PDA

View Full Version : "Poor" servants of God



Ghostly Presence
05-04-2012, 15:34
Amazing how top "servants of God" in the Russian Orthodox church are not inclined to deprive themselves of a bit of luxury, such as a super expensive Swiss watch....

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/bloggers-spot-patriarchs-pricey-watch/456210.html

Sparafucile
05-04-2012, 15:51
More and more people are repelled and disgusted by the sham piety of the scum who lead the Orthodox 'Church'.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/plight-of-punk-rockers-turns-russians-against-the-church-7619191.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/plight-of-punk-rockers-turns-russians-against-the-church-7619191.html)

Probe
05-04-2012, 15:52
Amazing how top "servants of God" in the Russian Orthodox church are not inclined to deprive themselves of a bit of luxury, such as a super expensive Swiss watch....

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/bloggers-spot-patriarchs-pricey-watch/456210.html


An fuller and better coverage can be found here. Pathetic

http://rt.com/news/patriarch-watch-photo-scandal-326/

Ghostly Presence
05-04-2012, 16:23
An fuller and better coverage can be found here. Pathetic

http://rt.com/news/patriarch-watch-photo-scandal-326/

That is one aspect that disgusts me about the Russian Orthodox Church. Another one, probably even more repelling, is that they are kissing up so hard to the secular authorities. The Church's relationship with the government officials, some of whom have dubious reputations, is embarassingly cosy.

Sparafucile
05-04-2012, 16:24
Matthew 6:25 "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?

It's from the Bible. Someone should tell Patriarch Kirill about it.

Ghostly Presence
05-04-2012, 16:35
Matthew 6:25 "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?

It's from the Bible. Someone should tell Patriarch Kirill about it.

Yes, he should definitely read that book sometime! It might change his perspective on things! :)

BabyFirefly
05-04-2012, 16:44
Frankly, every time I visit one of their churches, I'm just disgusted. It's too over the top and who knows how much they cost...

Korotky Gennady
05-04-2012, 17:49
Amazing how top "servants of God" in the Russian Orthodox church are not inclined to deprive themselves of a bit of luxury, such as a super expensive Swiss watch....

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/bloggers-spot-patriarchs-pricey-watch/456210.html

God likes Swiss watch too. So his servants did... :)))

Samodika
05-04-2012, 17:59
Amazing how top "servants of God" in the Russian Orthodox church are not inclined to deprive themselves of a bit of luxury, such as a super expensive Swiss watch....
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/bloggers-spot-patriarchs-pricey-watch/456210.html
:)

Korotky Gennady
05-04-2012, 18:00
http://static.themoscowtimes.com/upload/iblock/b9f/Kirill-Miss-Watch-WEB.jpg...

I like the devoted look on the face of our minister.

It's clear at once who is the boss here... :))))

Korotky Gennady
05-04-2012, 18:03
:)

All around the Russian Church is connected with Mysticism.

Consult Rus... about that.

Samodika
05-04-2012, 18:09
All around the Russian Church is connected with Mysticism.

Consult Rus... about that.

Probably, Woland is in the city again )))

mrzuzzo
05-04-2012, 18:11
"Отец Федор три года собирает пожертвования на часовню, но пока хватило только на Ауди."

Korotky Gennady
05-04-2012, 18:22
" , ." http://englishrussia.com/images/church_2/6.jpg :)))

FatAndy
05-04-2012, 19:46
On the topic, for those who knows Russian well enough :)

http://vladimir.vladimirovich.ru/2012-4-5/#an3152

robertmf
24-04-2012, 16:45
More and more people are repelled and disgusted by the sham piety of the scum who lead the Orthodox 'Church'.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/plight-of-punk-rockers-turns-russians-against-the-church-7619191.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/plight-of-punk-rockers-turns-russians-against-the-church-7619191.html)


[INDIA TALKIES] Moscow, April 23: A man in Russia, proclaiming to be God, set himself ablaze and landed in hospital in a critical condition with 70 percent burns, RIA Novosti reported.

A member of the Jehovahs Witnesses sect, the set himself on fire Monday in the Moscow region, police said.

The incident occurred in the village of Nakhabino, 33 km outside Moscow after the man bought fuel, poured it onto himself and set himself ablaze.

According to the son of the injured man, his 43-year-old father had been a member of the Jehovahs Witnesses and considered himself to be God, the police said.

Investigators are probing the cause of the mans suicide attempt.

The Jehovahs Witnesses, with some seven million followers worldwide and over 200,000 in Russia, have been banned in a number of Russian regions and in some former Soviet republics.

The sect is banned in China, North Korea, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, among other countries.

FatAndy
24-04-2012, 20:37
A member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses sect - these are really mad sometmes... they were banned in USSR.

robertmf
25-04-2012, 01:29
On the topic, for those who knows Russian well enough :)

http://vladimir.vladimirovich.ru/2012-4-5/#an3152


:nut: In the upper right corner is a [Choose Your Language] checkbox RU EN DE ES

In the event, this old joke would not fully load for me.

:10518:

rusmeister
25-04-2012, 06:00
It is curious to note that some people say that comments defending religion ought to be kept in the religion folder, but have no problem with starting or supporting attacks on religion in any place at all.

The idea that clergy OUGHT to be poor is a strange one, not supported for any other professional in any field. In any other field we might condemn corruption, but see as legitimate the owning of an Audi or a Swiss watch or whatever. The Christian ideal is admittedly difficult, and the first person the Orthodox Christian is to point fingers at is himself. But it is nevertheless odd that people get outraged and hold people to a standard that they themselves are not willing to be held to.

Also, in any other field we would readily admit that there are both honest and good people, and corrupt, and that even a good and honest person can be corrupted or compromised in a position of power. But this is not acknowledged for Christian clergy, even though it ought to be obvious.

Finally, we KNOW at the media do not tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but we set aside our adult wisdom and adopt a childlike faith that "if it is in print, it must be true" (and the complete truth of the matter).

Ghostly Presence
25-04-2012, 11:18
It is curious to note that some people say that comments defending religion ought to be kept in the religion folder, but have no problem with starting or supporting attacks on religion in any place at all.

The idea that clergy OUGHT to be poor is a strange one, not supported for any other professional in any field. In any other field we might condemn corruption, but see as legitimate the owning of an Audi or a Swiss watch or whatever. The Christian ideal is admittedly difficult, and the first person the Orthodox Christian is to point fingers at is himself. But it is nevertheless odd that people get outraged and hold people to a standard that they themselves are not willing to be held to.

Also, in any other field we would readily admit that there are both honest and good people, and corrupt, and that even a good and honest person can be corrupted or compromised in a position of power. But this is not acknowledged for Christian clergy, even though it ought to be obvious.

Finally, we KNOW at the media do not tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but we set aside our adult wisdom and adopt a childlike faith that "if it is in print, it must be true" (and the complete truth of the matter).

I think you are missing one crucial point comparing clergy to "any other profession in any other field." The point is that clergy is not just "any profession". These people claim to be spiritual mentors and guardians of social morals. They have to be exactly that if their job is to save souls! That is a role very different from any other occupation, it definitely makes them stand out amongst everybody else.

With that in mind, obviously the standards that are applied to these people are very different from those applied to regular folks. I think it is only reasonable. I am not sure I would be very receptive of the words about the need to give your riches to the poor and surrender your life to Christ coming from a man with a 30 thousand dollar watch on his wrist.

Ghostly Presence
25-04-2012, 14:08
The more I follow what is happening to the Russian Orthodox Church, the more I begin to understand why people gleefully burned churches down after the October revolution in 1917. The underlying reasons must have been the same or similar. Official, institutionalized religion has always been supporting the mighty State (king, emperor etc.) all over the world, in most cases. It is a good position to be in - it brings plenty of tangible benefits. Who cares about diminishing moral authority when your wealth is increasing and authority can be imposed by force with the help of the mighty State? That is why the Church is doing its best to crush the girls from Pussy Riot - the kids managed to spit in the face both of the church itself and its powerful benefactor. Forget Christian virtues - such things can not be forgiven!

Maybe it's time to stike a match again................

whiterussian
25-04-2012, 14:32
Amazing how top "servants of God" in the Russian Orthodox church are not inclined to deprive themselves of a bit of luxury, such as a super expensive Swiss watch....
That's their personal problem. Has nothing to do with the Orthodox Church. The Church is fine. Mind your own business, goddammit.

Ghostly Presence
25-04-2012, 14:40
That's their personal problem. Has nothing to do with the Orthodox Church. The Church is fine. Mind your own business, goddammit.

Another crazy one crawls into the daylight....

whiterussian
25-04-2012, 14:42
Another crazy one crawls into the daylight....
Take it easy, will ya?

Sparafucile
25-04-2012, 15:46
That's their personal problem. Has nothing to do with the Orthodox Church. The Church is fine. Mind your own business, goddammit.

This topic is specifically about whether clerics should have such luxuries, so the point was valid. The poster isn't obliged to 'mind their own business', thanks. I see you're another religious bully-boy like Patriarch Kirill.

whiterussian
25-04-2012, 15:51
This topic is specifically about whether clerics should have such luxuries, so the point was valid. The poster isn't obliged to 'mind their own business', thanks. I see you're another religious bully-boy like Patriarch Kirill.
Well, the way I see it, you are questioning the faith. Like I said, if some clerics are this or that, it's their personal problem, not mine or yours. Monks in the monasteries can have an opinion about that, and they do. We are merely here now and gone tomorrow. IMHO?

Sparafucile
25-04-2012, 16:09
Well, the way I see it, you are questioning the faith.

I am indeed!

I am questioning how a so-called "priest", and self-proclaimed "man of god" can demand a seven-year prison sentence for three girls whose 'crime' was to sing an unauthorised song in a cathedral. Christians are supposed to forgive. But this Kirill has no forgiveness at all. He's a former KGB agent - and most probably a current FSB agent.

There is not any law in the Russian codex which can send someone to a Siberian prison colony for seven years for singing a song.

The recent speeches about "aggressive liberal forces" are communist-style hysteria which have only discredited the Church and its so-called "leader".

Ghostly Presence
25-04-2012, 16:11
Well, the way I see it, you are questioning the faith. Like I said, if some clerics are this or that, it's their personal problem, not mine or yours. Monks in the monasteries can have an opinion about that, and they do. We are merely here now and gone tomorrow. IMHO?

What kind of pointless drivel is that? Can anyone please translate what this guy is saying?

whiterussian
25-04-2012, 16:14
Christians are supposed to forgive.
Tell that your Grand Inquisitor. Hey, we are behind Europe in development by hundreds of years. You had your Torquemada, it's our turn ;)

whiterussian
25-04-2012, 16:20
What kind of pointless drivel is that? Can anyone please translate what this guy is saying?

Sure. This guy is saying that his faith should not be questioned by people of different persuasion. That's all.

Ghostly Presence
25-04-2012, 16:29
Sure. This guy is saying that his faith should not be questioned by people of different persuasion. That's all.

Nobody is questioning your faith. Actually, I would probably not be far off the mark if I say that nobody here cares one bit about what you believe or which religion you belong to. That is entirely your personal business. I am questioning the legitimacy of those from the Russian Orthodox Church who claim to be moral leaders of this nation even though their reputation is seriously tainted.

whiterussian
25-04-2012, 16:32
Nobody is questioning your faith. Actually, I would probably not be far off the mark if I say that nobody here cares one bit about what you believe or which religion you belong to. That is entirely your personal business. I am questioning the legitimacy of those from the Russian Orthodox Church who claim to be moral leaders of this nation even though their reputation is seriously tainted.
Hey, go play with yourself. It's amazing how you think of yourself as "beautiful people", and how you behave and talk like complete @#$%&*. Buzz off.

Ghostly Presence
25-04-2012, 16:38
Hey, go play with yourself. It's amazing how you think of yourself as "beautiful people", and how you behave and talk like complete @#$%&*. Buzz off.

Did you teach you all these dirty words at a Sunday school at your church? ;)

Sparafucile
25-04-2012, 16:38
Hey, go play with yourself. It's amazing how you think of yourself as "beautiful people", and how you behave and talk like complete @#$%&*. Buzz off.

I see you have nothing to add in the way of discussion.

Ghostly Presence
25-04-2012, 16:41
I see you have nothing to add in the way of discussion.

Judging by his comments, looks like we have talking to a bad-tempered 13 year old, whose mama has gone to a store and has forgoten to switch off the computer before she left... :)

rusmeister
25-04-2012, 17:46
I think you are missing one crucial point comparing clergy to "any other profession in any other field." The point is that clergy is not just "any profession". These people claim to be spiritual mentors and guardians of social morals. They have to be exactly that if their job is to save souls! That is a role very different from any other occupation, it definitely makes them stand out amongst everybody else.

With that in mind, obviously the standards that are applied to these people are very different from those applied to regular folks. I think it is only reasonable. I am not sure I would be very receptive of the words about the need to give your riches to the poor and surrender your life to Christ coming from a man with a 30 thousand dollar watch on his wrist.

I wonder if you would give me credit for possibly having thought about the issue, rather than be merely "missing a point"?

First of all, Orthodox priests do NOT go around telling people they need to "give their riches to the poor", in the sense you clearly imply, that of deliberately impoverishing oneself.

Secondly, they do NOT claim to be mentors to anyone except to volunteers who take on such mentorship via mutual agreement, nor do they claim to be the guardians of social morals. They admit that they are sinners, and that it is not OK to sin and in no wise approve of themselves morally.

They do NOT see their job as the saving of souls - they see that as God's job. They do generally feel that they need to try harder to set a good example, but they do not claim or believe the things you ascribe to them.

So your conclusions need more info from inside the Church and some revision before you can claim a solid position. If you can't state what we DO teach accurately, then you probably don't really understand it, but are bringing in ideas from past encounters with a religion that are N/A here.

FatAndy
25-04-2012, 18:04
whiterussian - 5 points. Pls keep rules. Be polite. ;)

Ghostly Presence
26-04-2012, 10:20
I wonder if you would give me credit for possibly having thought about the issue, rather than be merely "missing a point"?

First of all, Orthodox priests do NOT go around telling people they need to "give their riches to the poor", in the sense you clearly imply, that of deliberately impoverishing oneself.

Secondly, they do NOT claim to be mentors to anyone except to volunteers who take on such mentorship via mutual agreement, nor do they claim to be the guardians of social morals. They admit that they are sinners, and that it is not OK to sin and in no wise approve of themselves morally.

They do NOT see their job as the saving of souls - they see that as God's job. They do generally feel that they need to try harder to set a good example, but they do not claim or believe the things you ascribe to them.

So your conclusions need more info from inside the Church and some revision before you can claim a solid position. If you can't state what we DO teach accurately, then you probably don't really understand it, but are bringing in ideas from past encounters with a religion that are N/A here.

When have you been to Church the last time? Have you ever heard a sermon or talked to an Orthodox priest? They do act like spiritual mentors telling folks to do this or that and supposedly Bible is where they get their authority for this. Just listen to any of the Patriach's public speeches - he is preaching from a position of elevated moral authority.

Saving souls is not their job? What is it then? Building new churches and promoting the role of the Church? For what purpose may I ask?

Even if everything you said were true, I believe that acting as someone whose role is to bring the word of God and his moral tenets to the public and to guide people in the their quest for spiritual enlightment imposes certain obligations and certain standars on these people. I can't understand why anyone would deny such a simple fact. People are entrusting priests with the only truely valuable thing they possess - their eternal soul and you are telling me that priests should not be judged by a higher standard than anybody else? If priests are just like everyone else, then one might as well go and pour out his soul to a parking meter. People want someone to guide them and to be able to do that a priest must practice what he preaches - it's that simple.

PeterM
26-04-2012, 10:54
Saving souls is not their job? What is it then? Building new churches and promoting the role of the Church? For what purpose may I ask?


A very old joke:

"Two jews are taking a stroll in Vatican. They visit St. Pete's cathedral, museum of Vatican and all the other places. They admire priceless paintings and sculptures by the Micheal Angelo and Leonardo. At the end of their of day one of them shakes his head with amazement and tells the other one
- Just look around Moishe, hard to believe THEY have started only with an old stable, cradle and the donkey" :)

Judge
26-04-2012, 10:58
This painting by Repin sums up many priests, even back then priests were the same, without caring much for the ordinary people.
The priest in the centre is full of vanity, ''look at me, I'm so elegant,he's oblivious to what's going on around him....People are being beaten, struggling and the priest is in middle of it all..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Kurskaya_korennaya.jpg

rusmeister
26-04-2012, 15:32
When have you been to Church the last time? Have you ever heard a sermon or talked to an Orthodox priest? They do act like spiritual mentors telling folks to do this or that and supposedly Bible is where they get their authority for this. Just listen to any of the Patriach's public speeches - he is preaching from a position of elevated moral authority.

Saving souls is not their job? What is it then? Building new churches and promoting the role of the Church? For what purpose may I ask?

Even if everything you said were true, I believe that acting as someone whose role is to bring the word of God and his moral tenets to the public and to guide people in the their quest for spiritual enlightment imposes certain obligations and certain standars on these people. I can't understand why anyone would deny such a simple fact. People are entrusting priests with the only truely valuable thing they possess - their eternal soul and you are telling me that priests should not be judged by a higher standard than anybody else? If priests are just like everyone else, then one might as well go and pour out his soul to a parking meter. People want someone to guide them and to be able to do that a priest must practice what he preaches - it's that simple.

Hi, GP,
I am a practicing Orthodox Christian; I go to church every Sunday and periodically talk to my priest, sometimes to other priests, listen to sermons, and so on. They talk to people who WANT to listen and learn; they only offer to teach those willing to be taught. They get their authority from Church Tradition as a whole, which includes, but certainly is not limited to the Bible. Your reference to the Bible as the primary authority suggests that your past experience is Protestant; as I said, you bring assumptions that are not applicable to Orthodoxy.

Their purpose is to serve the Truth. They perform sacraments, teach and preach. That is their job. The purpose is to help people toward the Truth. But they cannot save souls, not even their own. They must look to God for that.

I don't "entrust the priest with my eternal soul". Again, you have a lot of strange presuppositions that simply are not what we believe or teach. You may be angry at or object to something, but it must be to some belief other than mine.

We agree that they should practice what they preach. And that we ALL should. The trouble is, you don't know what they preach. If you ever really listened to an Orthodox sermon, you might begin to grasp what is actually being preached. Then you could know what is actually expected.

