a job - it's 50 cents an hour! :)

Seriously, I was a totally good boy in the Navy - always did what I was told and stayed out of trouble - never came anywhere near it, made E-5 in my 3rd year and got out after 5. learned Italian and that's how I got into foreign languages. married a Russian, and here I am, a vet English teacher (15 years now).

There are probably good things I could say about Finney - the things that you describe are things found in the Orthodox Church - which for me was finding the original faith as it's always been practiced with complete traceable history and theology and that it had everything that was good in the Baptist faith.

yakspeare
14-05-2010, 13:48
i have a great deal of respect for the Orthodox-my only stumbling blocks(and like the difference between Muslim and Christian they are not small although may seem so) and that is icons and the non-evangelitical nature of the orthodox church. I holds its values and traditions over time which is great for stability and concise doctrine....but you just don't see the orthodox charging around the world trying to convert everything that moves. It is rather membership and culture retention that growth to other areas. If I married a russian i would probably convert and probably do something about the latter but my protestant roots resist statues and icons and saints and thу like and i don't really see a way to resolve that.

tsarski
14-05-2010, 13:52
The Navy - it's not just a job - it's 50 cents an hour! :)

Seriously, I was a totally good boy in the Navy - always did what I was told and stayed out of trouble - never came anywhere near it, made E-5 in my 3rd year and got out after 5. learned Italian and that's how I got into foreign languages. married a Russian, and here I am, a vet English teacher (15 years now).

There are probably good things I could say about Finney - the things that you describe are things found in the Orthodox Church - which for me was finding the original faith as it's always been practiced with complete traceable history and theology and that it had everything that was good in the Baptist faith.

Only 50 cents? When I was in the Aussie Army we got at least $4 an hour but then again it probably worked out to be your 50 cents. I managed to keep myself clean but unlike yakspeare I was never caught!

tsarski
14-05-2010, 14:01
i have a great deal of respect for the Orthodox-my only stumbling blocks(and like the difference between Muslim and Christian they are not small although may seem so) and that is icons and the non-evangelitical nature of the orthodox church. I holds its values and traditions over time which is great for stability and concise doctrine....but you just don't see the orthodox charging around the world trying to convert everything that moves. It is rather membership and culture retention that growth to other areas. If I married a russian i would probably convert and probably do something about the latter but my protestant roots resist statues and icons and saints and thу like and i don't really see a way to resolve that.

When I'm back in Russia you must come and visit me. I have a wide range of books that could help to explain this to you. The best one I have is St John of Damascus and his Defence of Holy Images written in the 8th century.

rusmeister
14-05-2010, 19:11
i have a great deal of respect for the Orthodox-my only stumbling blocks(and like the difference between Muslim and Christian they are not small although may seem so) and that is icons and the non-evangelitical nature of the orthodox church. I holds its values and traditions over time which is great for stability and concise doctrine....but you just don't see the orthodox charging around the world trying to convert everything that moves. It is rather membership and culture retention that growth to other areas. If I married a russian i would probably convert and probably do something about the latter but my protestant roots resist statues and icons and saints and thу like and i don't really see a way to resolve that.
I think, on icons, that the biggest surprise is that the early Church did have icons - it certainly relieves the stumbling block! Plus, understanding what they actually are and what their purpose is relieves the usual fears of "worshiping them" and so on.
As to "non-evangelical" - while I know what you mean, I think you have a specific and limited idea of what "evangelical" means. Coming from an American (extremely young) tradition that has people going door-to-door, no we don't do that. The greater focus is on changing ourselves in order to convert the people around us, and preaching where people will listen. But forcing ourselves on those that don't want us - definitely not.

As an ex-Baptist, I feel that I have a pretty good handle on what typical protestant objections are and how they are resolved. Probably the biggest one for you would be the question of authority. On that I would say that a person who says "the Bible is the authority" tend to forget that someone needs to tell them what the Bible means - just as the eunuch Philip met did, and that that person, for the Sola Scriptura Protestant, is himself. IOW, "I, with my limited knowledge and understanding, decide the meaning of what I am reading, and ultimately make theological decisions of enormous complexity on my own authority." A legal document in court can't decide for itself what it means. It requires a judge who interprets the document. Once I came to the conclusion that I know diddly squat (ie, next to nothing), I realized that I am not qualified to make those decisions. And in a true Christianity, I shouldn't have to. If I did, it would be a gnostic faith, where only the people smart enough to "figure things out correctly" could have a handle on the truth, and even be saved. My faith ought to be one where an idiot capable of understanding nothing, and only willing to say, "Lord, I believe!" can be saved, even if he understands little to nothing from Scripture. Thus, Sola Scriptura is ultimately illogical. The authority must be external to me. I simply haven't lived long enough to learn all that I would need to learn to correctly understand the totality of Scripture - and none of us will.