Hete is an excellent site which says what we DO believe:
http://www.metropolit-anthony.orc.ru/eng/

rusmeister
26-04-2012, 15:42
This painting by Repin sums up many priests, even back then priests were the same, without caring much for the ordinary people.
The priest in the centre is full of vanity, ''look at me, I'm so elegant,he's oblivious to what's going on around him....People are being beaten, struggling and the priest is in middle of it all..


Hey Judge,
I think Repin saw real this. I wouldn't argue that there are bad priests. I KNOW there are bad priests. But still I believe.

One thing this does is it takes a fairly small percentage of all priests, and treats it like the whole pie, the 100%. Which just ain't so. Most priests a NOT like that, thou they have various failings like all of us, most are really in because they really believe and really do try to work on changing themselves - at least they are aware that they are Fallen, and are not OK with that.

It's the very fact that the teachings of the Church PREDICT that priests are just men, are also Fallen and also need to continually repent which is proven true by this. The Apostle Paul described himself as the chief of sinners - at the END of his ministry, when he really had gone through hell and back to atone for his early life. The more holy you are, the more you realize that you suck. The less holy you are, the more you think you are OK. That is the paradox.

So I expect the priests to do their job - to administer the sacraments, to teach and preach, and try to repent of their failings, just as I am supposed to. But I don't expect them to be more holy than me. We're ALL supposed to strive to be holy as God is holy, we all fail, and that's not really OK, so we don't have any kind of smug sense of moral superiority - we look at ourselves first of all.

Does that make any sense?

robertmf
26-04-2012, 16:28
This painting by Repin sums up many priests, even back then priests were the same, without caring much for the ordinary people.
The priest in the centre is full of vanity, ''look at me, I'm so elegant,he's oblivious to what's going on around him....People are being beaten, struggling and the priest is in middle of it all..


Ilya Repin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ghostly Presence
26-04-2012, 17:37
Hey Judge,
I think Repin saw real this. I wouldn't argue that there are bad priests. I KNOW there are bad priests. But still I believe.

One thing this does is it takes a fairly small percentage of all priests, and treats it like the whole pie, the 100%. Which just ain't so. Most priests a NOT like that, thou they have various failings like all of us, most are really in because they really believe and really do try to work on changing themselves - at least they are aware that they are Fallen, and are not OK with that.

It's the very fact that the teachings of the Church PREDICT that priests are just men, are also Fallen and also need to continually repent which is proven true by this. The Apostle Paul described himself as the chief of sinners - at the END of his ministry, when he really had gone through hell and back to atone for his early life. The more holy you are, the more you realize that you suck. The less holy you are, the more you think you are OK. That is the paradox.

So I expect the priests to do their job - to administer the sacraments, to teach and preach, and try to repent of their failings, just as I am supposed to. But I don't expect them to be more holy than me. We're ALL supposed to strive to be holy as God is holy, we all fail, and that's not really OK, so we don't have any kind of smug sense of moral superiority - we look at ourselves first of all.

Does that make any sense?

So, basically according to you an Orthodox priest is a guardian of traditions and a performer of rituals - nothing more. A kind of a civil servant from God. OK, fine, be it as you say. However, comparing Apostle Paul with Patriach Kirill is probably not very relevant. The former, as you have correctly pointed out, has gone to hell and back for his faith, while the latter seems to enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle under the wing of the powerful Russian state and Mr. Putin. I don't think Paul would have liked this comparison, even though he most likely would not have held any grudges against those who made it. The same generosity of spirit can not be attributed to Kirill though - just remember the story with the girls from Pussy Riot and his reaction towards it...

Paul was a true believer and a teacher and Kirill is just a politician from Church and this pretty much sums it all up.

rusmeister
26-04-2012, 18:52
So, basically according to you an Orthodox priest is a guardian of traditions and a performer of rituals - nothing more. A kind of a civil servant from God. OK, fine, be it as you say. However, comparing Apostle Paul with Patriach Kirill is probably not very relevant. The former, as you have correctly pointed out, has gone to hell and back for his faith, while the latter seems to enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle under the wing of the powerful Russian state and Mr. Putin. I don't think Paul would have liked this comparison, even though he most likely would not have held any grudges against those who made it. The same generosity of spirit can not be attributed to Kirill though - just remember the story with the girls from Pussy Riot and his reaction towards it...

Paul was a true believer and a teacher and Kirill is just a politician from Church and this pretty much sums it all up.

"A civil servant from God"... Interesting way to put it... :)

Your attempt to sum it all up seems rather too simplistic, and seems to be mainly a woefully incomplete picture largely provided by a mostly hostile media. I think there is more even to Kirill's life than what you suggest, just as a reference to a couple of events in your own life hardly sum up all that you are.

I find it strange that you expect a special "generosity of spirit" that you yourself would fiercely refuse to display if an analogous offence was committed against you. If a woman in your family was raped, or even just sexually harassed, would you hasten to call for freedom with forgive-and-forget for the perpetrators? Or would you ask that something be done to strongly discourage them from repeating the act?
(An honest person will answer that question.)

yakspeare
26-04-2012, 21:45
Rus what you are describing is not even close to christianity, and it is funny that every "heathen" here knows it but you don't.

So here is a Christianity 101, which apparently you need(and yes I am being as condescending as you are typically in your posts):

God so loved the world he allowed his Holy, sacred and special son to die for the sake of fallen and lost and even evil humanity. This was an act of GRACE and MERCY. There was no survey done to see if people would accept it, no council to decide on it, the act was done with UNCONDITIONAL love for mankind. ou only had to accept it as having happened.

When Jesus healed the woman he forgave her first and then said "sin no more" it was a plea, an encouragement, even a command but there was no "or else" attached to it.

By showing kindness, compassion, turning the other cheek, being delighted when you are insulted and even spat on-this shows Christ's mission with the church. This is the spirit of christianity. It is not oh maybe we will forgive you if we think you are genuine and only under certain conditions....the prodigal son comes to mind. The people ought to be accepted and loved as they are , and through that love learn of God etc. The church can be saddened or upset about the Pussy riot singers and plead for it to not happen again, but they should also display a spirit of charity and kindness and show forgivenes, without question, without conditions, because their sins have already been forgiven by God on the cross 2000 years ago.

How could you, a christian, not even understand this?


As for riches and poverty. "you can serve God or money, you cannot serve both" I look at St Francis, who left even without the clothes on his back, to prech the message. Even Buddha ditched his palace to be in peasant rags-the display of wealth by the Orthodox is sickening and the fact you are bliind to it, speaks volumes about yourself and how lost you are. It is offensive to the average person to see a church with so much wealth and contrary to a carpenter 2000years ago walking around with fishermen, tax collectors and prostitutes, speaking to the poor and saying how blessed they are and how difficult it is for the rich to get to heaven.

rusmeister
26-04-2012, 22:20
Rus what you are describing is not even close to christianity, and it is funny that every "heathen" here knows it but you don't.

So here is a Christianity 101, which apparently you need(and yes I am being as condescending as you are typically in your posts):

God so loved the world he allowed his Holy, sacred and special son to die for the sake of fallen and lost and even evil humanity. This was an act of GRACE and MERCY. There was no survey done to see if people would accept it, no council to decide on it, the act was done with UNCONDITIONAL love for mankind. ou only had to accept it as having happened.

When Jesus healed the woman he forgave her first and then said "sin no more" it was a plea, an encouragement, even a command but there was no "or else" attached to it.

By showing kindness, compassion, turning the other cheek, being delighted when you are insulted and even spat on-this shows Christ's mission with the church. This is the spirit of christianity. It is not oh maybe we will forgive you if we think you are genuine and only under certain conditions....the prodigal son comes to mind. The people ought to be accepted and loved as they are , and through that love learn of God etc. The church can be saddened or upset about the Pussy riot singers and plead for it to not happen again, but they should also display a spirit of charity and kindness and show forgivenes, without question, without conditions, because their sins have already been forgiven by God on the cross 2000 years ago.

How could you, a christian, not even understand this?


As for riches and poverty. "you can serve God or money, you cannot serve both" I look at St Francis, who left even without the clothes on his back, to prech the message. Even Buddha ditched his palace to be in peasant rags-the display of wealth by the Orthodox is sickening and the fact you are bliind to it, speaks volumes about yourself and how lost you are. It is offensive to the average person to see a church with so much wealth and contrary to a carpenter 2000years ago walking around with fishermen, tax collectors and prostitutes, speaking to the poor and saying how blessed they are and how difficult it is for the rich to get to heaven.

My dear Yak,
It is you who do not understand. But what's the use? You WILL not understand anything else - and that means you apply your will so as not to understand anything else.

You are no longer even Christian by your own admission. You learned next to nothing about Orthodoxy, except,evidently, for talking to a provincial priest and a few superstitious babushki.

It is true that Christ's love is unconditional. What you leave out is His warning in the parable of the sheep and the goats. He did, or rather could NOT save the thief on the left, who voluntarily chose to reject Him. This is a game where it is possible to lose, that although we hope that all will be saved, it is rather improbable, as Christ allows people to choose to reject Him, and to honor their choice.

There certainly WAS an "or else" attached to the command to "sin no more". That you don't see that only displays how much you didn't learn of what you so swiftly rejected.
I'll give you credit for missing things I said on other threads. Forgiveness is offered HERE and NOW. People (including Pussy Rioters) need only strecth out their hand and accept it. The necessary corollary of accepting forgiveness is admitting that you did wrong. which is evidently the sticking point, only it is not the Church that is failing to forgive, but people REFUSING to accept the forgiveness, insisting that there is nothing to forgive.

The prodigal son had the sense to admit that he had been very, very wrong, and it was THEN that the forgiveness that the father was ALWAYS offering became possible.

We forgive, and God forgives. But without repentance, the forgiveness is of no effect. It cannot cross the gulf until the recipient says "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner!" That's all anyone needs to do, Yak. Even the thief on the right was forgiven at almost the very last minute because he got that.

yakspeare
26-04-2012, 22:32
no you forgive first, it is the right thing in your heart, you forgive before it is even asked of you, and perhaps it is not asked ever of you but you forgive anyway. that is christian charity. What the other person does is immaterial, that is their choice, but forgiving keeps you right with God. To say I will forgive you IF you come to me and IF you publicly confess you have done wrong etc, ain't christianity. The son of the prodigal son forgave him long before his return. He loved his son.

rusmeister
26-04-2012, 23:02
no you forgive first, it is the right thing in your heart, you forgive before it is even asked of you, and perhaps it is not asked ever of you but you forgive anyway. that is christian charity. What the other person does is immaterial, that is their choice, but forgiving keeps you right with God. To say I will forgive you IF you come to me and IF you publicly confess you have done wrong etc, ain't christianity. The son of the prodigal son forgave him long before his return. He loved his son.

Yak, in that sense, forgiveness is already given. The attitude is ALREADY ready to forgive. There is no reasonable and intelligent Orthodox Christian who is holding on to any hate or vengeance. But that forgiveness means nothing, and is of no value, not even to talk about - and it can lead an unrepentant soul to think there is nothing to repent of. The very first spiritual step, before you can even BEGIN to talk about forgiveness, is the realization that a wrong has indeed been done, otherwise, why on earth are you asking for forgiveness?? But these women are being assured on all sides that they have done no wrong; indeed, that they are "prisoners of conscience". So until the wrong has been admitted, no forgiveness can be transmitted. The door of the Church is open, anyone can come in and ask for forgiveness and it will be freely given. But they do NOT ask for forgiveness; that is rather the whole point.

yakspeare
26-04-2012, 23:30
"forgive them father, for they know not what they do"

Sounds familiar?

THIS would of been the correct Christian response(not calling them agents of Satan etc):

"We are saddened and disappointed that Pussy riot chose a place important to us to try and send some message. If they would like to meet with us at any time, we will be happy to explain why we think these things are important. Still, we forgive them for doing this and will pray for them and hope that the Lord shows them a better way to express themselves."

robertmf
26-04-2012, 23:31
By showing kindness, compassion, turning the other cheek, being delighted when you are insulted and even spat on-this shows Christ's mission with the church.

According to a BBC miniseries I saw, the 'turning the other cheek' in Roman times signified resistance, not submission.



It is offensive to the average person to see a church with so much wealth and contrary to a carpenter 2000 years ago walking around with fishermen, tax collectors and prostitutes, speaking to the poor and saying how blessed they are and how difficult it is for the rich to get to heaven.

Yes. According to Mark, it is difficult for the laden camel to pass through the eye of the needle.

For my take, the dialectic is the organized church paid employees who are "holier than thou" while preaching & passing the plate to the brethern, but then do not firmly practice what they preach.

If you expect me to believe (in anything) "on faith" then IMhO you are expected to act in accordance with that which you are expounding.

If you waiver or veer, then fine; but don't expect me to follow your lead (in spiritual matters) or believe you are any closer to a god than I am - and don't try to tell me you are :-P

Else you get roasted and end up like the now non-person, Penn State Uni. football coach Joe Paterno (RIP),

yakspeare
26-04-2012, 23:47
According to a BBC miniseries I saw, the 'turning the other cheek' in Roman times signified resistance, not submission.



Yes. According to Mark, it is difficult for the laden camel to pass through the eye of the needle.

For my take, the dialectic is the organized church paid employees who are "holier than thou" while preaching & passing the plate to the brethern, but then do not firmly practice what they preach.

If you expect me to believe (in anything) "on faith" then IMhO you are expected to act in accordance with that which you are expounding.

If you waiver or veer, then fine; but don't expect me to follow your lead (in spiritual matters) or believe you are any closer to a god than I am - and don't try to tell me you are :-P

Else you get roasted and end up like the now non-person, Penn State Uni. football coach Joe Paterno (RIP),



Great post Robert. Yes it is an act of resistance too. Gandhi used passive resistance, based on christian principles, to get the British out of India. It is because the Christians DIDN'T fight back and were matyred readily, that Christianity spread.

Besides the phrases "killing them with kindness" and "pouring hot coals on their heads" come to mind. By being polite and nice and showing compassion, you are adding to their sense of guilt, a far more effective weapon than fear.

TGP
27-04-2012, 00:01
It's surely striking to which extent brains of people are infected with money issues. It's just amazing. A most important thing is to count how many 0s are in the price of some item. Such things as deeds of the person are not taken into
account. Really, it's such a trifle in comparison with the watch... even if it may be a present.

I still remember some dude who was taking part in a TV show dedicated to intelligentsia. Yes, he presented himself as an intellectual, but all he was interested in was to calculate the cost price of candles which are on sale in churches. It was so embarrassing to watch him.

The era of consumption....
:brush:

rusmeister
27-04-2012, 00:08
"forgive them father, for they know not what they do"

Sounds familiar?

THIS would of been the correct Christian response(not calling them agents of Satan etc):

"We are saddened and disappointed that Pussy riot chose a place important to us to try and send some message. If they would like to meet with us at any time, we will be happy to explain why we think these things are important. Still, we forgive them for doing this and will pray for them and hope that the Lord shows them a better way to express themselves."
Yak, having ostensibly become a Jew, you are in a very poor position to tell us wat the "correct" Christian response would be.

There's not much to say to you. You HAVE to justify your own choices.

rusmeister
27-04-2012, 00:17
According to a BBC miniseries I saw, the 'turning the other cheek' in Roman times signified resistance, not submission.



Yes. According to Mark, it is difficult for the laden camel to pass through the eye of the needle.

For my take, the dialectic is the organized church paid employees who are "holier than thou" while preaching & passing the plate to the brethern, but then do not firmly practice what they preach.

If you expect me to believe (in anything) "on faith" then IMhO you are expected to act in accordance with that which you are expounding.

If you waiver or veer, then fine; but don't expect me to follow your lead (in spiritual matters) or believe you are any closer to a god than I am - and don't try to tell me you are :-P

Else you get roasted and end up like the now non-person, Penn State Uni. football coach Joe Paterno (RIP),


Robert, I'll assume you've missed what I've said elsewhere, though repeating myself is tiring.

Why do you think that any of us think that we are holy, or even holier than others? We pretty specifically deny that we are. So why do you insist that we think we are holier-than-thou?

What exactly is it that they preach and do not practice? Quotes, names and dates, please. Note that I might agree with you on some points.

We'll quickly agree that you might closer to heaven than we. Your idea that we think we are better is totally unfounded.

yakspeare
27-04-2012, 00:23
That's Rus' way of raising the middle finger.

What my religion is is irrelevent. You can grasp the dogma of your rellgion without seeing the spirit behind it, the very claim your Christ made against the Pharisees. That is exactly how you sound too, as the biblical account of the Pharisees.

It was the lack of Christian charity and condescending attitude in you, that helped me to realize that Orthodoxy wasn't the way for me. I read all your links and tsarski's too, plus the Orthodox forum etc....and the more I saw, the more I didn't like. Pompous and with absolutely no safe guards in place if error was made at the higher levels. I explored how the church was with the Tsars, particularly Ivan and the expansion of the Russian Empire. I explored the role of the church in the persecution of the old believers. i looked how the church faired under communism. All in all, I found it as a hollow institution , more interested in its land holdings throughout history. Orthodoxy was my last real chance to remain within christendom, but it seemed the furtherest from the message of Christ of all of them.

So if I don't understand Orthodoxy, then the reason is its apoligist, namely you and your unchristlike behaviour on this forum.

But you have saved and me released me from such bondage, so I am grateful for that.

Ghostly Presence
27-04-2012, 00:24
Yak, having ostensibly become a Jew, you are in a very poor position to tell us wat the "correct" Christian response would be.

There's not much to say to you. You HAVE to justify your own choices.

That's the thing about religion - people can never agree on anything. They would argue and argue and then ultimately they start killing each other supposedly to defend their faith. If we look at human history, religion has thoroughly discredited itself for the simple fact that so many people died fighting over it. So, I think that organized religion is evil because it tends to get corrupt and use people for self-promotion. The path to spiritual enlightment is the road best travelled alone.

Ghostly Presence
27-04-2012, 00:43
Why would anyone need a thirty thousand dollar watch anyway, especially a priest? I would understand if the Patriach had a weakness for a comfortable lifestyle and nice things but this watch is a manifestation of extreme vanity and exorbitance.

Remeber how at the end of the movie "Schindler's list" Oskar Schindler takes off his golden ring and cries saying that he could have saved another couple of people with that ring? The Patriach could have also saved someone with 30 grand, for example by paying for an expensive operation for some poor sick kid. But he preferred the watch....

robertmf
27-04-2012, 01:27
Why would anyone need a thirty thousand dollar watch anyway, especially a priest? I would understand if the Patriach had a weakness for a comfortable lifestyle and nice things but this watch is a manifestation of extreme vanity and exorbitance.

Remeber how at the end of the movie "Schindler's list" Oskar Schindler takes off his golden ring and cries saying that he could have saved another couple of people with that ring? The Patriach could have also saved someone with 30 grand, for example by paying for an expensive operation for some poor sick kid. But he preferred the watch....

This is another (for me) sore point with the paid subjects of organized religions.

While I don't think one need be a monk to have legitimate faith, there is also no need for ostentatious temporal displays - especially when 'the flock' may be in need.

Those who do are sort of shiating in the face of believers.

TGP
27-04-2012, 01:38
True believers pay attention to other things.

peppermintpaddy
27-04-2012, 02:42
That's the thing about religion - people can never agree on anything. They would argue and argue and then ultimately they start killing each other supposedly to defend their faith. If we look at human history, religion has thoroughly discredited itself for the simple fact that so many people died fighting over it. So, I think that organized religion is evil because it tends to get corrupt and use people for self-promotion. The path to spiritual enlightment is the road best travelled alone.
The road less travelled indeed GP-Organized Religion is the work of the day-vil indeed.

Why would anyone need a thirty thousand dollar watch anyway, especially a priest? I would understand if the Patriach had a weakness for a comfortable lifestyle and nice things but this watch is a manifestation of extreme vanity and exorbitance.

Remeber how at the end of the movie "Schindler's list" Oskar Schindler takes off his golden ring and cries saying that he could have saved another couple of people with that ring? The Patriach could have also saved someone with 30 grand, for example by paying for an expensive operation for some poor sick kid. But he preferred the watch....

A wonderful book/movie,and a great example of true humanity.Humanity got lost years ago in Religion-I do take a delight in so-called Religious people arguing over their particular brand of BS-is that wicked of me?

Korotky Gennady
27-04-2012, 02:43
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Kurskaya_korennaya.jpg Comrades, they want us again on the such rallies ! (((((;

Jack17
27-04-2012, 03:31
True believers pay attention to other things.
Truer words were never spoken TGP. Unfortunately, skeptics and agnostics (which, by my estimate, account for most of the posters in this thread) focus on the $30K Ulysse Nardin.

Korotky Gennady
27-04-2012, 03:49
True believers pay attention to other things.

What true believers have to do with Contemporary Orthodox Church ?

True believers read Bible and they don't listen to the stupid pops like Chaplin and so on... :trampoline:

rusmeister
27-04-2012, 04:44
This is another (for me) sore point with the paid subjects of organized religions.

While I don't think one need be a monk to have legitimate faith, there is also no need for ostentatious temporal displays - especially when 'the flock' may be in need.

Those who do are sort of shiating in the face of believers.


Robert, could you concede my previous point, or do you think it wrong? Do you really think they think they are holier than you? I consider and respond to your points.

If the flock doesn't care in the least, why do you? Why is it that I don't think it's "shiating" in my face at all? Why are you so outraged for me when I myself don't care whether some show-off politician gave him something? I hear again and again the voice of Judas saying, "Why didn't they sell that ointment and give the money to the poor?"

What if all f your sore points have reasonable objections?

rusmeister
27-04-2012, 04:49
What true believers have to do with Contemporary Orthodox Church ?

True believers read Bible and they don't listen to the stupid pops like Chaplin and so on... :trampoline:

What on earth do you know about true believers, Gena?
And while I may not be crazy about Chaplin, he is certainly not stupid. I would at least try to characterize him accurately. It is a great mistake, in any conflict, to underestimate your opponents and give them too little credit. It undermines your own position, and the discovery you have done so might bring you to doubt your own position.

rusmeister
27-04-2012, 04:58
That's the thing about religion - people can never agree on anything. They would argue and argue and then ultimately they start killing each other supposedly to defend their faith. If we look at human history, religion has thoroughly discredited itself for the simple fact that so many people died fighting over it. So, I think that organized religion is evil because it tends to get corrupt and use people for self-promotion. The path to spiritual enlightment is the road best travelled alone.

That's the thing about politics - people can never agree on anything. They would argue and argue and then ultimately they start killing each other supposedly to defend their stand. If we look at human history, politics has thoroughly discredited itself for the simple fact that so many people died fighting over it. So, I think that organized politics is evil because it tends to get corrupt and use people for self-promotion. The path to political enlightment is the road best travelled alone.

Since both statements make about the same level of sense...

For my part, I'd say that religion has RESTRAINED people from killing each other much mire than constrained to kill, and its rejection notably removes that restraint, and the 20th century is rife with mass evils committed in either the ignoring of or direct denial of religion, From Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot, monstrosities that even the medieval Inquisition could not match at its worst.

rusmeister
27-04-2012, 05:39
That's Rus' way of raising the middle finger.

What my religion is is irrelevent. You can grasp the dogma of your rellgion without seeing the spirit behind it, the very claim your Christ made against the Pharisees. That is exactly how you sound too, as the biblical account of the Pharisees.

It was the lack of Christian charity and condescending attitude in you, that helped me to realize that Orthodoxy wasn't the way for me. I read all your links and tsarski's too, plus the Orthodox forum etc....and the more I saw, the more I didn't like. Pompous and with absolutely no safe guards in place if error was made at the higher levels. I explored how the church was with the Tsars, particularly Ivan and the expansion of the Russian Empire. I explored the role of the church in the persecution of the old believers. i looked how the church faired under communism. All in all, I found it as a hollow institution , more interested in its land holdings throughout history. Orthodoxy was my last real chance to remain within christendom, but it seemed the furtherest from the message of Christ of all of them.

So if I don't understand Orthodoxy, then the reason is its apoligist, namely you and your unchristlike behaviour on this forum.

But you have saved and me released me from such bondage, so I am grateful for that.
Well, I'd say that what your religion is is VERY relevant. It is NOT Orthodox. I don't see ANY Orthodox Christians at all raising protests about a watch, let alone ones who take their faith seriously.

This is not a thread about Jewish leadership or secular political scandals. What we have is a bunch of people who are NOT Orthodox coming on to complain about something that has nothing to do with them, about the leadership of a faith that they understand poorly or not at all.

"Safeguards at higher levels"? Against what? Were you trying to use a democratic model to measure what you imagined the Church should be like? Pompous? In what way? In being certain of truth? Or in some other way?

If it WERE a hollow institution, it would NOT have survived what it went through at all. It would be like all failed human institutions - a thing of the past. That it survived all that is proof that it has NOT failed. It's like saying that democracy is a failed institution because of human greed, and political scandals x, y and z.

You speak of charity and love, and yet, the sense I get from you is that you expect it to be all a kind of creampuff niceness, benevolently smiling at everyone, like Lewis's senile heavenly Grandfather, simply wanting a good time to be had by all. Sometimes love is a very hard thing. Love desires the good and even perfection of the beloved, and if the latter is careening toward a cliff, then love is NOT going to be nice - it is going to shout and scream.

I don't believe the internet can, as a rule, be the main thing that convinces one of truth; if what you did was mostly internet inquiry, then it truly wasn't much. If you had been a catechumen for a year or so, found a priest that you could really talk to, and spent that time learning and practicing the faith - a much more usual path, as the person who accepts Orthodoxy usually spends real time learning what they are getting themselves into, walking in with open eyes , then your inquiry might have born real fruit. In my own case, I felt a lack of sympathy with the priest at the church we attended near Silicon Valley, but found it with another priest further away in San Francisco, and when it came down to really making the decision, I went to that priest. So a mediocre priest, or even a mediocre apologist such as myself are hardly good excuses for rejecting such an enormous thing. There are other and better ones out there, and the internet is a horrible thing to rely on for questions of such vast importance, though I understand that many of us are fairly isolated, and if your inquiry was in Russia with limited Russian, then it certainly was a harder row to hoe.

Jack17
27-04-2012, 07:18
If it WERE a hollow institution, it would NOT have survived what it went through at all.

Rus, I think this one sentence captures the whole of this long argument and the whole of many arguments in other threads about the Orthodox Church and Christianity as a whole.

I'll go so far as to say it's the most thought provoking statement you've made in defense of the Orthodox Church.

I don't have an argument pro or con to make with the statement because my feelings on the Church are very ambivalent. I have two conflicting thoughts:
a) On the one hand, the Christian Church, as an organized institution, has persisted in tact since the Nicene Counsel some 1700 years ago. Pretty impressive as institutions go; in fact, I can't think of another institution that has lasted as long. Judaism is much older; but I look on it as purely a religion rather than an organized institution such as the Church of Rome or Constantinople of Moskva. There must be substance and something important to man for such an organization to have survived so long.
b) Then on the other hand, there are very practicle reasons why these institutions have lasted. Clearly the Roman Church alligned itself with the prevailing power structures of Western Europe from the crowning of Charlamagne to Pius XII's support of fascist Italy, Germany and Spain. Similarly, the Russian Orthodox Church was an integral part of the ruling Romanov power structure for centuries. It's here that the $30K watch is significant. I do believe it represents the modern Orthodox Church's alliance with the current Russian ER power structure - especially if it was a gift. Is this antithetical to the Orthodox Church's purported mission of bringing the Gospel of Christ to the Russian people? Well, let's face it, it is at odds with that Gospel. Annointing Christ (our Pascal Lamb's) feet with oil before his sacrafice on the cross is not the same as one of the Apostles sporting a $30K watch. Can you really imagine Peter, John or Matthew, if they were alive today, wearing a Rolex and driving a Mercedes S Class? You know you cannot.

I suppose I'm left, in answer to your very profound statement, with the belief that the Church has not merely survived by the beauty, truth and harmony of the Gospels alone; rather, it's made some very strategic alliances through the years beginning with the Emperor Constantine and running up through VVP.

rusmeister
27-04-2012, 08:50
Rus, I think this one sentence captures the whole of this long argument and the whole of many arguments in other threads about the Orthodox Church and Christianity as a whole.

I'll go so far as to say it's the most thought provoking statement you've made in defense of the Orthodox Church.

I don't have an argument pro or con to make with the statement because my feelings on the Church are very ambivalent. I have two conflicting thoughts:
a) On the one hand, the Christian Church, as an organized institution, has persisted in tact since the Nicene Counsel some 1700 years ago. Pretty impressive as institutions go; in fact, I can't think of another institution that has lasted as long. Judaism is much older; but I look on it as purely a religion rather than an organized institution such as the Church of Rome or Constantinople of Moskva. There must be substance and something important to man for such an organization to have survived so long.
b) Then on the other hand, there are very practicle reasons why these institutions have lasted. Clearly the Roman Church alligned itself with the prevailing power structures of Western Europe from the crowning of Charlamagne to Pius XII's support of fascist Italy, Germany and Spain. Similarly, the Russian Orthodox Church was an integral part of the ruling Romanov power structure for centuries. It's here that the $30K watch is significant. I do believe it represents the modern Orthodox Church's alliance with the current Russian ER power structure - especially if it was a gift. Is this antithetical to the Orthodox Church's purported mission of bringing the Gospel of Christ to the Russian people? Well, let's face it, it is at odds with that Gospel. Annointing Christ (our Pascal Lamb's) feet with oil before his sacrafice on the cross is not the same as one of the Apostles sporting a $30K watch. Can you really imagine Peter, John or Matthew, if they were alive today, wearing a Rolex and driving a Mercedes S Class? You know you cannot.

I suppose I'm left, in answer to your very profound statement, with the belief that the Church has not merely survived by the beauty, truth and harmony of the Gospels alone; rather, it's made some very strategic alliances through the years beginning with the Emperor Constantine and running up through VVP.

Thanks, Jack,
At your best, you're pretty good. :)
It does seem like the gems of intelligent argument, rather than merely assertion, are few and far between. People whose opinion happens to be in a popular majority, be it a religious or anti-religious one, won't realize that. Their assumptions are taken for granted. It is agenerally the minority, whatever it be, that is forced to think about assumptions, not being allowed to hold them for granted in the larger society.

Nevertheless, I DO think it is the truth of the Gospels, and not strategic alliances, which enabled such survival. The shortest explanation is to say that there have been any number of alliances, none of which have survived millennia. If you could show me a strategic alliance that lasted the better part of two millennia, I might think your point much stronger.

In addition, the running assumption is that the partners in the alliance both want earthly power. I think that most of the time, that is not actually true on one side of the equation, and it is the hardest times, persecution, which prove this. (I said that GKC's "The Everlasting Man (http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/everlasting_man.html)" is the greatest book I've ever read [that I don't think the product of divine inspiration], and it certainly shows how this must be so, and so was a major factor in Lewis's conversion.) The purpose of "allying" with power to me is obvious: to enable the Church to perform its mission openly. We do not actually want to die martyr's deaths. WE do want to live long and prosper in this world, if we can do so without spiritually destroying ourselves. We believe the world is good in its beginnings, and that life is good, not something to run from. Of course, some leaders, from time to time, do get corrupted by connections to power. Vanity is a sweet drug. But something happens, a shake-up, and the alliance then fades - yet the Church remains.

So yes, quite probably vanity is a temptation for Kirill. But here it is much harder to tell whether he succumbs to it or not, and where the general problem of spiritually judging another becomes apparent. The thing that to me is both obvious and possible, even probable, is that he accepts the rides in the BMW's and planes out of humility and disregard for the nature of the transport, and the gift out of a similar disregard for and possibly ignorance of its cost. Is he wearing the watch now? I haven't seen it lately. How would we even know if he gave it away when our giving is supposed to be in secret? At least, we are not supposed to advertise it.

Can I imagine an elderly Apostle Paul accepting a ride in a chariot to see Caesar? I most certainly can. The main difficulty with the imagination is that Paul was in an environment hostile to his faith - for THAT reason, the chariot is difficult to imagine. But he accepted transport, even on Roman ships, sometimes as a passenger, sometimes as a prisoner. If there had been planes, he would have availed himself of them, and if the Roman government wanted to fly him first cl**** I don't think it would have mattered to him.

Anyway, that's the least important point, and the most speculative. More important is that the alliances were all temporary, and all other institutions that formed them have faded away, so the alliances are not the truly important factor, even from the most secular standpoint, in the longevity of the Church.

PS - next to Chesterton, I'm really low-class. You really ought to read him, not me.

peppermintpaddy
27-04-2012, 09:32
RS- Is he wearing the watch now? I haven't seen it lately. How would we even know if he gave it away

I doubt it very much,more likely that he's stashed it away until the heat's died down.

Ghostly Presence
27-04-2012, 10:30
RS- Is he wearing the watch now? I haven't seen it lately. How would we even know if he gave it away

I doubt it very much,more likely that he's stashed it away until the heat's died down.

May be since he saw himself with that watch on the photo, he decided it did not look good enough on him and he is getting himself a more expensive one instead... :)

Rus paints an entirely rosy picture of religion and its role in history. I am inclined to think that the role of the Church has been mostly reactionary - towards science, social evolution and towards anything that was likely to shake up the position of the Church in a society.

Jack17
27-04-2012, 12:57
.he accepts the rides in the BMW's and planes out of humility and disregard for the nature of the transport, and the gift out of a similar disregard for and possibly ignorance of its cost..

I think even your most ardent supporters would call this pollyannaish in the extreme.


More important is that the alliances were all temporary, and all other institutions that formed them have faded away,


I don't think that's true at all. There's been an unbroken alliance between the Roman Church and the government of Rome that's lasted as long as the Church of Rome. More importantly, that alliance has extended to the governments of many of the major nation states of Europe, such as Germany. In fact, Germany has two official religions - the Evangeliche Kirche (Lutheranism) and the Roman Catholic Church; it supports both with tax dollars.

Except for the relatively brief interlude with Communism, the Russian Orthodox Church has enjoyed the support of the Czars and now Putin throughout its life in Russia.

TGP
27-04-2012, 14:03
Truer words were never spoken TGP. Unfortunately, skeptics and agnostics (which, by my estimate, account for most of the posters in this thread) focus on the $30K Ulysse Nardin.

Exactly! Who critisizes the church? Those who are not believers; hence, they are judging from their point of view which is totally wrong. They pay attention to what is intersting to THEM, to what is the main criteria in their life.

It's a general tendency which refers not only to church: those who are doing nothing are most uncompromising critics of those who are doing something. I don't know what it is: envy, or pangs of inner guilt, or irritation caused by something which they don't know or feel. It's like the persecution Chulpan Khamatova went through: no one of those who was critising her never did just a hundredth part of what she had done and is still doing. They were howling about what's interesting to THEM, without thinking what is important for HER.

As for the watch: I do not care AT ALL what watch is on the patriarch's wrist. At all.
Besides, I am absolutely sure that if the patriarch was wearing rags, someone would appear with other accusations and criticism. As we say, I am giving my tooth it is so.

TGP
27-04-2012, 14:05
What true believers have to do with Contemporary Orthodox Church ?

True believers read Bible and they don't listen to the stupid pops like Chaplin and so on... :trampoline:

Gena:
Are you a true believer?
What makes you think you are more clever than pops?

Discussion is over.

rusmeister
27-04-2012, 14:05
I think even your most ardent supporters would call this pollyannaish in the extreme.



I don't think that's true at all. There's been an unbroken alliance between the Roman Church and the government of Rome that's lasted as long as the Church of Rome. More importantly, that alliance has extended to the governments of many of the major nation states of Europe, such as Germany. In fact, Germany has two official religions - the Evangeliche Kirche (Lutheranism) and the Roman Catholic Church; it supports both with tax dollars.

Except for the relatively brief interlude with Communism, the Russian Orthodox Church has enjoyed the support of the Czars and now Putin throughout its life in Russia.

On the first, while I do not insist that that is the fact of the matter, I do think it possible, for the simple reason that I have tasted faith, and I have a conception of not placing importance on the things of this world, be they rich or poor, humble or exalted. That you characterize that as "pollyannish" I take as a complement. The cynic prides himself on an imagined superiority to Pollyanna, when in fact he is deprived of the virtue she expresses and which he can hardly imagine, and I think this is the gap between your understanding and mine.

Just as the traitor cannot grasp faithfulness, nor the thief - charity, so the cynic cannot grasp the virtues of faith and hope. He does not have them in himself, and so cannot imagine them in anyone else. I do not judge whether that applies to anyone here, but think it worth a little consideration.