FWIW, my stumbling blocks to conversion (which I brought to Fr Viktor Sokolov - memory eternal!) were confession before a priest and the status of the Theotokos. Having discovered the true nature of what these things are in the Church has turned my conception of them inside-out, and I realize that it was I who was wrong, and i can see how that is (IOW, I haven't checked my brain at the door of the Church).

PS - my caps key sucks - I capitalize a lot of things with my fingers, only to have them come out lower case here. I try to edit - sorry for any kippers!

yakspeare
14-05-2010, 22:09
I would welcome it for sure. i have an open mind and you can't be a teacher unless you are teachable yourself.

On the bible yes we are indeed imperfect but that is why we ask for understanding and guidance. If i have filtered out the "noise" and yet come to a similar understanding of many things as Orthodoxy, then it is a compliment to either yourselves or to me. I just think God didn't make it so hard for people to hear him-that we shut him out and not he shut us out. I believe a person, alone in the wilderness for years on end, and with a good heart would very much come to the belief in the very same God as we do. That everything else is a turning away from that truth. So i see the bible in a similar context. The message is truth in its simplicity not complexity. WE make it complex. It is the opposite of the old law, as complex as that was, the message must be simple, digestible, logical and obvious for those who seek truth.

And i am not really talking the door to door thing, i really mean that Orthodoxy spread from Syria to Russia to the Roman Empire etc but hasn't really gone futher. Catholicism and Protestantism is everywhere throughout the world. Only a limited diaspora of orthodox(migrants) make up the church outside that one area. This is extremely lax.

tvadim133
14-05-2010, 22:40
Orthodoxy spread from Syria to Russia to the Roman Empire etc but hasn't really gone futher. Catholicism and Protestantism is everywhere throughout the world. Only a limited diaspora of orthodox(migrants) make up the church outside that one area. This is extremely lax.

I think, it is because the church is not agressive and did not intend to spread the presence by force.

May be that's why muslims and orthodox can leave together in one and the same territory peacefuly?

Besides even different wings of "the church" are tolerant to each other (Georgian, Russian, Creece and so on).

Can you say the same as for Protestants and Catholics?

I do not mean the 20th century, but the history of these wings of the same Belief in general.

yakspeare
14-05-2010, 23:01
I think, it is because the church is not agressive and did not intend to spread the presence by force.

May be that's why muslims and orthodox can leave together in one and the same territory peacefuly?

Besides even different wings of "the church" are tolerant to each other (Georgian, Russian, Creece and so on).

Can you say the same as for Protestants and Catholics?

I do not mean the 20th century, but the history of these wings of the same Belief in general.

But the christian message is REQUIRED to be spread to all corners of the Earth. It is a fundamental aspect of extending the message from Jews to the Gentiles. Frankly the whole world should of known about it before even Islam was invented. We have all been slack but to look upon something as a "true" church i think it needs this requirement met.

tvadim133
15-05-2010, 00:00
But the christian message is REQUIRED to be spread to all corners of the Earth. It is a fundamental aspect of extending the message from Jews to the Gentiles. Frankly the whole world should of known about it before even Islam was invented. We have all been slack but to look upon something as a "true" church i think it needs this requirement met.

It is question of tools used in spreading christian messages.

I would compare it with the idea of communism (good idea), which was spread by force, by killing people, by smashing governments away in other countries and so on.

You mentioned the Orthdox Church (Christian as well) with a surprise that it is not widly used all over the world and made a conclusion of weakness of that devision of Chritinaity spread and used by "Only a limited diaspora of orthodox(migrants)").

But you forgot to mention, that Christianity was spread not by any wings of the christianity, but by "invasions" of some European countries (Spain, Portugal, Holland and so on) to other parts of the world, which used the curch (an that was profitable for the Churches as well) as a mean for slavering locals (pagans in the majority of cases)

And these countries were just belonged to this or that church, that is why Catholisim, Protestantism are more in use in some parts of the word (which were under control of said-above countries).

yakspeare
15-05-2010, 00:09
Not really. The Catholics, and later the Protestants, have never stopped in trying to reach the world with their message. In a great deal of cases the first contact with "white" man was through missionaries and not through armies etc. An Orthodox russia extended itself through all of Siberia too. Conquest is one thing- i am referring to the basic message and requirement to "spread the gospel". not to "maintain the gospel" but to spread it everywhere. Africa, Papua new guinea, china and so forth etc et al. The fact Orthodoxy hasn't basically spread in over 1000 years or so isn't encouraging.

tvadim133
15-05-2010, 00:27
Once again, the major achievements of spreading it were in times of invasions, then the times of descovering (it can be the same).

Russia spreads the Orthodox church in Far East indeed.

Just Russia and Spain (those times), for instance have different sphere of influence those times.

Besides, there were pagans those times (that is a lot of different religions, very weak from the point of view of quantity and quality), with which it was quite easy "to fight against".

Can you say that the Catholitsim (or other wings) have any siginigicant achievements in China, India, Muslim countries in the past or in the present, where there is a presence of strong directions of other types of belief.