As to the government of Rome, I would hardly characterize that as a continuous, unbroken thing - the various governments did not, in fact, survive, though the Roman Church did indeed work to ally with them as they arose. And the whole point is in what you call "the interlude" - the fact that the Church survived a systematic sustained effort to destroy it over decades. THAT is what denies the claims of grasping for earthly power. Even Kirill "signed up" when it was not fashionable and did not "pay", so certainly his beginnings in the Church were not full of the pursuit of power.

Ghostly Presence
27-04-2012, 14:26
As to the government of Rome, I would hardly characterize that as a continuous, unbroken thing - the various governments did not, in fact, survive, though the Roman Church did indeed work to ally with them as they arose. And the whole point is in what you call "the interlude" - the fact that the Church survived a systematic sustained effort to destroy it over decades. THAT is what denies the claims of grasping for earthly power. Even Kirill "signed up" when it was not fashionable and did not "pay", so certainly his beginnings in the Church were not full of the pursuit of power.

The Church in its numerous forms survived for one simple reason - it sells a product that people will always crave. In a hopeless world everyone needs a bit of hope for a better tomorrow, even if it comes only after death. Since scientists most likely will never either prove or disprove the reality of God, the Church can feel pretty safe about its continued future existence.

Korotky Gennady
27-04-2012, 14:58
Gena:


...What makes you think you are more clever than pops?


The thing that I know much more than they.

We can't consider as "true believers" people who (like most of the orthodox christians) never open the Bible... and whose "faith" is limited to the set of silly superstions.

The belief in some magic orthodox practices isn't Christianity. It's actual barbarism.

http://bomz.org/i/demotivators/528288-2010.01.20-01.06.18-pop.jpg

Jesus Christ could die from shame if he looks at his russian "followers".

If he looks at the many kilometres queue to kiss his mom's panty girdle. :)))) http://vasya-lozhkin.ru/files/paintings/gimage_154.jpg http://kp.ru/f/4/image/89/25/472589.jpg

justbe
27-04-2012, 15:31
http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/578239_278510262238499_144813902274803_602510_1736449460_n.jpg

Korotky Gennady
27-04-2012, 15:35
http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/578239_278510262238499_144813902274803_602510_1736449460_n.jpg

Did you hear the name "Titanic" ?

robertmf
27-04-2012, 15:47
Robert, I'll assume you've missed what I've said elsewhere, though repeating myself is tiring.

Why do you think that any of us think that we are holy, or even holier than others? We pretty specifically deny that we are. So why do you insist that we think we are holier-than-thou?

What exactly is it that they preach and do not practice? Quotes, names and dates, please. Note that I might agree with you on some points.

We'll quickly agree that you might closer to heaven than we. Your idea that we think we are better is totally unfounded.

My observation is there are more than a few - not all, but many more than one - paid religious "types" who are completely at a lack for integrity of faith. For specifics, let's begin with Catholic priest pdophiles and continue with $30,000 watches. Only-on-Sunday and 'the Christmas & Easter crowd' can be thrown in there too.

TGP
27-04-2012, 15:53
[QUOTE=Korotky Gennady;990064]The thing that I know much more than they.

We can't consider as "true believers" people who (like most of the orthodox christians) never open the Bible... and whose "faith" is limited to the set of silly superstions.

The belief in some magic orthodox practices isn't Christianity. It's actual barbarism.

Jesus Christ could die from shame if he looks at his russian "followers".

If he looks at the many kilometres queue to kiss his mom's panty girdle. :)))) \


Gena, again: what makes you think you know much more than they?
How can you talk about what is in other people's soul? It sounds a bit lofty, but it is so. It's really hard to explain to someone the things which he does not feel.
You are fixed on enrichment, it's your main concern, while there are things which have nothing to do with it.
Excuse me, but you laugh at the things which are beyond you. It is not very smart and not polite at all.

robertmf
27-04-2012, 15:58
Robert, could you concede my previous point, or do you think it wrong? Do you really think they think they are holier than you? I consider and respond to your points.

If the flock doesn't care in the least, why do you? Why is it that I don't think it's "shiating" in my face at all? Why are you so outraged for me when I myself don't care whether some show-off politician gave him something? I hear again and again the voice of Judas saying, "Why didn't they sell that ointment and give the money to the poor?"

What if all f your sore points have reasonable objections?

Certainly not specifically you. I observe a certain across-the-board lack of integrity in faith amongst many of the paid organized church leaders.

As to 'if the flock doesn't care in the least, why do you?' - this is an example of liberalness tendencies as I age. Granted, "a people deserve the government they elect".

rusmeister
27-04-2012, 16:08
My observation is there are more than a few - not all, but many more than one - paid religious "types" who are completely at a lack for integrity of faith. For specifics, let's begin with Catholic priest pdophiles and continue with $30,000 watches. Only-on-Sunday and 'the Christmas & Easter crowd' can be thrown in there too.


I certainly agree there are some. I disagree if you suggest that they constitute the rule - they are certainly the exception to the rule.

For every pedophile priest I'll show you a hundred - or a thousand - sincere, devout priests.

I also agree on the "Christmas/Easter crowd". But there we have a different problem - that of nominalism, of people who have not taken the teachings of e faith as something to apply to their lives. How can you blame the Church when the Church is telling them to not be nominal?

So obviously, I think you use the exceptions and the not-"churched" Christians to avoid dealing with genuine devout faith that struggles with its sins.

Korotky Gennady
27-04-2012, 16:15
[

Gena, again: what makes you think you know much more than they?
How can you talk about what is in other people's soul? It sounds a bit lofty, but it is so. It's really hard to explain to someone the things which he does not feel.
You are fixed on enrichment, it's your main concern, while there are things which have nothing to do with it.
Excuse me, but you laugh at the things which are beyond you. It is not very smart and not polite at all.

Of course it looks lofty to the person who are not in it for many years...

Say, if you are ill of some mental desease and you come to a doctor... Often the doctor doesn't say the things you like...

And the phychiatrist seems lofty and arrogant to you. But that doen't make his (her) words false ones.

rusmeister
27-04-2012, 16:16
The Church in its numerous forms survived for one simple reason - it sells a product that people will always crave. In a hopeless world everyone needs a bit of hope for a better tomorrow, even if it comes only after death. Since scientists most likely will never either prove or disprove the reality of God, the Church can feel pretty safe about its continued future existence.

I think this is true, in a sense. I would put it differently, though.

If the world is hopeless, and we crave hope (and we do, it is futile to deny it), en I submit that is evidence that hope exists, is founded on a reality that gives a reason for hope. Just as a dessicated fish in the Sahara desert proves, not that water does not exist, but that it does, even though that fish couldn't get to it.

Scientists are natural scientists, that is, they study the natural world. Therefore they can never at any time prove or disprove a being that is by definition super-or extra-natural. It is entirely outside of their province. We can, though, arrive at "proof" by other means, what I would call "inside information".

Since, therefore, transcendent meaning, absolute meaning that we don't make up on our own must logically exist, we can proceed from the conclusion that it does. Since scientists CANNOT disprove that source of hope - and we would be insane to even want them to - it would be insane to want to be hopeless, we cannot look to science to answer the question at all.

TGP
27-04-2012, 17:42
Of course it looks lofty to the person who are not in it for many years...

Say, if you are ill of some mental desease and you come to a doctor... Often the doctor doesn't say the things you like...

And the phychiatrist seems lofty and arrogant to you. But that doen't make his (her) words false ones.

Gena, what makes you think it's not you who should go to a phychiatrist?

To compare yourself out of a clear sky with a doctor who can cure mentally sick people (only because they feel what you are unable to feel) is like to consider yourself Napoleon ;)

Your great mistake is that you theorize assuming your point of view is the only correct one and you judge people for something totally unknown to you.

Bad.

rusmeister
27-04-2012, 17:42
Certainly not specifically you. I observe a certain across-the-board lack of integrity in faith amongst many of the paid organized church leaders.

As to 'if the flock doesn't care in the least, why do you?' - this is an example of liberalness tendencies as I age. Granted, "a people deserve the government they elect".


I can understand you thinking that. But if we say at this is not something that we hold as an important, let alone grave concern, and he's OUR leader, not yours, for crying out loud, then don't we have e right to say that! And shouldn't you just say, "OK, fine, if you feel that way." and leave well enough alone.
That's one of the main things here - that it is people OUTSIDE. OF. THE. CHURCH. who are all hot and bothered about the Church having or using any wealth.
So yes, we DO deserve Kirill. He is not a perfect man. He probably has secret sins, which we hope he struggles with, repents of and confesses to his confessor. We are sinners, and a sinner is our pastor, but we don't see him as he ultimate head of the Church, anyway.

rusmeister
27-04-2012, 17:55
Of course it looks lofty to the person who are not in it for many years...

Say, if you are ill of some mental desease and you come to a doctor... Often the doctor doesn't say the things you like...

And the phychiatrist seems lofty and arrogant to you. But that doen't make his (her) words false ones.

The main thing I would offer as evidence that TGP is right is almost anything by Alexander Men' or Alexander Schememann or Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh.

I think I could lay a $500 bet and win it that you are really not familiar with the works and words of those men, modern examples of the tremendous depth of which you do appear to be ignorant. If I'm wrong and you've read and can name and quote from works, my apologies, but I cannot conceive of a person familiar with those men and saying what you say.

Therefore, being unfamiliar with intelligent expression of Orthodox faith, and only showing photos which for the greater part consist of people or ideas that we would not concede to be Orthodox, it comes across like a provincial farmer offering to teach actual physicists physics. You may actually believe that that man dressed like a priest selling blessings is Orthodox, but to anyone that knows better, it just looks ignorant - worse when you claim to be a candidate for a doctorate - a genuine PhD is supposed to have enough general education to know that there are serious ideas and people in religion, even Orthodox religion.

The best thing would be to look up Men' or Met Anthony and read them - and see that there is much more than ignorant peripheral whackoes, that there really IS substance in the Church.

yakspeare
27-04-2012, 18:01
You orthodox guys have a rather cute argument. We don't have the right to criticize because we aren't in the church-okay we can accept that if the church is a closed little "members only, others f*ck off" group...such as freemasons and so on.

But the church is supposed to spread the gospel and deliver a message to the world and claims it is the sole truth. Now according to Rus, the orthodox don't actively recruit new comers by bashing on doors and sending missionaries everywhere, rather they use the example of believers, the shining lights on the hill, to show that christianity is different.

YET the world doesn't see this organization as a symbol of hope and refuge but as a stinking, corrupt, empire building organization that is in cahoots with the government and blindly supports it.

So if we criticize it, it is because we expect better from it and we see the hypocrisy of it all. Hardly a way to enlarge the flock and show the message.

In the Christian gospels ,outsiders were often the ones who observed truth more clearly, whether it be a leper or poor man, a tax collector, a fisherman, a samaritan etc...when the religious establishment was in error.

And don't come onto a secular forum and tell everyone they are wrong, ignorant, blind, gullible swallowers of mass media messages etc when you can't take criticism of your precious church.

rusmeister
27-04-2012, 20:26
You orthodox guys have a rather cute argument. We don't have the right to criticize because we aren't in the church-okay we can accept that if the church is a closed little "members only, others f*ck off" group...such as freemasons and so on.

But the church is supposed to spread the gospel and deliver a message to the world and claims it is the sole truth. Now according to Rus, the orthodox don't actively recruit new comers by bashing on doors and sending missionaries everywhere, rather they use the example of believers, the shining lights on the hill, to show that christianity is different.

YET the world doesn't see this organization as a symbol of hope and refuge but as a stinking, corrupt, empire building organization that is in cahoots with the government and blindly supports it.

So if we criticize it, it is because we expect better from it and we see the hypocrisy of it all. Hardly a way to enlarge the flock and show the message.

In the Christian gospels ,outsiders were often the ones who observed truth more clearly, whether it be a leper or poor man, a tax collector, a fisherman, a samaritan etc...when the religious establishment was in error.

And don't come onto a secular forum and tell everyone they are wrong, ignorant, blind, gullible swallowers of mass media messages etc when you can't take criticism of your precious church.

Yak, if there are centrally-controlled institutions such as media (and public schooling), then they can make sure the world sees what they want it to see.

I don't mind you thinking me wrong, as I think you wrong. That is natural, and to be expected. But if you just want to be rude, then it's "Kirk out".

And if you or Gena ARE familiar with what Men' had to say, and can show it, then go right ahead! My hat's off to you in that case! But I think I'll be waiting a loooong time to see that.

MickeyTong
28-04-2012, 13:28
I like the graphic....One light, many colours.

Us and Them - Pink Floyd (Studio Version) - YouTube

FatAndy
28-04-2012, 13:51
Pinka Floida iz weri guuud...:ok:

MickeyTong
28-04-2012, 14:22
Pinka Floida iz weri guuud...:ok:

Talent + LSD = guuudness.

Matt24
28-04-2012, 14:38
Talent + LSD = guuudness.

I always thought my lack of goodness was due to the acid, now it would appear what's really to blame is the abscence of talent - some days just suck

MickeyTong
28-04-2012, 14:56
I always thought my lack of goodness was due to the acid, now it would appear what's really to blame is the abscence of talent - some days just suck

Chill out, Matt! "Goodness" and "guuudness" are not the same thing.

robertmf
29-04-2012, 02:12
I can understand you thinking that. But if we say at this is not something that we hold as an important, let alone grave concern, and he's OUR leader, not yours, for crying out loud, then don't we have e right to say that! And shouldn't you just say, "OK, fine, if you feel that way." and leave well enough alone.
That's one of the main things here - that it is people OUTSIDE. OF. THE. CHURCH. who are all hot and bothered about the Church having or using any wealth.
So yes, we DO deserve Kirill. He is not a perfect man. He probably has secret sins, which we hope he struggles with, repents of and confesses to his confessor. We are sinners, and a sinner is our pastor, but we don't see him as he ultimate head of the Church, anyway.

If not as the ultimate head of orthodoxy, then certainly the main paradigm. As such, he should have enough sense to realize what his wearing of an expensive watch looks like to "OUTSIDERS"; the flock not withstanding.

The perception doesn't matter if the item is gift or bought by himself.

The fact that he didn't consider this shows his thoughts were 'someplace else' - Some place :devil: temporal rather than the spiritual.

peppermintpaddy
29-04-2012, 04:05
Russia is such a piece of crap country. It should be dismantled into small pieces, which should be ruled by American and European governments. I mean, really. It is simply too big for its own good. And these priests, this is so gross. Who are they? Do people here really give them money? Or is it the government that gives them money? Mercedes cars... Not that they should be driving Ladas, but I think Toyota's or VWs should suffice....

NOT!!!! In Russia, Religion is linked to the state. Bolsheviks tried to destroy it, but its back, and it's good for Russia. The Patriarch is a political figure, now or centuries ago, so he has to drive in a safe vehicle. Today, it's the latest Mercedes S-class with extra protection.

Watches? I didn't see any watches on the Patriarch's wrist, but even if he has a fine watch, why not? He has to deal with all scumbags and try his best to persuade them to the good thing, but those scums wouldn't even talk to you unless you have a watch that matches (or exceeds) his.

It's politics, and Patriarch is a political figure before he is a spiritual leader of all Russians. Pope is the same, but fortunately for Pope, he doesn't have to deal with obnoxious businessmen that infested poor Russia after the so-called democracy spread over Russian cities leaving them in ruins. So, do your research before you judge, please.

Quality trolling-you'll fit right in here.

robertmf
29-04-2012, 04:19
Quality trolling-you'll fit right in here.

ETHEL MERMAN - ANYTHING GOES 1979 - YouTube

:11157:

Jack17
29-04-2012, 04:39
God I love Ethel Merman; she's the soul of America. Thanks Robert. Call her what you like, but I like Berracuda too.

rusmeister
29-04-2012, 11:23
The direction of discussion reminds me of this text. The first paragraph is more for Yak and his reference to "us orthodox guys", the rest is for the diversions into anything but what really matters on the topic:

"Nothing more strangely indicates an enormous and silent evil of modern society than the extraordinary use which is made nowadays of the word "orthodox." In former days the heretic was proud of not being a heretic. It was the kingdoms of the world and the police and the judges who were heretics. He was orthodox. He had no pride in having rebelled against them; they had rebelled against him. The armies with their cruel security, the kings with their cold faces, the decorous processes of State, the reasonable processes of law--all these like sheep had gone astray. The man was proud of being orthodox, was proud of being right. If he stood alone in a howling wilderness he was more than a man; he was a church. He was the centre of the universe; it was round him that the stars swung. All the tortures torn out of forgotten hells could not make him admit that he was heretical. But a few modern phrases have made him boast of it. He says, with a conscious laugh, "I suppose I am very heretical," and looks round for applause. The word "heresy" not only means no longer being wrong; it practically means being clear-headed and courageous. The word "orthodoxy" not only no longer means being right; it practically means being wrong. All this can mean one thing, and one thing only. It means that people care less for whether they are philosophically right. For obviously a man ought to confess himself crazy before he confesses himself heretical. The Bohemian, with a red tie, ought to pique himself on his orthodoxy. The dynamiter, laying a bomb, ought to feel that, whatever else he is, at least he is orthodox.

It is foolish, generally speaking, for a philosopher to set fire to another philosopher in Smithfield Market because they do not agree in their theory of the universe. That was done very frequently in the last decadence of the Middle Ages, and it failed altogether in its object. But there is one thing that is infinitely more absurd and unpractical than burning a man for his philosophy. This is the habit of saying that his philosophy does not matter, and this is done universally in the twentieth century, in the decadence of the great revolutionary period. General theories are everywhere contemned; the doctrine of the Rights of Man is dismissed with the doctrine of the Fall of Man. Atheism itself is too theological for us to-day. Revolution itself is too much of a system; liberty itself is too much of a restraint. We will have no generalizations. Mr. Bernard Shaw has put the view in a perfect epigram: "The golden rule is that there is no golden rule." We are more and more to discuss details in art, politics, literature. A man's opinion on tramcars matters; his opinion on Botticelli matters; his opinion on all things does not matter. He may turn over and explore a million objects, but he must not find that strange object, the universe; for if he does he will have a religion, and be lost. Everything matters--except everything.