Nevertheless, I would agree, that Catholitsism and some other churches have very really long-term agressive traditions in spreading their ideas.

yakspeare
15-05-2010, 00:37
by no means do i want to attack the Orthodox church but just perhaps motivate ;)

One of my heroes, and what I am really talking about:

Brother Andrew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Anne_van_der_Bijl.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Anne_van_der_Bijl.jpg/220px-Anne_van_der_Bijl.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/b/b8/Anne_van_der_Bijl.jpg/220px-Anne_van_der_Bijl.jpg

tvadim133
15-05-2010, 00:46
i have a great deal of respect for the Orthodox-my only stumbling blocks(and like the difference between Muslim and Christian they are not small although may seem so) and that is icons and the non-evangelitical nature of the orthodox church. I holds its values and traditions over time which is great for stability and concise doctrine....but you just don't see the orthodox charging around the world trying to convert everything that moves. It is rather membership and culture retention that growth to other areas. If I married a russian i would probably convert and probably do something about the latter but my protestant roots resist statues and icons and saints and thу like and i don't really see a way to resolve that.

You are absolutely, right i saying the Orthodox Church is more connected with maintaining christian but slavic culture, spirit, faith, slavic mentality then spreading the word of the God.

That is my opinion based on feeling and emotions.

Speaking about praying next to icons, next to sculptures or not using attributes at all.

Can you, please, explain in short, what is a difference, to be very honest, if two persons apply to the same saints, the same God e.t.c. but using different attributes (the face of the God, faces of the saints painted or the sculpture fo the God or some saints)?

As for differences in dogmas, I can understand the difference, but for me it does not make sences at all, due to for all christians there is the main and most important thing in their belief.

yakspeare
15-05-2010, 01:03
Can you, please, explain in short, what is a difference, to be very honest, if two persons apply to the same saints, the same God e.t.c. but using different attributes (the face of the God, faces of the saints painted or the sculpture fo the God or some saints)?

Protestants in general view praying to anyone other than God as idolatry, which is a pretty serious thing. Not even "worshipping" but "praying to". We have one high priest who intercedes for us and we go to him direct. Thus Icons and statues of both Catholic and Orthodox are an issue to us.

tvadim133
15-05-2010, 01:18
Can you, please, explain in short, what is a difference, to be very honest, if two persons apply to the same saints, the same God e.t.c. but using different attributes (the face of the God, faces of the saints painted or the sculpture fo the God or some saints)?

Protestants in general view praying to anyone other than God as idolatry, which is a pretty serious thing. Not even "worshipping" but "praying to". We have one high priest who intercedes for us and we go to him direct. Thus Icons and statues of both Catholic and Orthodox are an issue to us.

Ok, the same GOD, but we all use different ways to talk to him (via the priest, talking to the GOD "directly", but usinsg different tools which can "make" talking "easier" and so on).

That is all, to my mind, in general.

tsarski
15-05-2010, 06:54
May be that's why muslims and orthodox can leave together in one and the same territory peacefuly?



In answer to your question, the Orthodox in Muslim majority countries live at the mercy of Muslims. Have you heard of the Pact of Umar?

tsarski
15-05-2010, 06:59
Can you, please, explain in short, what is a difference, to be very honest, if two persons apply to the same saints, the same God e.t.c. but using different attributes (the face of the God, faces of the saints painted or the sculpture fo the God or some saints)?

Protestants in general view praying to anyone other than God as idolatry, which is a pretty serious thing. Not even "worshipping" but "praying to". We have one high priest who intercedes for us and we go to him direct. Thus Icons and statues of both Catholic and Orthodox are an issue to us.

The way it was explained to me, is that the Saints are intercessors before God for us. It is kind of like, me asking you to pray to God for me. That certainly isn't idolatry.

rusmeister
15-05-2010, 08:09
I would welcome it for sure. i have an open mind and you can't be a teacher unless you are teachable yourself.

On the bible yes we are indeed imperfect but that is why we ask for understanding and guidance. If i have filtered out the "noise" and yet come to a similar understanding of many things as Orthodoxy, then it is a compliment to either yourselves or to me. I just think God didn't make it so hard for people to hear him-that we shut him out and not he shut us out. I believe a person, alone in the wilderness for years on end, and with a good heart would very much come to the belief in the very same God as we do. That everything else is a turning away from that truth. So i see the bible in a similar context. The message is truth in its simplicity not complexity. WE make it complex. It is the opposite of the old law, as complex as that was, the message must be simple, digestible, logical and obvious for those who seek truth.

Hey, Y!
First of all, I see the comments I bolded as pretty much non-sequitur, if not out-and-out contradictory. There are many hermits in the desert, and some of them are whirling dervishes. There is plenty of eastern mysticism that does not come close to the Christian conception, either of God, of of our purpose here, let alone the question of Christ. There is no basis for assuming that a person left alone will come to truth. It required specific revelation to people who were NOT alone, and a series of remarkable events to bring the truth that you and I hold in common.

And again, you say that its message is simple. Perhaps. Christ is risen from the dead!!! Very simple. But nevertheless, that alone does not unite people to worship the Holy Trinity in spirit and in truth. People are divided, and none more divided than those who look "to the Bible alone" for their understandings.


And i am not really talking the door to door thing, i really mean that Orthodoxy spread from Syria to Russia to the Roman Empire etc but hasn't really gone futher. Catholicism and Protestantism is everywhere throughout the world. Only a limited diaspora of orthodox(migrants) make up the church outside that one area. This is extremely lax.


When you say, "limited diaspora", that sounds very strange to me. It is true that in the western world Orthodoxy was prevented or at least strongly discouraged from doing much for centuries after the Great Schism - the Catholic Church dominated the western world until after the Reformation, obviously, and the early Protestants did not return to Orthodoxy and the later ones, once the principle of Sola Scriptura became more broadly established, certainly the peoples who accepted it were not open to a Church based on authority that by now was perceived as a foreign one, long not having been a part of western Europe. And since Islamic powers had effectively crushed and dominated the Orthodox political powers in the east, save Russia, Orthodox Christians were fighting for their very right to live, and to worship as Orthodox Christians. And yet, in those times, missionary work continued. I wonder if you have ever heard of St Herman of Alaska, or Nikolai (Nicholas) of Japan, essentially establishing the Church where it had not previously existed, in the 18th and 19th centuries, respectively, among people who WERE open to the Gospel and the Orthodox Church. And that despite a solidly Protestant culture with a Catholic minority, the Orthodox Church grew from the missions in Alaska and California until people who were convinced either of the truth of their own interpretation of the Bible, or of the Catholic Church, began to hear, and each having excellent reasons to doubt the other, began to hear for the first time about Orthodoxy. Its spread in the twentieth century is remarkable; the boom in the last two decades most especially so, as people still desiring to find what Christ actually established tire of televangelists and modern (and quickly becoming boring) innovations as the churches all change their moral stands and preach what is now clearly fashion more than eternal truths.

In short, despite a climate hostile to Orthodoxy - one first of Catholic authority, then individual interpretation of the Bible, and finally complete relativism, the Orthodox Church has finally expanded into the West, and the American Church is rapidly forming right before our eyes. To speak of it as a limited diaspora is to not know the history of the Orthodox Church or to know what is happening now. It's an impression, sure, but a false one. And as tvadim tried to say, the evangelism is not aggressive, especially in today's climate, where such approaches are clearly counter-productive, which might work in an atheist country which had never heard the Gospel, but are doomed to general failure in one which has heard a thousand different claimants of varying gospels. The Orthodox approach is put in the words of both Christ and Philip (the book of John) "Come and see!"

rusmeister
15-05-2010, 08:26
You are absolutely, right i saying the Orthodox Church is more connected with maintaining christian but slavic culture, spirit, faith, slavic mentality then spreading the word of the God.

That is my opinion based on feeling and emotions.

Speaking about praying next to icons, next to sculptures or not using attributes at all.

Can you, please, explain in short, what is a difference, to be very honest, if two persons apply to the same saints, the same God e.t.c. but using different attributes (the face of the God, faces of the saints painted or the sculpture fo the God or some saints)?

As for differences in dogmas, I can understand the difference, but for me it does not make sences at all, due to for all christians there is the main and most important thing in their belief.

Like all of the most successful falsehoods (I do NOT imply that you intend to deceive!!!), the best ones contain a dose of the truth, and are believed most widely and the longest. Your idea that the Orthodox Church is more about culture than spreading the Gospel (for Christ is the Word of God) has such truth in it - a great many people, for reasons that arise mostly out of the historical oppression of the Church, do connect the faith with their culture. But to say that that is a Slavic culture is to show an ignorance of Orthodox cultures outside of Russia. Nevertheless, nationalism is condemned, and probably the best example of that in modern orthodox life is what is happening in America - where the traditional Slavic - and Greek - and Arabic Churches established jurisdictions, which, after the Russian revolution, became divided (oversimplified history), and which, over the last decade, have worked to close those divisions, and it is hoped, eventually become one Church - an American Church, as that IS what the Church does - it becomes local wherever it goes. America is probably the greatest aberration in the history of Orthodoxy, and yet, with less than a century of division is moving toward, God willing, total unification. (I do not mean that they hold different beliefs, or may not commune with each other - only in terms of jurisdictional authority and its ethnic origins.)


That is my opinion based on feeling and emotions.
Knowledge of facts generally trumps feelings and emotions. :)

I don't see how you can "understand the dogmas" AND think that they don't make sense - don't matter. Dogma = doctrine = teaching. If the teachings are different, and even contradictory, then it is clear that at the very least somebody is teaching wrongly, in which case it DOES matter. For example, most people certainly think so regarding issues like the teaching of creation science as equally valid as evolutionary science. If something is TRUE, then it does matter who is right and who is wrong about it.

yakspeare
15-05-2010, 08:51
when i talk about being in the desert, what i mean is to say is the Judeo-islamic-christian God reveals himself in the sky above, in nature and everywhere around. That he isn't hiding. it is just that people are not really seeking.