Examples are scarcely needed of this total levity on the subject of cosmic philosophy. Examples are scarcely needed to show that, whatever else we think of as affecting practical affairs, we do not think it matters whether a man is a pessimist or an optimist, a Cartesian or a Hegelian, a materialist or a spiritualist. Let me, however, take a random instance. At any innocent tea-table we may easily hear a man say, "Life is not worth living." We regard it as we regard the statement that it is a fine day; nobody thinks that it can possibly have any serious effect on the man or on the world. And yet if that utterance were really believed, the world would stand on its head. Murderers would be given medals for saving men from life; firemen would be denounced for keeping men from death; poisons would be used as medicines; doctors would be called in when people were well; the Royal Humane Society would be rooted out like a horde of assassins. Yet we never speculate as to whether the conversational pessimist will strengthen or disorganize society; for we are convinced that theories do not matter.

This was certainly not the idea of those who introduced our freedom. When the old Liberals removed the gags from all the heresies, their idea was that religious and philosophical discoveries might thus be made. Their view was that cosmic truth was so important that every one ought to bear independent testimony. The modern idea is that cosmic truth is so unimportant that it cannot matter what any one says. The former freed inquiry as men loose a noble hound; the latter frees inquiry as men fling back into the sea a fish unfit for eating. Never has there been so little discussion about the nature of men as now, when, for the first time, any one can discuss it. The old restriction meant that only the orthodox were allowed to discuss religion. Modern liberty means that nobody is allowed to discuss it. Good taste, the last and vilest of human superstitions, has succeeded in silencing us where all the rest have failed. Sixty years ago it was bad taste to be an avowed atheist. Then came the Bradlaughites, the last religious men, the last men who cared about God; but they could not alter it. It is still bad taste to be an avowed atheist. But their agony has achieved just this-- that now it is equally bad taste to be an avowed Christian. Emancipation has only locked the saint in the same tower of silence as the heresiarch. Then we talk about Lord Anglesey and the weather, and call it the complete liberty of all the creeds."
GKC, "Heretics"
http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/heretics/ch1.html

Ghostly Presence
29-04-2012, 13:56
The direction of discussion reminds me of this text. The first paragraph is more for Yak and his reference to "us orthodox guys", the rest is for the diversions into anything but what really matters on the topic:

"Nothing more strangely indicates an enormous and silent evil of modern society than the extraordinary use which is made nowadays of the word "orthodox." In former days the heretic was proud of not being a heretic. It was the kingdoms of the world and the police and the judges who were heretics. He was orthodox. He had no pride in having rebelled against them; they had rebelled against him. The armies with their cruel security, the kings with their cold faces, the decorous processes of State, the reasonable processes of law--all these like sheep had gone astray. The man was proud of being orthodox, was proud of being right. If he stood alone in a howling wilderness he was more than a man; he was a church. He was the centre of the universe; it was round him that the stars swung. All the tortures torn out of forgotten hells could not make him admit that he was heretical. But a few modern phrases have made him boast of it. He says, with a conscious laugh, "I suppose I am very heretical," and looks round for applause. The word "heresy" not only means no longer being wrong; it practically means being clear-headed and courageous. The word "orthodoxy" not only no longer means being right; it practically means being wrong. All this can mean one thing, and one thing only. It means that people care less for whether they are philosophically right. For obviously a man ought to confess himself crazy before he confesses himself heretical. The Bohemian, with a red tie, ought to pique himself on his orthodoxy. The dynamiter, laying a bomb, ought to feel that, whatever else he is, at least he is orthodox.

It is foolish, generally speaking, for a philosopher to set fire to another philosopher in Smithfield Market because they do not agree in their theory of the universe. That was done very frequently in the last decadence of the Middle Ages, and it failed altogether in its object. But there is one thing that is infinitely more absurd and unpractical than burning a man for his philosophy. This is the habit of saying that his philosophy does not matter, and this is done universally in the twentieth century, in the decadence of the great revolutionary period. General theories are everywhere contemned; the doctrine of the Rights of Man is dismissed with the doctrine of the Fall of Man. Atheism itself is too theological for us to-day. Revolution itself is too much of a system; liberty itself is too much of a restraint. We will have no generalizations. Mr. Bernard Shaw has put the view in a perfect epigram: "The golden rule is that there is no golden rule." We are more and more to discuss details in art, politics, literature. A man's opinion on tramcars matters; his opinion on Botticelli matters; his opinion on all things does not matter. He may turn over and explore a million objects, but he must not find that strange object, the universe; for if he does he will have a religion, and be lost. Everything matters--except everything.

Examples are scarcely needed of this total levity on the subject of cosmic philosophy. Examples are scarcely needed to show that, whatever else we think of as affecting practical affairs, we do not think it matters whether a man is a pessimist or an optimist, a Cartesian or a Hegelian, a materialist or a spiritualist. Let me, however, take a random instance. At any innocent tea-table we may easily hear a man say, "Life is not worth living." We regard it as we regard the statement that it is a fine day; nobody thinks that it can possibly have any serious effect on the man or on the world. And yet if that utterance were really believed, the world would stand on its head. Murderers would be given medals for saving men from life; firemen would be denounced for keeping men from death; poisons would be used as medicines; doctors would be called in when people were well; the Royal Humane Society would be rooted out like a horde of assassins. Yet we never speculate as to whether the conversational pessimist will strengthen or disorganize society; for we are convinced that theories do not matter.

This was certainly not the idea of those who introduced our freedom. When the old Liberals removed the gags from all the heresies, their idea was that religious and philosophical discoveries might thus be made. Their view was that cosmic truth was so important that every one ought to bear independent testimony. The modern idea is that cosmic truth is so unimportant that it cannot matter what any one says. The former freed inquiry as men loose a noble hound; the latter frees inquiry as men fling back into the sea a fish unfit for eating. Never has there been so little discussion about the nature of men as now, when, for the first time, any one can discuss it. The old restriction meant that only the orthodox were allowed to discuss religion. Modern liberty means that nobody is allowed to discuss it. Good taste, the last and vilest of human superstitions, has succeeded in silencing us where all the rest have failed. Sixty years ago it was bad taste to be an avowed atheist. Then came the Bradlaughites, the last religious men, the last men who cared about God; but they could not alter it. It is still bad taste to be an avowed atheist. But their agony has achieved just this-- that now it is equally bad taste to be an avowed Christian. Emancipation has only locked the saint in the same tower of silence as the heresiarch. Then we talk about Lord Anglesey and the weather, and call it the complete liberty of all the creeds."
GKC, "Heretics"
http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/heretics/ch1.html

God Lord, Rus! Can you possibly make your posts any longer? I get the feeling that you write for the sake of writing, while your message gets lost in your verbiage. Do you yourself remember what was that that you wanted to say in the beginning of your post by the time you get to its end?

Anyway, for those of you who can read Russian here is an excellent article about today's Orthodox Church, about what is has become:

http://newtimes.ru/articles/detail/51242

Orthodoxy in Russia is increasingly turning into a militant ideology with thousands of highly intollerant supporters. It has less and less to do with the original message of Christ. And that Rusmeister is a fact that you can not cover up, no matter how many words you use trying to do it.

yakspeare
29-04-2012, 16:22
"
"Nothing more strangely indicates an enormous and silent evil of modern society than the extraordinary use which is made nowadays of the word "orthodox." In former days the heretic was proud of not being a heretic. It was the kingdoms of the world and the police and the judges who were heretics. He was orthodox. He had no pride in having rebelled against them; they had rebelled against him. The armies with their cruel security, the kings with their cold faces, the decorous processes of State, the reasonable processes of law--all these like sheep had gone astray. The man was proud of being orthodox, was proud of being right. If he stood alone in a howling wilderness he was more than a man; he was a church. He was the centre of the universe; it was round him that the stars swung. All the tortures torn out of forgotten hells could not make him admit that he was heretical. But a few modern phrases have made him boast of it. He says, with a conscious laugh, "I suppose I am very heretical," and looks round for applause. The word "heresy" not only means no longer being wrong; it practically means being clear-headed and courageous. The word "orthodoxy" not only no longer means being right; it practically means being wrong. All this can mean one thing, and one thing only. It means that people care less for whether they are philosophically right. For obviously a man ought to confess himself crazy before he confesses himself heretical. The Bohemian, with a red tie, ought to pique himself on his orthodoxy. The dynamiter, laying a bomb, ought to feel that, whatever else he is, at least he is orthodox."

And you wonder why I don't enjoy Chesterton. His argument is weak. OF COURSE someone would be proud of being a heretic today! When once it was the believer who was matyred in Rome for their faith and the "truth", centuries of the church burning people at the stake, hunting down witches, excommunicating scientists and anyone who even dared to think differently(even if they were right) means to be a heretic today is to join that very tradition of being opposed to the evils and excess of the Church. When I was excommunicated from the Mormon church I wore it with the same honour, that I had stood up for something and not blindly accepted. Essentially if the Church claims you are heretical , then you are probably doing something right.

robertmf
29-04-2012, 16:36
... Orthodoxy in Russia is increasingly turning into a militant ideology with thousands of highly intollerant supporters. It has less and less to do with the original message of Christ. And that Rusmeister is a fact that you can not cover up, no matter how many words you use trying to do it.

You know, if Kiril gave the word, those girls would be out quicker than you could say, "bolt of lightning" ... :( but he hasn't, has he :question:

robertmf
29-04-2012, 16:44
When I was excommunicated from the Mormon church I wore it with the same honour, that I had stood up for something and not blindly accepted. Essentially if the Church claims you are heretical , then you are probably doing something right.

Have you been to Utah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Geographic_distribution_and_membership) :question:

:devilish: Is your organ as big as the Mormon Tabernacle organ :question:

rusmeister
29-04-2012, 17:09
God Lord, Rus! Can you possibly make your posts any longer? I get the feeling that you write for the sake of writing, while your message gets lost in your verbiage. Do you yourself remember what was that that you wanted to say in the beginning of your post by the time you get to its end?

Anyway, for those of you who can read Russian here is an excellent article about today's Orthodox Church, about what is has become:

http://newtimes.ru/articles/detail/51242

Orthodoxy in Russia is increasingly turning into a militant ideology with thousands of highly intollerant supporters. It has less and less to do with the original message of Christ. And that Rusmeister is a fact that you can not cover up, no matter how many words you use trying to do it.

In other words, you are unwilling or not capable of reading or thinking about a text of more than ten-fifteen words that may be talking about you. OK. Doesn't impress me with your ability to think about thought that disagrees with yours, though.

You won't read mine when it is right in front of you, why should I click on a link to read yours? (If you did consider my position and responded considerately, I would be much more inclined to consider yours. If we don't do that, then it's just a shouting match.

rusmeister
29-04-2012, 17:17
"
"Nothing more strangely indicates an enormous and silent evil of modern society than the extraordinary use which is made nowadays of the word "orthodox." In former days the heretic was proud of not being a heretic. It was the kingdoms of the world and the police and the judges who were heretics. He was orthodox. He had no pride in having rebelled against them; they had rebelled against him. The armies with their cruel security, the kings with their cold faces, the decorous processes of State, the reasonable processes of law--all these like sheep had gone astray. The man was proud of being orthodox, was proud of being right. If he stood alone in a howling wilderness he was more than a man; he was a church. He was the centre of the universe; it was round him that the stars swung. All the tortures torn out of forgotten hells could not make him admit that he was heretical. But a few modern phrases have made him boast of it. He says, with a conscious laugh, "I suppose I am very heretical," and looks round for applause. The word "heresy" not only means no longer being wrong; it practically means being clear-headed and courageous. The word "orthodoxy" not only no longer means being right; it practically means being wrong. All this can mean one thing, and one thing only. It means that people care less for whether they are philosophically right. For obviously a man ought to confess himself crazy before he confesses himself heretical. The Bohemian, with a red tie, ought to pique himself on his orthodoxy. The dynamiter, laying a bomb, ought to feel that, whatever else he is, at least he is orthodox."

And you wonder why I don't enjoy Chesterton. His argument is weak. OF COURSE someone would be proud of being a heretic today! When once it was the believer who was matyred in Rome for their faith and the "truth", centuries of the church burning people at the stake, hunting down witches, excommunicating scientists and anyone who even dared to think differently(even if they were right) means to be a heretic today is to join that very tradition of being opposed to the evils and excess of the Church. When I was excommunicated from the Mormon church I wore it with the same honour, that I had stood up for something and not blindly accepted. Essentially if the Church claims you are heretical , then you are probably doing something right.

Hey Yak,
I appreciate that at least you tried to read it.
And it does reveal misunderstanding of text. By "heretic", Chesterton means "a person who is wrong". Read the text again from that understanding.

Belloc described the concept of heresy best, with the greatest depth of thought:

"What is a heresy, and what is the historical importance of such a
thing?

Like most modern words, "Heresy" is used both vaguely and
diversely. It is used vaguely because the modern mind is as averse
to precision in ideas as it is enamored of precision in
measurement. It is used diversely because, according to the man
who uses it, it may represent any one of fifty things.

Today, with most people (of those who use the English language),
the word "Heresy" connotes bygone and forgotten quarrels, an old
prejudice against rational examination. Heresy is therefore
thought to be of no contemporary interest. Interest in it is dead,
because it deals with matter no one now takes seriously. It is
understood that a man may interest himself in a heresy from
archaeological curiosity, but if he affirm that it has been of
great effect on history and still is, today, of living
contemporary moment, he will be hardly understood.

Yet the subject of heresy in general is of the highest importance
to the individual and to society, and heresy in its particular
meaning (which is that of heresy in Christian doctrine) is of
special interest for anyone who would understand Europe: the
character of Europe and the story of Europe. For the whole of that
story, since the appearance of the Christian religion, has been
the story of struggle and change, mainly preceded by, often, if
not always, caused by, and certainly accompanying, diversities of
religious doctrine. In other words, "the Christian heresy" is a
special subject of the very first importance to the comprehension
of European history, because, in company with Christian orthodoxy,
it is the constant accompaniment and agent of European life.

We must begin by a definition, although definition involves a
mental effort and therefore repels.

Heresy is the dislocation of some complete and self-supporting
scheme by the introduction of a novel denial of some essential
part therein.

We mean by "a complete and self-supporting scheme" any system of
affirmation in physics or mathematics or philosophy or what-not,
the various parts of which are coherent and sustain each other.

For instance, the old scheme of physics, often called in England
"Newtonian" as having been best defined by Newton, is a scheme of
this kind. The various things asserted therein about the behaviour
of matter, notably the law of gravity, are not isolated statements
any one of which could be withdrawn at will without disarranging
the rest; they are all the parts of one conception, or unity, such
that if you but modify a part the whole scheme is put out of gear."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/doctrine/heresy.htm

rusmeister
29-04-2012, 17:29
If not as the ultimate head of orthodoxy, then certainly the main paradigm. As such, he should have enough sense to realize what his wearing of an expensive watch looks like to "OUTSIDERS"; the flock not withstanding.

The perception doesn't matter if the item is gift or bought by himself.

The fact that he didn't consider this shows his thoughts were 'someplace else' - Some place :devil: temporal rather than the spiritual.


Main paradigm? No.
The only thing I could agree to is that we will listen to what he has to say first.
On the one hand, he, like any priest, is an icon of Christ, in the same sense that a general is an icon of leadership in the military. People kiss his hand, not because he is "the awesome Kirill", but because he is "wearing the uniform".

On the other hand, he is just a man, and on matters that are not Church dogma that both he and I must agree to, I am free to disagree with him, and don't have to obey or even listen to him, although I would not be such a fool as to ignore or discount him.

Ghostly Presence
29-04-2012, 17:40
In other words, you are unwilling or not capable of reading or thinking about a text of more than ten-fifteen words that may be talking about you. OK. Doesn't impress me with your ability to think about thought that disagrees with yours, though.

Rus,

I did not have a shadow of a doubt that you would come back with some cocky reply to my post. You are predictable. However, many of your posts do look kind of ridiculous - you cram a lot of complicated philosophical ideas, unrelated to the topic, into a short text and on top of that you wrap them up in a kind of semi-ancient verbiage. It does create an impression that you are writing not so much to refute someone's arguement, but mostly to gloat over your writing style and your bookworm's knowledge.

Do you also speak like that in the real life? :)

No matter what you think of me personally or generally about this forum's audience, the key to effective communication is making sure your message is understood. Looks like you don't really care about that as much as you care to show off or just to lead the discussion towards an unrelated philosophical debate that might be of interest only to you personally...

Jack17
29-04-2012, 17:50
I keep asking myself why the only person on this forum who likes Kiril is the pedantic American?

Don't you Russians realize that the Metropolitan is wealthy only because God has blessed is faithfulness?

robertmf
29-04-2012, 18:11
Main paradigm? No.
The only thing I could agree to is that we will listen to what he has to say first.
On the one hand, he, like any priest, is an icon of Christ, in the same sense that a general is an icon of leadership in the military. People kiss his hand, not because he is "the awesome Kirill", but because he is "wearing the uniform".

On the other hand, he is just a man, and on matters that are not Church dogma that both he and I must agree to, I am free to disagree with him, and don't have to obey or even listen to him, although I would not be such a fool as to ignore or discount him.

In the sense that a paradigm is the framework of ideas and beliefs by which the Orthodox perceive the world around them and interact with it, then yes Kiril is very much the perceived head of Russian orthodoxy.

The perception is there is no distinction/dialectic between Kiril the Patriarch and Kiril the private man. He is perceived by the flock and outsiders to be one, and he should be aware of that.

He is and should be held to a "higher standard". If he does not, then he is fallen.

rusmeister
29-04-2012, 20:50
In the sense that a paradigm is the framework of ideas and beliefs by which the Orthodox perceive the world around them and interact with it, then yes Kiril is very much the perceived head of Russian orthodoxy.

The perception is there is no distinction/dialectic between Kiril the Patriarch and Kiril the private man. He is perceived by the flock and outsiders to be one, and he should be aware of that.

He is and should be held to a "higher standard". If he does not, then he is fallen.

We are ALL held to a higher standard. And we ALL fail. And we're not "OK" with that. So yes, we do all point fingers at ourselves, too. We are ALL Fallen. Me too. And you.

But outsiders, not understanding the nature of how we see sin, and ourselves, and that we have to go on living and working with the awareness of who we are, do not understand how we hold ourselves accountable. So your idea of a "higher standard" is kind of N?A. There is ONE standard - to be holy, as God is holy. We don't meet that, but even from an outsider standpoint, neither does anyone else.

So then, where is the unholiness? In wearing a watch, even one the price of a small third-world country (and this one - if allegations are true - would barely buy a new car, let alone a third-world country). Nonsense. So where is the failure in holiness? What is the standard that has not been upheld? Do you think the command to sell everything and give it to the poor must be applied to everybody, because it was applied to somebody? If so, on what basis do you think that?
Not all people can do all things, or be all things to all men. Certainly not me. Or the current Patriarch.