19:1 + 19:2 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. 19:3 19:2Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. 19:4 19:3[There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard.

For(AJ) the wrath of God(AK) is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be(AL) known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature,(AM) have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they(AN) became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22(AO) Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and(AP) exchanged the glory of(AQ) the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24Therefore(AR) God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to(AS) the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for(AT) a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator,(AU) who is blessed forever! Amen.

Romans 2:14-15 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them.

There was a tribe in Papua New Guinea who was an interesting case. When missionaries arrived they were surprised to find a monotheist people who essentially followed the ten commandments.

Now you won't know of Christ without a messenger , but God himself i believe is apparent. Only hardening of hearts and so force make people develop an alternative. Thus everyone is without excuse to say they had no knowledge of this God.

It is fabulous your account of the work in Japan etc. but in terms of it being difficult in the west- it actually backs up your argument that it is so. the church ought be persecuted, confronted, tested and challenged if it is right. I don't support some church efforts to convert orthodox believers-but at the same time a great deal of people are only nominally orthodox. indeed my boss at work told me she is an "orthodox atheist"! this shows the cultural influence of the church is still strong(and ought be respected) and so the best solution is for the orthodox themselves to preach "in their backyard" to bring people from "nominal" to ACTUAL christians. I don't pretend this is a small task. Still, everywhere around the world is awaiting to hear the message.

rusmeister
15-05-2010, 09:03
Can you, please, explain in short, what is a difference, to be very honest, if two persons apply to the same saints, the same God e.t.c. but using different attributes (the face of the God, faces of the saints painted or the sculpture fo the God or some saints)?

Protestants in general view praying to anyone other than God as idolatry, which is a pretty serious thing. Not even "worshipping" but "praying to". We have one high priest who intercedes for us and we go to him direct. Thus Icons and statues of both Catholic and Orthodox are an issue to us.

Tsarski is right. I'd add to that that the saints are people who have gone before us. They may be "dead" as far as their earthly life is concerned, but they are very much alive in God. (Matt 22:32, Mark 12:27 and their respective contexts) We also know that the dead may pray to - communicate with - God (Rev 6:9-10, for example). We know that the prayers of a righteous man availeth much (James 5:16).
We believe that the saints of God are just as alive as you and I, and are constantly interceding on our behalf. Remember, our connection with the saints in heaven is one grounded in a tight-knit communion. The saints are not divine, nor omnipresent or omniscient. However, because of our common communion with and through Jesus Christ, our prayers are joined with the heavenly community of Christians.



In praying to His Father, Jesus prayed for His people, (cf John 17) He Himself is the only competent intercessor for men before God.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus who gave Himself as a ransom for all. (I Timothy 2-3)

Jesus in His resurrected glory, prays eternally to His Father on behalf of His creatures.

...He holds His priesthood permanently because He continues forever. Consequently He is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make inter- cession for them.

For Christ has entered, not a sanctuary made with hands . . . but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf (Hebrews 7:24-25; 9:24)

In and through Christ, Christians become competent to intercede before God. In the name of Jesus, Christians are commanded and empowered to pray for each other and for all creation: "on behalf of all and for all." (Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom)

First of all I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions,...This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (I Timothy 2:1-4)

Therefore confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power In its effects. Elijah was a man of like natures with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain and...it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit. (James 5:16-18)

Intercessory prayers can be made for every "good gift" from God for the sake of the salvation of others. Such prayers can include petitions for every kind of blessing, both for the body and the soul. They can be made for the inspiration and instruction of men, as well as for their healing and salvation. Whatever one can ask for oneself, one can ask for all men. Whatever one does ask for oneself should be entreated for all. "It is right to pray not only for one's own purification, but for the purification of every man..." (St. Nilus of Sinai, 5th c., Texts on Prayer)

To understand intercessory prayer, one must remember the eternal providence of God. One must grasp the fact that God knows all things eternally and takes into consideration each act of man in His overall plan. With this perspective one can then see that even before the creation of the world, God has heard, or rather, more accurately, eternally hears, the cries of His people. He considers man's prayers in all that He does in His dealings with men. Thus it is the case that God does not wait to see what we do or how we will pray. He considers our actions and prayers from the perspective of eternity. And in the light of our desires and deeds He sees that "all things work together for good for those who love God." (Romans 8:28)

If we understand this we can see how our prayers are considered by God, for ourselves and for others. We can understand as well how we can pray even for those who are dead, whose lives on this earth are over and done. For the Lord does not hear our prayers "after" something is finished, because for God there is no "after" at all. God knows what we ask before we even ask it, for He knows all of man's life in one divine act of all-embracing vision and knowledge. Thus all of our prayers, even for those who are dead, are heard and considered by God before we even make them. If we fail to pray, this too is known to God, and it takes its effect in God's plan of salvation. Therefore we have to "pray for one another" and our prayer will have "great power in its effects" through the eternal and providential action of God.
http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=193