So where outsiders get special authority to apply a standard they have taken grossly out of context within a faith that they refuse to be a part of is quite beyond me.

robertmf
29-04-2012, 20:53
... So where outsiders get special authority to apply a standard they have taken grossly out of context within a faith that they refuse to be a part of is quite beyond me.

For the same reason Santa Claus and St. Christopher are universal in acceptance.

rusmeister
29-04-2012, 21:02
I keep asking myself why the only person on this forum who likes Kiril is the pedantic American?

Don't you Russians realize that the Metropolitan is wealthy only because God has blessed is faithfulness?
Why do you keep asking yourself a question to which you already know the answer, one way or the other?

If you are right, then your question is disingenuous.

If you are wrong, then no one likes him because his message is true, requires that each and every one of us strive to change how we live, to struggle against our desires and passions, and people, as a rule, really don't want to do that. The truth cuts them to the quick, so they gnash their teeth at the conviction of their own hearts, and assume a stance of rebellion, anger and hatred. Which most are, in fact, doing. The statement that Jesus Christ really IS no-kidding the Son of God, Who will come in judgement on us all, does not bring jolly joy to the hearts of people who are determined to be their own gods, their own inevitable deaths notwithstanding. All the other talk is smoke-and-mirrors which refuses to see the obvious fact of our own deaths.

rusmeister
29-04-2012, 21:05
For the same reason Santa Claus and St. Christopher are universal in acceptance.


Yo, dude, don't mess with St Christopher (I wonder how much you really know about the man?). He is a patron of mine.

I don't think "Santa Claus" true, though I DO think St Nicholas of Myra true, and think that even the distorted image of Santa Claus to have something good and wholesome in it that your cynicism would benefit from.

rusmeister
29-04-2012, 21:43
Rus,

I did not have a shadow of a doubt that you would come back with some cocky reply to my post. You are predictable. However, many of your posts do look kind of ridiculous - you cram a lot of complicated philosophical ideas, unrelated to the topic, into a short text and on top of that you wrap them up in a kind of semi-ancient verbiage. It does create an impression that you are writing not so much to refute someone's arguement, but mostly to gloat over your writing style and your bookworm's knowledge.

Do you also speak like that in the real life? :)

No matter what you think of me personally or generally about this forum's audience, the key to effective communication is making sure your message is understood. Looks like you don't really care about that as much as you care to show off or just to lead the discussion towards an unrelated philosophical debate that might be of interest only to you personally...

Hi, GP,
While I agree that we should do our best to make ourselves understood, I see a problem in discussions that require intelligent thinking. Put simply, the zingy one-liners and short 3-sentence paragraphs completely fail to explain ideas that an audience may be skeptical of.

Thus, for instance, an evolutionary scientist, in being told to limit his answer to a few sentences and make the reasoning behind evolutionary theory comprehensible to a Creationist audience, is going to find that his attempts at short answers are jeered away: "Ha! He's saying my grandfather was a monkey!" etc.

Then he finds that the longer explanations, that might otherwise make it clear that that is NOT what he means, are rejected as being too long and confusing.

That is more or less the position I find myself in. I find the biggest problem is that people have already judged before I ever offer any evidence (there is a word for that in English from Latin), and so it doesn't matter what evidence I offer, short or long.

As to "unrelated" - ALL things are related to worldview; there is no such thing as a topic that has nothing to do with one's worldview, and THAT is what the Chesterton quote was about, so it is certainly related, and much more so than an irrelevant segue to opera singers, which really IS off-topic, but which you didn't complain about at all.

And no, what I write is absolutely to refute others' arguments. I don't give a hoot about my style. I care about what is true, what really happens to be the most complete understanding of the world and our experience.

martpark
29-04-2012, 23:37
Why do you keep asking yourself a question to which you already know the answer, one way or the other?

If you are right, then your question is disingenuous.

If you are wrong, then no one likes him because his message is true, requires that each and every one of us strive to change how we live, to struggle against our desires and passions, and people, as a rule, really don't want to do that. The truth cuts them to the quick, so they gnash their teeth at the conviction of their own hearts, and assume a stance of rebellion, anger and hatred. Which most are, in fact, doing. The statement that Jesus Christ really IS no-kidding the Son of God, Who will come in judgement on us all, does not bring jolly joy to the hearts of people who are determined to be their own gods, their own inevitable deaths notwithstanding. All the other talk is smoke-and-mirrors which refuses to see the obvious fact of our own deaths.

"Voltaire's method of attacking Christianity has always approved
itself to French Freethinkers. They regard the statement that
he treated religious questions in a spirit of levity as the
weak defence of those who know that irony and sarcasm are the
deadliest enemies of their faith. Superstition dislikes argument,
but it hates laughter. Nimble and far-flashing wit is more
potent against error than the slow dull logic of the schools;
and the great humorists and wits of the world have done far
more to clear its head and sweeten its heart than all its
sober philosophers from Aristotle to Kant."

PRISONER FOR BLASPHEMY By George William Foote, one of the last people to do prison time for blasphemy in Englandin 1886.

PS be careful with the proselytising.

robertmf
30-04-2012, 00:12
:11629:

READ THE BIBLE

By Art Buchwald

<excerpt>
Jeepers creepers, the Republicans' dirty secret is out. The Democrats who are filibustering Congress are against people of faith. Leading the attack is Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who speaks for all of God's Children in the GOP.

Zack the Zealot clued me in.

I asked, "Are you calling everyone who filibusters against judicial nominees an infidel?"

He replied, "What would you call them?"

I said, "Some of my best friends are Democrats, and I personally know several who go to church."

"That doesn't mean they have any faith. You can't believe in the Almighty if you don't believe in President Bush."

Substitute patriarch Kiril for President Bush in the above.

rusmeister
30-04-2012, 00:39
"Voltaire's method of attacking Christianity has always approved
itself to French Freethinkers. They regard the statement that
he treated religious questions in a spirit of levity as the
weak defence of those who know that irony and sarcasm are the
deadliest enemies of their faith. Superstition dislikes argument,
but it hates laughter. Nimble and far-flashing wit is more
potent against error than the slow dull logic of the schools;
and the great humorists and wits of the world have done far
more to clear its head and sweeten its heart than all its
sober philosophers from Aristotle to Kant."

PRISONER FOR BLASPHEMY By George William Foote, one of the last people to do prison time for blasphemy in Englandin 1886.

PS be careful with the proselytising.

Hey, Mart,
On "proselytising", note that I prefaced the statement with the conditional. Whether anybody is right, it is certain that somebody is wrong.
In any event, I prefer to stick to apologetics than to simply make assertions, something I do my best to leave to my opponents.

As to humor, the swift leap linking Christianity to superstition may be freethinking, but it is hadly clear thinking. As I said to Gena, there is no special virtue to freedom in thought, when one is dealing with questions of truth. The physicist is not a daring free-thinker for daring to think the speed of light to be only 200,000, or 200 km per second, and no amount of nimble and far-flashing wit will cover his error in challenging the "dull logic" of an insistance that it is 300,000 kps. The emotional claim that philosophers are sober, with its implication that they have no sense of humor, is devoid both of the clear head and the sweet heart, for if they are sober, then they are not drunk. When it comes to important things, like driving a car, or otherwise navigating between deadly errors, we prefer sobriety to drunkenness.

On the sense of humor, I'd offer this:
Ballade of Suicide

The gallows in my garden, people say,
Is new and neat and adequately tall;
I tie the noose on in a knowing way
As one that knots his necktie for a ball;
But just as all the neighbours--on the wall--
Are drawing a long breath to shout "Hurray!"
The strangest whim has seized me. . . . After all
I think I will not hang myself to-day.

To-morrow is the time I get my pay--
My uncle's sword is hanging in the hall--
I see a little cloud all pink and grey--
Perhaps the Rector's mother will not call--
I fancy that I heard from Mr. Gall
That mushrooms could be cooked another way--
I never read the works of Juvenal--
I think I will not hang myself to-day.

The world will have another washing-day;
The decadents decay; the pedants pall;
And H.G. Wells has found that children play,
And Bernard Shaw discovered that they squall;
Rationalists are growing rational--
And through thick woods one finds a stream astray,
So secret that the very sky seems small--
I think I will not hang myself to-day.

ENVOI
Prince, I can hear the trumpet of Germinal,
The tumbrils toiling up the terrible way;
Even to-day your royal head may fall--
I think I will not hang myself to-day.

-- G.K. Chesterton

rusmeister
30-04-2012, 00:45
:11629:

READ THE BIBLE

By Art Buchwald

<excerpt>
Jeepers creepers, the Republicans' dirty secret is out. The Democrats who are filibustering Congress are against people of faith. Leading the attack is Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who speaks for all of God's Children in the GOP.

Zack the Zealot clued me in.

I asked, "Are you calling everyone who filibusters against judicial nominees an infidel?"

He replied, "What would you call them?"

I said, "Some of my best friends are Democrats, and I personally know several who go to church."

"That doesn't mean they have any faith. You can't believe in the Almighty if you don't believe in President Bush."

Substitute patriarch Kiril for President Bush in the above.


What on earth does an irrational statement made by a stupid believer have to do with P. Kirill?
(and can you never find quotes by intelligent believers? Or is it just that you don't want to? If the former, I can help you with that. If the latter, then nothing can help you.)

Sandy Stone
05-05-2012, 03:35
I keep asking myself why the only person on this forum who likes Kiril is the pedantic American?

Don't you Russians realize that the Metropolitan is wealthy only because God has blessed is faithfulness?

True. My hubby is Russian and he observes Lent and all the other events strictly. He has no issues with Patriarch being wealthy. Frankly, I have no problem with that either. If I ever see the guy in person, I want him to look richer than myself. Otherwise, what's the point of working so hard for money?

rusmeister
05-05-2012, 06:31
True. My hubby is Russian and he observes Lent and all the other events strictly. He has no issues with Patriarch being wealthy. Frankly, I have no problem with that either. If I ever see the guy in person, I want him to look richer than myself. Otherwise, what's the point of working so hard for money?

I think Jack was being sarcastic, Sandy.

If you don't mind my asking, does your husband also go to church regularly? (ie, does he try to be Orthodox all the time? In Russian it is called 'to be "воцерковлённым"'; "enchurched".) Some people fast and go to Pascha and Christmas services because it is fashionable or a novelty, others because they think they really do need to change themselves and that that stuff is really true.

TGP
05-05-2012, 21:03
I keep asking myself why the only person on this forum who likes Kiril is the pedantic American?

Don't you Russians realize that the Metropolitan is wealthy only because God has blessed is faithfulness?

I would ask another question: why on earth those who are not believes and do not belong to the Russian church keep on and on discussing the Russian church/ believers.

Many people like Kirill, but I don't think they will write anything on this forum. I know it from my own experienece: as soon as something is written, a group of critics flock together (mainly the same people in all threads) with the only intention: to show how their opponents are stupid and wrong, without a slightest intention to understand them.
It is not interesting at all. Besides - please excuse me for this phrase - but it reminds me of casting pearls...

Also, maybe not all Russians can write in English all on this subject, but I may be wrong here. It's just my supposition.

As for the material things... I already wrote about it in one of my previous comments: don't measure everyone by your own measures. If Kirills's watch, chairs, or, say, silverware excites someone most of all, it does not mean that others should feel the same. You may not believe it, but they pay attention to other things.
P.S. whiterussian defined everything quite precisely: it you do not believe, stay with it (no one tries to make you a believer), but do not poke into what you can't understand. Othersie it is strange: to discuss, and discuss, and discuss something which actually should not be interesting to you.

DarthVader71
05-05-2012, 21:59
Yes like ostriches......got their head in the sand to check the texture of the manure they receive...

DarthVader71
05-05-2012, 22:14
Ghostly Presence you will go to hell.....hell being Miami Beach in February.....
Rus and TGP I do admire your faith......
For the rest a hearty cheers let's have a bottle of wine and a loaf of bread to wash our sins away.......or maybe a nice 18yr old GlenFiddich(not $30 000).....we are poor

robertmf
05-05-2012, 22:24
It is not interesting at all. Besides - please excuse me for this phrase - but it reminds me of casting pearls...



What is this phrase "casting (for) pearls" :question:

and why should you be excused for using it :question:


Remember the Alamo!

yakspeare
05-05-2012, 23:46
the phrase is do not cast pearls before swine(pigs)...

robertmf
06-05-2012, 00:01
the phrase is do not cast pearls before swine(pigs)...

Okay. Meaning to avaricious Americans is, "don't throw good money after bad (money)".

Note though :watching::watching:, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear :farout:

robertmf
06-05-2012, 00:05
Rus and TGP I do admire your faith......

For the rest a hearty cheers let's have a bottle of wine and a loaf of bread to wash our sins away.......or maybe a nice 18yr old GlenFiddich(not $30 000).....we are poor

Ah! But will the bread & wine be eternal/forever forthcoming :question:

Since

God is not willing to do everything, and thus takes away our free will and that share of glory which belongs to us.
-- Niccolo Machiavelli

I suspect you will be better off supplying your own cache.

DarthVader71
06-05-2012, 13:08
I also have that strange feeling.........it is not falling like manna from heaven......

peppermintpaddy
06-05-2012, 14:23
Okay. Meaning to avaricious Americans is, "don't throw good money after bad (money)".




No-it doesn't mean that at all...... casting your pearls(of wisdom ) before swine(ignoramuses)...means wasting your words of wisdom on an idiot-he/she won't understand what is being said.

robertmf
07-05-2012, 16:59
Has anyone heard about people sending Patriarch Kiril broken watches to replace the one he lost in photoshopping :question:

:smurf:

rusmeister
08-05-2012, 09:35
I'd ask TGP's question again:
"Why on earth those who are not believers and do not belong to the Russian church keep on and on discussing the Russian church/ believers?"

We do not have any appreciable impact on the expat community, we don't threaten anyone, people talk vaguely about "influence on the government" but can't say exactly what they are afraid of, and yet some non-members make it their mission in life to toss dirt on the Church, to make it out to be much blacker than it is. In doing so, they ALWAYS seek out anything that looks like corruption, however minor, and ALWAYS ignore the work done with the sick and poor and good things done by the Church.

The people most determined to do so decidedly DON'T want to hear what those of us in the Church might say about it, a sure sign of their fair and balanced consideration and efforts to understand all sides of the issues (not).

TGP
08-05-2012, 20:50
I'd ask TGP's question again:
"Why on earth those who are not believers and do not belong to the Russian church keep on and on discussing the Russian church/ believers?"

We do not have any appreciable impact on the expat community, we don't threaten anyone, people talk vaguely about "influence on the government" but can't say exactly what they are afraid of, and yet some non-members make it their mission in life to toss dirt on the Church, to make it out to be much blacker than it is. In doing so, they ALWAYS seek out anything that looks like corruption, however minor, and ALWAYS ignore the work done with the sick and poor and good things done by the Church.

The people most determined to do so decidedly DON'T want to hear what those of us in the Church might say about it, a sure sign of their fair and balanced consideration and efforts to understand all sides of the issues (not).

I think it's Putin's fault. He is guilty in everything
Even in this endless verbal diarrhea :D

mds45
08-05-2012, 21:29
I'd ask TGP's question again:
"Why on earth those who are not believers and do not belong to the Russian church keep on and on discussing the Russian church/ believers?"

We do not have any appreciable impact on the expat community, we don't threaten anyone, people talk vaguely about "influence on the government" but can't say exactly what they are afraid of, and yet some non-members make it their mission in life to toss dirt on the Church, to make it out to be much blacker than it is. In doing so, they ALWAYS seek out anything that looks like corruption, however minor, and ALWAYS ignore the work done with the sick and poor and good things done by the Church.

The people most determined to do so decidedly DON'T want to hear what those of us in the Church might say about it, a sure sign of their fair and balanced consideration and efforts to understand all sides of the issues (not).

Hahah you are the funny one, so I ask why on earth would you a believer bother with trying to argue, nee " kick his butt " with Christopher Hitchen? That statement alone may have killed him through laughter had he not already been dead ! Sir you have you too high an opinion of yourself i think that is why people argue with you, nothing to do with the church all to do with you ..

TGP
08-05-2012, 22:27
These talks are like discussions of, say, football: I will write post after post saying that football fans are idiots. Sure, mentally sound, clever men are going crazy while watching 22 also crazy men rushing after a ball all over a field; for this sake a lot of sport clubs are created, big money paid to players and trainers, it's a system which covered the globe, etc, etc, etc.
Footlball fans will try to explain what they feel, but I am unable to understand their feelings. In my eyes they are stupid idiots wasting their time on some foolishness instead of doing something useful and real.

... but I will keep writing about my opinion...especially about foreign football clubs and fans. What the football fans will think? Yeah, yeah, I know the answer. :7525: :10220:


Don't say that religion and football are quite different things, sure they are, this comparison is just an example. If something is beyond someone, let him not make judgements about what is not understandable to him.

rusmeister
08-05-2012, 23:33
Hahah you are the funny one, so I ask why on earth would you a believer bother with trying to argue, nee " kick his butt " with Christopher Hitchen? That statement alone may have killed him through laughter had he not already been dead ! Sir you have you too high an opinion of yourself i think that is why people argue with you, nothing to do with the church all to do with you ..

I think your question a good one, actually.

I would attempt to answer by starting off by saying that I understand Mr. Hitchens. His writings are intelligent and articulate.

When Mr Hitchens talks about GK Chesterton, he shows a level of respect and understanding -and simple knowledge - that NO atheist or agnostic here does. My respect for him is correspondingly greater. But I know still more than he does about that particular subject, and so, can see where he is wrong (as well as where he is right).

So what I would say here is that atheists who I hold worthy of respect are those who really do take on the best of what they disagree with. They don't run from (for example) CS Lewis or Chesterton, nor do they jeer them without knowing anything about them, as some people here do. They do what Hitchens does and take their opponents seriously and try to make sense of them.

You can only argue, in the intelligent sense, with someone who is reasonable. Who considers the arguments from the other side and doesn't lightly dismiss them. What goes on here is much more people talking past each other rather than arguing in that sense.

martpark
09-05-2012, 02:03
I think your question a good one, actually.

I would attempt to answer by starting off by saying that I understand Mr. Hitchens. His writings are intelligent and articulate.