One good general intro to read before walking into an Orthodox Church (if you ever get the chance) - where zero pressure is put on you to convert* (unlike the Baptists!) and where, while a person may approach at some point and offer to help, people mostly won't pay attention to you - their attention is on the service and on worship, so you might even have to take the initiative:
http://www.antiochian.org/node/16963
*We understand that a person must freely desire to approach God and true freedom requires an absence of pressure, and while we are to spread the Gospel, pressure tactics are a general no-no.

yakspeare
15-05-2010, 09:25
that's a good read, thanks!

rusmeister
15-05-2010, 09:54
when i talk about being in the desert, what i mean is to say is the Judeo-islamic-christian God reveals himself in the sky above, in nature and everywhere around. That he isn't hiding. it is just that people are not really seeking.

19:1 + 19:2 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. 19:3 19:2Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. 19:4 19:3[There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard.

For(AJ) the wrath of God(AK) is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be(AL) known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature,(AM) have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they(AN) became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22(AO) Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and(AP) exchanged the glory of(AQ) the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24Therefore(AR) God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to(AS) the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for(AT) a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator,(AU) who is blessed forever! Amen.

Romans 2:14-15 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them.

There was a tribe in Papua New Guinea who was an interesting case. When missionaries arrived they were surprised to find a monotheist people who essentially followed the ten commandments.

Now you won't know of Christ without a messenger , but God himself i believe is apparent. Only hardening of hearts and so force make people develop an alternative. Thus everyone is without excuse to say they had no knowledge of this God.

It is fabulous your account of the work in Japan etc. but in terms of it being difficult in the west- it actually backs up your argument that it is so. the church ought be persecuted, confronted, tested and challenged if it is right. I don't support some church efforts to convert orthodox believers-but at the same time a great deal of people are only nominally orthodox. indeed my boss at work told me she is an "orthodox atheist"! this shows the cultural influence of the church is still strong(and ought be respected) and so the best solution is for the orthodox themselves to preach "in their backyard" to bring people from "nominal" to ACTUAL christians. I don't pretend this is a small task. Still, everywhere around the world is awaiting to hear the message.

Thanks!
Yes, of course, you are right in noting that God declares himself.
Unfortunately, our ability to discover God on our own has been impaired by sin and our tremendous capacity for self-deception.

On your idea that the Church ought to be tested, challenged and persecuted - need I even point to the testing of the Russian Church in the twentieth century? I wonder if you really have a good handle on the extent of persecution that the Orthodox Church underwent? (In my Baptist experience, they spoke about Baptist believers being persecuted - and sometimes of the other tiny minorities in Russia, while the scale of persecution of the Orthodox Church goes almost unnoticed. I'll name Butovo (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/world/europe/08butovo.html?_r=2)as one small chapter in that long and sad story. (And if that is a relatively small part, you have to ask just how big big is).

And yes, nominalism is a curse wherever faith becomes legal, and especially where it is perceived as politically beneficial - that's not limited to Orthodoxy but is true of any faith. Conversely, it disappears where faith becomes illegal - but we still shouldn't prefer persecution.

yakspeare
15-05-2010, 10:13
Yes I am fully aware and this is where I have some issue with the church in both russia and china under communism. For many they were able to preach and keep the doors open by using controlled sermons and be subject to the government. Those who resisted of course I have no issue with, being steadfast in their belief-even in cases it would cost them their lives. there is a church in China now but does it preach the true message? I don't believe so. Christianity in China, the real thing, is underground and hidden, in house based fellowship and the like and to practice it is punishable by imprisonment or worse. The state controlled church is a joke and I some in the orthodox have some questions to answer(but not for us, but to God) about their roles during the communist era in Russia.

rusmeister
15-05-2010, 11:23
Yes I am fully aware and this is where I have some issue with the church in both russia and china under communism. For many they were able to preach and keep the doors open by using controlled sermons and be subject to the government. Those who resisted of course I have no issue with, being steadfast in their belief-even in cases it would cost them their lives. there is a church in China now but does it preach the true message? I don't believe so. Christianity in China, the real thing, is underground and hidden, in house based fellowship and the like and to practice it is punishable by imprisonment or worse. The state controlled church is a joke and I some in the orthodox have some questions to answer(but not for us, but to God) about their roles during the communist era in Russia.

I pretty much agree.

There were both saints and sinners in the Church, as there always are.
The Church was very nearly destroyed in Russia, both from without and from within. It is said that it was the army of babushkas who saved the Church when the priests couldn't. None of that ultimately invalidates the Church itself, but certainly some people sinned in their compromises, and sinned greatly. But the Church teaches us that that is what people do. The presence of sinners confirms, rather than disproves, the teaching of the Church.

But again, whether Christianity is "house-based fellowship" is one thing. Whether a given group of Christians accepts a hierarchy striving to remain in Communion and part of a larger organized Church is another.

tvadim133
15-05-2010, 12:38
In answer to your question, the Orthodox in Muslim majority countries live at the mercy of Muslims. Have you heard of the Pact of Umar?


No, I have never heard about it.

I will try to find the information.

yakspeare
15-05-2010, 12:42
well i guess how i view things as this...that the babushka as you say who holds to her faith despite an onslaught over 70 years-that is christianity. Likewise when believers have had the bibles smuggled over the border, where being captured means imprisonment and "re-education" and with the limited resources they have, maybe one bible amongst many and not a single denomination or church(Catholic or Orthodox) in sight and they are just left with the absolute basics and they can die if caught-THAT is christianity. Whether it is in China or in Islamic countries or wherever there is resistance...i believe "real" christianity thrives. Those believers might of got the word from a Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant originally but afterall it is the relationship with God that is most important of all. Certainly fellowship with the rest of the body is desirable but it is not always available(not in the form that it should be). Christianity is very much about self sacrifice and the blood of the martyrs that have gone before. I just think our differences are small when it comes to even declaring that Jesus was the great I Am, gets you killed or imprisoned in half the world and a believer in such circumstances would have little time for debate over the pros and cons of various denominations and indeed protestant vs orthodox vs catholic. That is why I view the Church as the body of all believers of the truth of the gospel.

MickeyTong
15-05-2010, 13:02
A view from the outside:.............

The Catholic and Orthodox faiths' emphasis on saints and intercessory prayers appears very similar to Roman and Byzantine bureaucracies. Applications for assistance need to be submitted through the proper channels, via the appropriate patron saint.

As Rusmeister quoted: "....all of our prayers....are heard and considered by God before we even make them." So why the need for saints to intercede? The principle of Occam's Razor makes them redundant.

tsarski
15-05-2010, 14:06
A view from the outside:.............

The Catholic and Orthodox faiths' emphasis on saints and intercessory prayers appears very similar to Roman and Byzantine bureaucracies. Applications for assistance need to be submitted through the proper channels, via the appropriate patron saint.

As Rusmeister quoted: "....all of our prayers....are heard and considered by God before we even make them." So why the need for saints to intercede? The principle of Occam's Razor makes them redundant.

The Orthodox faith isn't a minimalist one. We don't try and do our very least for God and our neighbour but we should be doing more, hence this would follow across into our prayers. The more praying the better. I think that rusmeister would be better qualified to give an answer on the principle of Occam's Razor and the philosophy behind it.

BTW would these be the Roman bureaucracies after Constantine? Were these bureaucraies created to be similar to the Church or was the Church being similar to the state?

MickeyTong
15-05-2010, 14:41
The Orthodox faith isn't a minimalist one.

I'm not suggesting that it is: I'm just presenting a view from the outside. A view which doesn't see the necessity for the intercession of God's son (nor, even, his vicarious atonement as universal scapegoat), never mind supplications being relayed via dead people who have special privileges in various spheres of life.

"BTW would these be the Roman bureaucracies after Constantine? Were these bureaucraies created to be similar to the Church or was the Church being similar to the state?"

The Church was being similar to the State.

tsarski
15-05-2010, 15:37
I'm not suggesting that it is: I'm just presenting a view from the outside. A view which doesn't see the necessity for the intercession of God's son (nor, even, his vicarious atonement as universal scapegoat), never mind supplications being relayed via dead people who have special privileges in various spheres of life.

"BTW would these be the Roman bureaucracies after Constantine? Were these bureaucraies created to be similar to the Church or was the Church being similar to the state?"

The Church was being similar to the State.

I doubt that, I think that you will find that Constantine the Great tried to bring the State in line with the Church. He introduced laws that were to be more in harmony with the Christian religion, he banned child sacrafices made by the pagans, he made sunday a no labour day. I will let rusmeister answer the first part of your reply as he is much better at it than I.

rusmeister
15-05-2010, 16:53
A view from the outside:.............

The Catholic and Orthodox faiths' emphasis on saints and intercessory prayers appears very similar to Roman and Byzantine bureaucracies. Applications for assistance need to be submitted through the proper channels, via the appropriate patron saint.

As Rusmeister quoted: "....all of our prayers....are heard and considered by God before we even make them." So why the need for saints to intercede? The principle of Occam's Razor makes them redundant.
Hi, Mickey,
I don't suppose that you could with equal facility accept the image of asking for help from an uncle or aunt as you can from being forced to apply via a bureaucracy?

As to your latter question, I think the answer is relatively simple. yes, God "knows" everything, being outside of Time. It is we who do not. As in the Genesis story of God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son, God always "knew" what Abraham would do and how far he was willing to go. It was Abraham who did not, and needed to go through what he went through to learn it.
So we need to pray, and to act, for that is the freedom He has granted us - free will to act. Anything else would be determinism. God's knowing what we "will choose" does not affect our freedom in choosing it, for we will all choose something or other. God doesn't want automatons. He wants people who will become (in a sense) like Him, freely choose what is good and right.