When Mr Hitchens talks about GK Chesterton, he shows a level of respect and understanding -and simple knowledge - that NO atheist or agnostic here does. My respect for him is correspondingly greater. But I know still more than he does about that particular subject, and so, can see where he is wrong (as well as where he is right).

So what I would say here is that atheists who I hold worthy of respect are those who really do take on the best of what they disagree with. They don't run from (for example) CS Lewis or Chesterton, nor do they jeer them without knowing anything about them, as some people here do. They do what Hitchens does and take their opponents seriously and try to make sense of them.

You can only argue, in the intelligent sense, with someone who is reasonable. Who considers the arguments from the other side and doesn't lightly dismiss them. What goes on here is much more people talking past each other rather than arguing in that sense.

Rus, you don't listen or try to comprehend the other side. You defend your side. It is the most important thing for you. You can not disagree with your religion for the simple fact it will cause doubt. So all of your posts have to come up with that you are right and the others, including Chesterton, Hitchens, Russell, Einstein, et al are wrong.

Korotky Gennady
09-05-2012, 02:20
I
What goes on here is much more people talking past each other rather than arguing in that sense.

Yeah. And first of all you should look at the mirror.

rusmeister
09-05-2012, 06:17
Rus,
1)you don't listen or try to comprehend the other side.
2)You defend your side.
3)It is the most important thing for you.
4)You can not disagree with your religion for the simple fact it will cause doubt.
5)So all of your posts have to come up with that you are right and the others, including Chesterton, Hitchens, Russell, Einstein, et al are wrong.

Mart, your sentences in regards to me are, in order, false, true, true, false, false. I think them all entirely true in regards to most atheists here, for my part. (As evidence that number one is false, I won't quibble over your selection of names - I do think there are points where Chesterton is wrong, though they are few and far between.)

I do indeed listen to the other side - to the other side that I either know or hope will listen to me, anyway. I stop listening to people when it becomes crystal clear that they do not try to listen to me, so there are a few people I have stopped responding to. As long as I respond, I listen.

I spent twenty adult years in unbelief, indifference, scorn of religion and church... I spent a long time on that side of the fence. I hated the negative things in the Baptist faith of my childhood.

I no longer fear doubt. Doubt, to me, is useless. It doesn't matter. I am going to die either way. So Pascal's wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pascal%27s_wager&redirect=no)
makes a whole lot more sense to me than the alternative.

On number four, if one has come to a proposition of truth, they cannot disagree with it because it is (as they understand it) true. You cannot disagree with the idea that you like ice cream, or that people should be kind to each other.

So it is normal for a person to think they are right, and I grant the atheist the same right to think that, and find him more logical than the person who is shocked that someone else thinks they are right (which is the disease of modern pluralism, to come to think that no one should think they are right - a self-contradictory proposition).

rusmeister
09-05-2012, 09:25
Yeah. And first of all you should look at the mirror.

I think I have, Gena.

The test is whether I am willing to read and consider any champion of that with which I disagree. And I am. In fact, here is the essay of Hitchens' that I plan to take apart when the school year ends:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/03/the-reactionary/8889/

By expat.ru standards, that is an incredibly long "post", and quite boring to most, especially those who don't want to hear what he has to say. People would complain if a poster posted things that long - people complain about me posting a mere two or three paragraphs.

And there's the rub. No one here does what Hitchens seriously attempts - to understand his foe. I post a quote, a paragraph or two, or post a link, and Yak says it's "nonsense" and "rubbish". Most of you don't even glance at it. Certainly you show no sign of having read it. So this is where I think Hitchens is a mile above atheists (or other anti-Christians) here, and why I respect him enough to read him and put effort into thinking about what he says and refuting him where he is wrong. Like he does, and Chesterton does even more, to praise his opponent where he thinks him right. (I'm still working on learning to do that well. It's still a weak point of mine.)

So when I see you guys reading and responding to Chesterton's (or Lewis's) words in detail, I'll revise my opinion. Until then...

martpark
09-05-2012, 11:02
By expat.ru standards, that is an incredibly long "post", and quite boring to most, especially those who don't want to hear what he has to say. People would complain if a poster posted things that long - people complain about me posting a mere two or three paragraphs.

This is the perfect example of you not listening or not comprehending. It has nothing to do with the reader. Many of us are professionals who read long uninteresting texts quite well and succeed in our professions. You don't take in account what others say. You are so convinced of your own writing style that it doesn't matter if 99% say your posts are too long and redundant. You are 'correct' and have the 'truth', so why should you listen to others. There is no need to if you are convinced you are a greater thinker than most of the famous minds of the 20th century.

PeteD
09-05-2012, 12:07
And there's the rub. No one here does what Hitchens seriously attempts - to understand his foe. ...

There you go.... generalising again.

"Know thine enemy" - doesn't tell you that you need to shout from the rooftops while you are studying him.

rusmeister
09-05-2012, 16:21
This is the perfect example of you not listening or not comprehending. It has nothing to do with the reader. Many of us are professionals who read long uninteresting texts quite well and succeed in our professions. You don't take in account what others say. You are so convinced of your own writing style that it doesn't matter if 99% say your posts are too long and redundant. You are 'correct' and have the 'truth', so why should you listen to others. There is no need to if you are convinced you are a greater thinker than most of the famous minds of the 20th century.


There you go.... generalising again.

"Know thine enemy" - doesn't tell you that you need to shout from the rooftops while you are studying him.

Brick walls.

I say the concrete proof is in the fact that I do read and think about what my most intelligent "enemies" have to say - and comment on it; you don't. Where is a single thread that has seriously considered one quote that I made?

All you have is the oft repeated assertion that I don't listen, immediately countered by any post I have made in response to nearly anyone.

The upshot is that for you guys, there CANNOT exist intelligent Christian thought. If I post anything on my own, it is scorned, if I quote anyone, it is ignored.

So I can't take your comments seriously. Like I said, when I see an intelligent response that lives up at least to the level of Christopher Hitchens and acknowledges good when he recognizes it in his foe, then I'll take you more seriously. But these simple assertions are not worth response. Give me intelligent analysis of an intelligent text that you disagree with!

robertmf
09-05-2012, 16:38
There you go.... generalising again.

"Know thine enemy" - doesn't tell you that you need to shout from the rooftops while you are studying him.

No. If you shout, you'll probably draw fire.

PeteD
09-05-2012, 17:37
Brick walls.

I say the concrete proof is in the fact that I do read and think about what my most intelligent "enemies" have to say - and comment on it; you don't. Where is a single thread that has seriously considered one quote that I made?

All you have is the oft repeated assertion that I don't listen, immediately countered by any post I have made in response to nearly anyone.

The upshot is that for you guys, there CANNOT exist intelligent Christian thought. If I post anything on my own, it is scorned, if I quote anyone, it is ignored.

So I can't take your comments seriously. Like I said, when I see an intelligent response that lives up at least to the level of Christopher Hitchens and acknowledges good when he recognizes it in his foe, then I'll take you more seriously. But these simple assertions are not worth response. Give me intelligent analysis of an intelligent text that you disagree with!


You said "No one here". That includes ME.

Do not PRESUME, what I do or don't do.

Do not PRESUME what I think or don't think.

Do not PRESUME what I do or don't believe.

You make sweeping generalisations, which, if they go unchallenged, you assume to be correct.

rusmeister
09-05-2012, 20:30
You said "No one here". That includes ME.

Do not PRESUME, what I do or don't do.

Do not PRESUME what I think or don't think.

Do not PRESUME what I do or don't believe.

You make sweeping generalisations, which, if they go unchallenged, you assume to be correct.

Pete, In making generalizations, intelligent folk know that there are exceptions. I certainly do not pretend to be able to read your mind. But I can read your posts, and I have not seen evidence that you have read any quotes I've posted. Have you responded in any detail to any quote of any Christian thinker that I quoted? If you have, please point it out and I'll be sure to exclude you from any generalizations. I'll even thank you, even if we continue to disagree.

I'll be happy with any evidence that anybody does what Hitchens does - take those thinkers seriously and respond to them and not ignore them. If you have read and refuted anything, be it by Belloc, Lewis or whoever, I'll be happy to consider your refutations.

If the shoe fits...

robertmf
09-05-2012, 20:38
Pete, In making generalizations, intelligent folk know that there are exceptions. I certainly do not pretend to be able to read your mind. But I can read your posts, and I have not seen evidence that you have read any quotes I've posted. Have you responded in any detail to any quote of any Christian thinker that I quoted? If you have, please point it out and I'll be sure to exclude you from any generalizations. I'll even thank you, even if we continue to disagree.

I'll be happy with any evidence that anybody does what Hitchens does - take those thinkers seriously and respond to them and not ignore them. If you have read and refuted anything, be it by Belloc, Lewis or whoever, I'll be happy to consider your refutations.

If the shoe fits...

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, what is it :question:

DarthVader71
09-05-2012, 20:40
Reading is always in the eye of the beholder...excuse the pun....
But that is true,I read a poem and someone else reads the same poem,and people intrepid it in different ways.
There will always be a major difference of opinion as far as religion is concerned....but unlike the majority of religions,christianity wants to ram that belief system down everybodies throats.
This is from past and present experience.
Christians have this we need to save you mentality,I ask from what?
I have decent morals eg treat people like you want to be treated.
And let me just add that I was brought up in a church(mother IS a believer).
I have said it before and will again,christianity is based on hearsay,which they want to hold up as the truth......sorry I don't buy and never will

PeteD
09-05-2012, 21:13
Pete, In making generalizations, intelligent folk know that there are exceptions. I certainly do not pretend to be able to read your mind. But I can read your posts, and I have not seen evidence that you have read any quotes I've posted. Have you responded in any detail to any quote of any Christian thinker that I quoted? If you have, please point it out and I'll be sure to exclude you from any generalizations. I'll even thank you, even if we continue to disagree.

I'll be happy with any evidence that anybody does what Hitchens does - take those thinkers seriously and respond to them and not ignore them. If you have read and refuted anything, be it by Belloc, Lewis or whoever, I'll be happy to consider your refutations.

If the shoe fits...

Why generalise?

Why not say "most people" instead of "all people" (or "no one")?

The fact that I have responded to several of your posts should indicate that I read your posts - not the same as reading your recommended quotes, I'll grant you.

I would be interested to hear of your definition of "intelligence", because you keep referring to "intelligent people", the inference, in your suggestion, being that you don't regard people who disagree with you as being intelligent. Do you agree with the standard IQ measurement, or do you measure intelligence in your own way?

I have neither agreed nor disagreed with you on your religious views. I have not stated mine, nor condemned yours.

The fact that I refuse to be drawn on who I have read, and what I agree with - or disagree with, does not mean that I haven't read them.

Empty vessels make the most sound. Still waters run deep. Don't misunderstimate other people's intelligence and don't generalise, whether for effect, or not, if it isn't necessary and you want to be taken seriously.

rusmeister
09-05-2012, 23:16
Why generalise?

Why not say "most people" instead of "all people" (or "no one")?

The fact that I have responded to several of your posts should indicate that I read your posts - not the same as reading your recommended quotes, I'll grant you.

I would be interested to hear of your definition of "intelligence", because you keep referring to "intelligent people", the inference, in your suggestion, being that you don't regard people who disagree with you as being intelligent. Do you agree with the standard IQ measurement, or do you measure intelligence in your own way?

I have neither agreed nor disagreed with you on your religious views. I have not stated mine, nor condemned yours.

The fact that I refuse to be drawn on who I have read, and what I agree with - or disagree with, does not mean that I haven't read them.

Empty vessels make the most sound. Still waters run deep. Don't misunderstimate other people's intelligence and don't generalise, whether for effect, or not, if it isn't necessary and you want to be taken seriously.

Saying "most people" IS generalizing. Intelligence knows this. Intelligence grasps that a rule covers most situations, and that the possibility of exceptions is implied. In discussion and debate, intelligence considers and discusses ideas, it does not ignore them and then claim intelligence in the ignoring. Intelligence makes generalizations and reasonable assumptions - without which thought is generally impossible. To say "don't generalize" is to say "Don't think". We DO assume people want to be loved and appreciated, share a common horror of murder and rape, and on and on, and speak from those assumptions. We are not addressing aliens from Neptune.

"Refusing to be drawn" means refusing to state what you stand for - what you believe in. The motivations are not likely to be flattering. The most well-known class of people that does this is politicians, who, as a rule (generalization alert!) hide their true stands in order to obtain what they want - and the price is honesty.

It ain't gonna work, Pete. I'm not going to buy that you are familiar with writers when asked up front about them when your answer is silence on them. When you show me that you read and understand them, then I will believe. Until then, it is reasonable to think that you're the one with the empty vessel.

rusmeister
09-05-2012, 23:25
Reading is always in the eye of the beholder...excuse the pun....
But that is true,I read a poem and someone else reads the same poem,and people intrepid it in different ways.
There will always be a major difference of opinion as far as religion is concerned....but unlike the majority of religions,christianity wants to ram that belief system down everybodies throats.
This is from past and present experience.
Christians have this we need to save you mentality,I ask from what?
I have decent morals eg treat people like you want to be treated.
And let me just add that I was brought up in a church(mother IS a believer).
I have said it before and will again,christianity is based on hearsay,which they want to hold up as the truth......sorry I don't buy and never will

I find it interesting that you think "christianity wants to ram that belief system down everybodies throats" on a thread started as an attack on Christian faith that seeks to ram THAT particular view down everyone's throat.

I don't think I can possibly save you. Only God can do that, and then, only if you let Him.

I think we all have "decent morals". That's not exactly the issue.

It seems to me that a majority of westerners (over 50%, anyway) were brought up in church. That gives them... a child's understanding of faith, with all the maturity that implies.

Your idea that the Christian Gospel is based on hearsay is directly contradicted by a class of people that sacrificed everything for it - Christian martyrs. The behavior of the early Christians (and all Christians under persecution) is absolutely inexplicable by hearsay. It makes perfect sense if they think they really witnessed or experienced what they claimed. IOW, Occam's Razor says you're wrong.

Jack17
10-05-2012, 00:17
This is the perfect example of you not listening or not comprehending. It has nothing to do with the reader. Many of us are professionals who read long uninteresting texts quite well and succeed in our professions. You don't take in account what others say. You are so convinced of your own writing style that it doesn't matter if 99% say your posts are too long and redundant. You are 'correct' and have the 'truth', so why should you listen to others. There is no need to if you are convinced you are a greater thinker than most of the famous minds of the 20th century.
But let's look at Rusmeister's posts another way. Since there is advertizing on this site, who contributes to more "hits" than Rusmeister? Robert or TolkaRas? Probably not, since their incessant posts don't elicit nearly as many responses as do Rus'.

Anyway you look at it, Rus is good for business! And his posts are generally civil and well intentioned. Keep posting Rus.

Korotky Gennady
10-05-2012, 00:20
But let's look at Rusmeister's posts another way. Since there is advertizing on this site, who contributes to more "hits" than Rusmeister? Robert or TolkaRas?
.

maybe me ?

Jack17
10-05-2012, 00:22
You're a close second to Rus KG.

Korotky Gennady
10-05-2012, 01:08
I think I have, Gena.

The test is whether I am willing to read and consider any champion of that with which I disagree. And I am. In fact, here is the essay of Hitchens' that I plan to take apart when the school year ends:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/03/the-reactionary/8889/

. I never was interested in reading the articles about the british reactionaries.

Korotky Gennady
10-05-2012, 01:16
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, what is it :question:

The man who pretends to be a duck !? :duhhhh:

PeteD
10-05-2012, 01:57
Saying "most people" IS generalizing. Intelligence knows this. Intelligence grasps that a rule covers most situations, and that the possibility of exceptions is implied. In discussion and debate, intelligence considers and discusses ideas, it does not ignore them and then claim intelligence in the ignoring. Intelligence makes generalizations and reasonable assumptions - without which thought is generally impossible. To say "don't generalize" is to say "Don't think". We DO assume people want to be loved and appreciated, share a common horror of murder and rape, and on and on, and speak from those assumptions. We are not addressing aliens from Neptune.

"Refusing to be drawn" means refusing to state what you stand for - what you believe in. The motivations are not likely to be flattering. The most well-known class of people that does this is politicians, who, as a rule (generalization alert!) hide their true stands in order to obtain what they want - and the price is honesty.

It ain't gonna work, Pete. I'm not going to buy that you are familiar with writers when asked up front about them when your answer is silence on them. When you show me that you read and understand them, then I will believe. Until then, it is reasonable to think that you're the one with the empty vessel.

For someone who claims to TEACH English, you disappoint me.

I asked for your definition of INTELLIGENCE. You didn't provide it. I will be happy to go with the OED's version, but, before I quote it, or any other, generally accepted version, in order to avoid you qualifying what you "originally meant", I was giving you the opportunity to state your definition first....

You have, again, referred to "intelligence" in your response..... You accuse people of not thinking about what you say. I come from an I. T. background - more than 38 years in the trade - and, having gone through programming and analysis training, I deal in absolutes and not generalities, which is why I take exception to your use of language.

I don't make "reasonable assumptions". I don't make ANY assumptions.

"To say "don't generalize" is to say "Don't think"."

Why? When I say "don't generalise", I mean - THINK.... BE SPECIFIC!!! BE PRECISE! - quite the opposite of what you're suggesting!

'"Refusing to be drawn" means refusing to state what you stand for - what you believe in. The motivations are not likely to be flattering.'

Why? Do you believe that I have no opinion, or cannot justify it? Do you believe that I am not intelligent enough to discuss it / debate it / argue about it? Has it never occurred to you that I choose NOT to, because I regard it as personal, and none of your business?

"The most well-known class of people that does this is politicians, who, as a rule (generalization alert!) hide their true stands in order to obtain what they want - and the price is honesty."

"The most well-known......" - "most" is a superlative - can you quantify or justify this statement? Do you have statistics and figures to back it up? The inference, again, is to suggest that anyone who disagrees with your opinion or statement is dishonest. Is the purpose of your statement deliberately provocative, or "typically", Christian?

You say that you respect Hitchens, because he "tries to understand his foes".......

You say that you want discussion and debate.......

It seems to me that you do not understand me. You do not understand what motivates me, or demotivates me. You could even claim that my, thus far, reluctance to impose my religio/political views on the forum don't facilitate your understanding.... Making such a claim only shows your ignorance and prejudice, if that is what you were to do, because it precludes any other consideration, of which I, as someone with analytical training and experience, can think of many.

You seem to see one "ENEMY" - that being, anyone opposed to your view / (possibly) the Orthodox Christian view.