While it may seem redundant - and in a sense, it is, how "redundant" would you consider signatures on a petition? Surely one is enough? Unless there is something in the idea that a ruler might, if enough people ask, be more inclined to grant what they want, if it is not ultimately harmful for them - especially if it was someone who had specially earned his favor.

But it's hard to say anything if you don't see any need for intercession at all - not even from God Himself (Christ) to God Himself (the Father). It means that you do not perceive the nature and extent of sin, most especially in your own life. The test is fairly easy. It's easy for us to see sin (selfishness, if you prefer) in other people's lives, and much harder than to see it in our own. Once one DOES begin to see it in one's own life - and here CS Lewis was of great help to me, with analogies like the difference between looking at a dirty glass in the dark - where it doesn't look so bad, and bringing it into the light, where the extent of filth becomes obvious - it becomes possible to see how thoroughly destructive much of our behavior and actions really are, and that we are actually really bad in the same way the glass is dirty - that we are far from the ideal of holiness - that we are much further down that scale towards evil than we would like to think. This would provide the beginnings of understanding why we might need intercession.

ReallyGreatConcerts
15-05-2010, 21:41
It really is terrible and unacceptable if women are treated as chattels, and forced into marriages arranged by religious groups. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/roll-up-for-the-polygamy-experience-1973968.html)

rusmeister
16-05-2010, 05:50
It really is terrible and unacceptable if women are treated as chattels, and forced into marriages arranged by religious groups.
It really is terrible and unacceptable if women (and men) are taught that marriage and the family - and even babies - are unnecessary; that the only important thing is one's self.

MickeyTong
16-05-2010, 15:49
Hi, Mickey,
I don't suppose that you could with equal facility accept the image of asking for help from an uncle or aunt as you can from being forced to apply via a bureaucracy?

As to your latter question, I think the answer is relatively simple. yes, God "knows" everything, being outside of Time. It is we who do not. As in the Genesis story of God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son, God always "knew" what Abraham would do and how far he was willing to go. It was Abraham who did not, and needed to go through what he went through to learn it.
So we need to pray, and to act, for that is the freedom He has granted us - free will to act. Anything else would be determinism. God's knowing what we "will choose" does not affect our freedom in choosing it, for we will all choose something or other. God doesn't want automatons. He wants people who will become (in a sense) like Him, freely choose what is good and right.

While it may seem redundant - and in a sense, it is, how "redundant" would you consider signatures on a petition? Surely one is enough? Unless there is something in the idea that a ruler might, if enough people ask, be more inclined to grant what they want, if it is not ultimately harmful for them - especially if it was someone who had specially earned his favor.



Abraham was willing to go all the way, and do precisely what he was told to do - kill his son :jawdrop: But you still say God doesn't want automatons.

Redundancy...........I have a legitimate need, the ruler knows what I need and has the power to meet that need. I respectfully remind him of my need. But he'll satisfy my need only if another 20, 50, 1000, x amount of faithful subjects of good standing (preferably, exceptionally exalted standing) submit a humble application in the correct format through the correct department. If the ruler were truly merciful, loving and forgiving - and omnipotent/omniscient - my lack of political savvy in spiritual matters should not result in rejection of my need. If I want the ruler to like me, do I first need to grease the palms/egos of saints/holy men/church dignitaries/etc with flattering words of prayer? Is blat is necessary?

rusmeister
16-05-2010, 21:48
Abraham was willing to go all the way, and do precisely what he was told to do - kill his son :jawdrop: But you still say God doesn't want automatons.

Redundancy...........I have a legitimate need, the ruler knows what I need and has the power to meet that need. I respectfully remind him of my need. But he'll satisfy my need only if another 20, 50, 1000, x amount of faithful subjects of good standing (preferably, exceptionally exalted standing) submit a humble application in the correct format through the correct department. If the ruler were truly merciful, loving and forgiving - and omnipotent/omniscient - my lack of political savvy in spiritual matters should not result in rejection of my need. If I want the ruler to like me, do I first need to grease the palms/egos of saints/holy men/church dignitaries/etc with flattering words of prayer? Is blat is necessary?

Nothing is necessary for God. He doesn't NEED us. He is self-sufficient. It is WE who need to make the supplications, for our own sakes, as well as the sake of others besides ourselves.
It is not seen as "blat" at all from within the Faith. We can communicate with people who became giants in moral/spiritual sense, and ask them to also ask for us. Why should a Christian need to ask anyone at all to pray for him? I imagine yakspeare would also agree that it is both commanded, and is spiritually good for us to pray for one another.

It's not a question of the need being rejected. There are many factors. We may not be able to perceive that what we are asking for is actually harmful or dangerous. Yet, if it is not, then specifically BECAUSE we dare to lift up our voices - and ask others to do so also - then a God Who could intervene or not intervene, would be justified in intervening because, like a parent, He was asked, rather than merely expected, to do wonderful things.

Obviously, this is the kind of answer you'd get after you had already accepted that there was a God who could answer prayer at all. But if you did, you'd be able to see how this follows.