You don't seem to consider that all people are not enemies - or even that no-one is an enemy. Can you define "enemy"? (after you have defined "intelligence"?)

"Until then, it is reasonable to think that you're the one with the empty vessel." - :) I will not say any more on this!

Korotky Gennady
10-05-2012, 04:53
I never was interested in reading the articles about the british reactionaries.

Better try to read him and get a bit enlightment on this subject. Richard Dawkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

rusmeister
10-05-2012, 06:34
Pete, what you want me to do is roll over and play dead. Don't worry. Eventually, I will. At some point, I will shake the dust off my feet and walk away. (Or at least put you on the Ignore list - and there are, to this day, only a few names on that list. I consider it a desperate last resort - it says there is no hope of reasonably communicating anything, which I think quite sad.)

But (speaking to everybody in general) the idea that a person cannot be both intellectual and a Christian is simple nonsense. In fact, most intellectuals in the history of Christendom were sincerely believing Christians - they actually accepted the faith of their parents and culture, and it would be silly to pretend that out of all those minds for over a millennium and a half, most of the intelligent ones were unbelievers. It simply ain't so.

Oh, yeah. Heaven forbid I should fail to provide a definition:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=Intelligence&searchmode=none
late 14c., "faculty of understanding," from O.Fr. intelligence (12c.), from L. intelligentia, intellegentia "understanding, power of discerning; art, skill, taste," from intelligentem (nom. intelligens) "discerning," prp. of intelligere "to understand, comprehend," from inter- "between" (see inter-) + legere "choose, pick out, read" (see lecture).
(The last part is a little fun for those who complain about "lecturing") ;)

And because it is SO relevant to the issues being discussed here, here is an excerpt from a short essay on impartiality:


It is worth while to dwell for a moment on this minor aspect of the matter because the error about impartiality and justice is by no means confined to a criminal question. In much more serious matters it is assumed that the agnostic is impartial; whereas the agnostic is merely ignorant. The logical outcome of the fastidiousness about the Thaw jurors would be that the case ought to be tried by Esquimaux, or Hottentots, or savages from the Cannibal Islands--by some class of people who could have no conceivable interest in the parties, and moreover, no conceivable interest in the case. The pure and starry perfection of impartiality would be reached by people who not only had no opinion before they had heard the case, but who also had no opinion after they had heard it. In the same way, there is in modern discussions of religion and philosophy an absurd assumption that a man is in some way just and well-poised because he has come to no conclusion; and that a man is in some way knocked off the list of fair judges because he has come to a conclusion. It is assumed that the sceptic has no bias; whereas he has a very obvious bias in favour of scepticism. I remember once arguing with an honest young atheist, who was very much shocked at my disputing some of the assumptions which were absolute sanctities to him (such as the quite unproved proposition of the independence of matter and the quite improbable proposition of its power to originate mind), and he at length fell back upon this question, which he delivered with an honourable heat of defiance and indignation: "Well, can you tell me any man of intellect, great in science or philosophy, who accepted the miraculous?" I said, "With pleasure. Descartes, Dr. Johnson, Newton, Faraday, Newman, Gladstone, Pasteur, Browning, Brunetiere--as many more as you please." To which that quite admirable and idealistic young man made this astonishing reply--"Oh, but of course they _had_ to say that; they were Christians." First he challenged me to find a black swan, and then he ruled out all my swans because they were black. The fact that all these great intellects had come to the Christian view was somehow or other a proof either that they were not great intellects or that they had not really come to that view. The argument thus stood in a charmingly convenient form: "All men that count have come to my conclusion; for if they come to your conclusion they do not count."
http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/20605/
Those that ignore it deserve to be ignored.

Korotky Gennady
10-05-2012, 06:38
Those that ignore it deserve to be ignored.

Sad that you ignore science.

rusmeister
10-05-2012, 13:40
Sad that you ignore science.
I suppose, by your manner of thinking, Newton, Faraday, Pasteur, etc also ignored science.

Korotky Gennady
12-05-2012, 21:10
I suppose, by your manner of thinking, Newton, Faraday, Pasteur, etc also ignored science.

If they ignored the scientific facts - yes.

One scientifically proved fact beats all your Chestertons and Ioans Kronshdatsky together.

Forever and ever.

All orthodox reactionaries should give themselves up.

" Humans are probably most closely related to two chimpanzee species: the common chimpanzee and the bonobo.[25] Full genome sequencing has resulted in the conclusion that "after 6.5 [million] years of separate evolution, the differences between chimpanzee and human are ten times greater than those between two unrelated people and ten times less than those between rats and mice".[attribution needed]

Current estimates of suggested concurrence between functional human and chimpanzee DNA sequences range between 95% and 99%.[26][27][28][29] Early estimates indicated that the human lineage may have diverged from that of chimpanzees about five million years ago, and from that of gorillas about eight million years ago. However, a hominid skull discovered in Chad in 2001, classified as Sahelanthropus tchadensis, is approximately seven million years old, and may be evidence of an earlier divergence".[30]

Human - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://s4.hubimg.com/u/861663_f520.jpg http://sneek.ru/pochemu-pogiblo-pervoe-chelovechestvo.htm

yakspeare
12-05-2012, 21:27
If they ignored the scientific facts - yes.

One scientificaly proved fact beats all your Chestertons and Ioans Kronshdatsky together.

Forever and ever.

" Humans are probably most closely related to two chimpanzee species: the common chimpanzee and the bonobo.[25] Full genome sequencing has resulted in the conclusion that "after 6.5 [million] years of separate evolution, the differences between chimpanzee and human are ten times greater than those between two unrelated people and ten times less than those between rats and mice".[attribution needed]

Current estimates of suggested concurrence between functional human and chimpanzee DNA sequences range between 95% and 99%.[26][27][28][29] Early estimates indicated that the human lineage may have diverged from that of chimpanzees about five million years ago, and from that of gorillas about eight million years ago. However, a hominid skull discovered in Chad in 2001, classified as Sahelanthropus tchadensis, is approximately seven million years old, and may be evidence of an earlier divergence".[30]

Human - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human)

You are way out of your depth if you want to argue evolution Korotky as your scientific fact, forever and ever.

Do you know that the person who cracked the human genome was actually a christian? Do you know that we have at least 25% in common with every living thing. Yes you are 25% similar to a daffodil. Do you know that mice and dogs also show high levels in common with humans, just less than chimpanzees. Do you know that Baboons are less like chimpanzees than we are? Do you know that 95% in common means we have BILLIONS of strands of DNA difference between us and chimps? Do you know those strands missing between us are vital and essential for speech and higher thought etc? Do you know that there are less than 400 skeletons, even far less complete, of supposed early man? Do you know that such skeletons, when found to be actually human, only prove diversity within the human gene pool-they show natural selection and breeding but not evolution to higher forms of life. Do you know that the natives of tiera de fuego as well as Australian Aborigines were attributed by Darwin and others as lesser unevolved humans, even Australian Aborigines put on display in London? Have you looked around the Earth and noted the difference between a Kalahari bushman, Australian Aborigine, a Gurkha, a Samoan, a Chinese person and a European? Different frames, different heights, even different skeletal structures.

So there is no "fact" of Evolution, there is theory, especialy when it goes beyond the scope of Darwin's original work.

rusmeister
12-05-2012, 22:24
If they ignored the scientific facts - yes.


That's all I needed, Gena, thank you.

Since history shows that those leading scientists of well-deserved worldwide fame certainly did NOT ignore the scientific facts, I rest my case.

martpark
12-05-2012, 23:03
You are way out of your depth if you want to argue evolution Korotky as your scientific fact, forever and ever.

Do you know that the person who cracked the human genome was actually a christian? Do you know that we have at least 25% in common with every living thing. Yes you are 25% similar to a daffodil. Do you know that mice and dogs also show high levels in common with humans, just less than chimpanzees. Do you know that Baboons are less like chimpanzees than we are? Do you know that 95% in common means we have BILLIONS of strands of DNA difference between us and chimps? Do you know those strands missing between us are vital and essential for speech and higher thought etc? Do you know that there are less than 400 skeletons, even far less complete, of supposed early man? Do you know that such skeletons, when found to be actually human, only prove diversity within the human gene pool-they show natural selection and breeding but not evolution to higher forms of life. Do you know that the natives of tiera de fuego as well as Australian Aborigines were attributed by Darwin and others as lesser unevolved humans, even Australian Aborigines put on display in London? Have you looked around the Earth and noted the difference between a Kalahari bushman, Australian Aborigine, a Gurkha, a Samoan, a Chinese person and a European? Different frames, different heights, even different skeletal structures.

So there is no "fact" of Evolution, there is theory, especialy when it goes beyond the scope of Darwin's original work.

Your idea of theory is not from science. And show me a scientific academy in the world that refutes the Theory of Evolution.

"Essential criteria for theories:

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.
In practice, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis, according to certain criteria:
It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.
It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.
[edit]Non-essential criteria
Additionally, a theory is generally only taken seriously if:
It is tentative, correctable, and dynamic in allowing for changes as new facts are discovered, rather than asserting certainty.
It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanationscommonly referred to as passing the Occam's razor test. (Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)
This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution, etc. Theories considered scientific meet at least most, but ideally all, of these extra criteria.
Theories do not have to be perfectly accurate to be scientifically useful. For example, the predictions made by classical mechanics are known to be inaccurate in the relatistivic realm, but they suffice at the low velocities of common experience. In chemistry, there are many acid-base theories which, provide highly divergent explanations of what "really" makes acids acids and bases bases but are very useful for describing the phenomenology of certain chemical reactions which fall under the concept of "acid-base reaction". In a sense, the notion of generalized acid-base reaction is not precisely defined, and therefore theories about what gives rise to acid-base chemistry are "inexact"; nonetheless, they are useful scientific theories."

yakspeare
12-05-2012, 23:10
Yes Martpark I am FULLY aware of what a scientific theory is and being "scientifically useful" does not make it true, true always and this is what we are talking about.

martpark
13-05-2012, 02:12
Yes Martpark I am FULLY aware of what a scientific theory is and being "scientifically useful" does not make it true, true always and this is what we are talking about.

Ok. Show me a science academy that has disproven it or shows it to be false, which is what essentially science is; experiments that show consistent results or false results. Science doesn't say this is the truth. It says this has been tested and the results are consistent with previous results, which is then used as fact. Thousands of objects have been physically built on scientific theories, which by default makes them facts or true because they react or behave the same way in certain conditions.

Look at alchemy (Newton was a big alchemist). In his time it might have seemed plausible but we know from many failed attempts and false results that it is not likely to happened and has faded as a serious subject of study. That doesn't make Newton any less of a genius because many of his theories were expounded by others to form new theories.
The theory of evolution, unlike alchemy, has grown exponentionally since Darwin's first observations. There are literally thousands of scientific papers on evolution that cannot be proven false as they have been replicated in nature studies, therefore they remain as scientific fact until some smartarse comes along.

yakspeare
13-05-2012, 03:00
Ok. Show me a science academy that has disproven it or shows it to be false, which is what essentially science is; experiments that show consistent results or false results. Science doesn't say this is the truth. It says this has been tested and the results are consistent with previous results, which is then used as fact. Thousands of objects have been physically built on scientific theories, which by default makes them facts or true because they react or behave the same way in certain conditions.

Look at alchemy (Newton was a big alchemist). In his time it might have seemed plausible but we know from many failed attempts and false results that it is not likely to happened and has faded as a serious subject of study. That doesn't make Newton any less of a genius because many of his theories were expounded by others to form new theories.
The theory of evolution, unlike alchemy, has grown exponentionally since Darwin's first observations. There are literally thousands of scientific papers on evolution that cannot be proven false as they have been replicated in nature studies, therefore they remain as scientific fact until some smartarse comes along.

I don't mind debating with an intelligent evolutionist, but Korotky's blind faith makes him as guilty as those who blindly follow religion.

Natural selection ie breeding is nothing revolutionary. It's been going on forever, that is how we have our domestic animals, our types of corn and so on. Nothing controversial there. The issue comes down to whether mutations can be positive and be passed down to the next generation, creating evolution enabling organisms to become more and more complex to change species and genus....this is when the scientific method breaks down and we delve into an area that isn't backed by real science at all. Doesn't mean it won't ever be, but it certainly isn't there at the moment. With only a few fossilized skeletons, most incomplete, we infer that man was different and somehow less "man" in the past. The sample size is too small. Evolutionary fraud like pitcairn man aside, one remains of either man or ape, does not make a family, tribe or people the same as one skeleton. We have midgets, we have giants, we have people with wider hip and shoulder structure(like the Polynesians) and so on....to say any such skeleton is a missing link is a leap of faith as any. Then we have cultural differences to "prove" how man evolved, that particular groups thousands of years ago hadn't discovered fire or the use of certain tools or whatever. Well the Tasmanian Aborigines(who share a remarkable resemblance to stone age man pictures) died out this century, and they never discovered fire. But they are no less human than the rest of us. What we most likely had is far more genetic diversity before , more "races", and with interbreeding they have disappeared from time.


Genome-wide variation from one human being to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity)

- Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated.

- Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice.

- Cows (Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans

- 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans , 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans

- The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans .

- About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene.

All animals have at least 50% in common with humans....a chimpanzee resembles us in many ways and so we want to believe that is where we come from....but when you look at, say a cat, and realize it is not far off either-you start to stretch the level of believability. Oh wait a cat is an earlier ancestor, one that broke off earlier on its on evolutionary path....this is to me is trying to squeeze and stretch science to fit what you want to believe.

rusmeister
13-05-2012, 06:42
Mart's observation that science deals in facts, not truth, is true - and that makes a certain assertion of evolution as truth all the more glaring.

The biggest problem seems to me to be in the leap from accumulating evidence (where the scientist is most "scientific") to drawing conclusions (where he begins to synthesize the science with his human self), to an absolute certainty about conclusions; ie, truth (where the scientist ceases being scientific, and joins the human race, makes a choice what to believe.
It IS a leap.

So Yak is quite right about Gena, and the nature of the faith of scientists, forming a worldview, something that they can't help doing as long as they remain human - only they do not form it as scientists, but as humans.

We cannot say that evolution is a scientific fact. We can say that we have x number if observations and experiments (which IS a fact) that support, or seem to support evolutionary theory, which remains a theory, but to say evolution is a fact is to cease being a scientist and to become a human with an opinion.

bydand
13-05-2012, 14:47
It IS a leap.



To paraphrase, but the full quote is above. Whichever "camp" you choose to believe that espouses the truth requires a leap of faith. To science, or religious doctrine or something else. Most "science" is founded on statistics, religion on ancestral experience.

I have not taken any leaps of faith, as I believe nobody "knows" the truth. My "truth" comes from my experience(s). My truth may be lacking, but is no more empty than those who take a leap of faith to other peoples ideals.

rusmeister
13-05-2012, 16:34
To paraphrase, but the full quote is above. Whichever "camp" you choose to believe that espouses the truth requires a leap of faith. To science, or religious doctrine or something else. Most "science" is founded on statistics, religion on ancestral experience.

I have not taken any leaps of faith, as I believe nobody "knows" the truth. My "truth" comes from my experience(s). My truth may be lacking, but is no more empty than those who take a leap of faith to other peoples ideals.
Well, if the foundation is statistics, my own attitude coincides with Mark Twain's: there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Statistics, like "studies", can be used to form any picture one likes, rather like stars in the sky. We can accept traditional ideas about pictures, or form our own. But those pictures are still a result of the imagination. It is no less fantastic to imagine all creatures evolving into we-know-not-what (which really means that we can't even define what a creature is, let alone that we have forgotten the etymology of the word) as it is to imagine an all-powerful Being speaking the universe into existence. Some people even think the two ideas compatible.

But if you believe nobody knows the truth, that is just as firm an assertion of truth as that of the person who thinks we can. The true agnostic (which is only the Greek for the Latin "ignorant") must admit that he doesn't know; and thetefore that somebody may know the truth. Obviously, the person who doesn't know should get out of the way of the person who does.

If your truth is any less empty than that, you should state what exactly it is that you think true, that we should all think (for if you think all things subjective then there is nothing, by such logic, that could be true or relevant for the rest of us). If there IS objective truth, then obviously, we can communicate it to each other and so can know it.

Korotky Gennady
13-05-2012, 19:24
You are way out of your depth if you want to argue evolution Korotky as your scientific fact, forever and ever.

Do you know that the person who cracked the human genome was actually a christian? Do you know that we have at least 25% in common with every living thing. Yes you are 25% similar to a daffodil. Do you know that mice and dogs also show high levels in common with humans, just less than chimpanzees. Do you know that Baboons are less like chimpanzees than we are? Do you know that 95% in common means we have BILLIONS of strands of DNA difference between us and chimps? Do you know those strands missing between us are vital and essential for speech and higher thought etc? Do you know that there are less than 400 skeletons, even far less complete, of supposed early man? Do you know that such skeletons, when found to be actually human, only prove diversity within the human gene pool-they show natural selection and breeding but not evolution to higher forms of life. Do you know that the natives of tiera de fuego as well as Australian Aborigines were attributed by Darwin and others as lesser unevolved humans, even Australian Aborigines put on display in London? Have you looked around the Earth and noted the difference between a Kalahari bushman, Australian Aborigine, a Gurkha, a Samoan, a Chinese person and a European? Different frames, different heights, even different skeletal structures.

So there is no "fact" of Evolution, there is theory, especialy when it goes beyond the scope of Darwin's original work.

Mr. Yak, I'm sorry but instead of writing this odd nonsence you would be better to read the article about the origin of Homo Sapiens in the Wiki. :fridaysign:

" Evolution of the great apes.

Evolutionary history of the primates can be traced back 65 million years.[36] The oldest known primate-like mammal species,[37] the Plesiadapis, came from North America, but they were widespread in Eurasia and Africa during the tropical conditions of the Paleocene and Eocene.


Notharctus David Begun[38] concluded that early primates flourished in Eurasia and that a lineage leading to the African apes and humans, including Dryopithecus, migrated south from Europe or Western Asia into Africa. The surviving tropical population of primates, which is seen most completely in the upper Eocene and lowermost Oligocene fossil beds of the Faiyum depression southwest of Cairo, gave rise to all living species—lemurs of Madagascar, lorises of Southeast Asia, galagos or "bush babies" of Africa, and the anthropoids; platyrrhine or New World monkeys, and catarrhines or Old World monkeys, and the great apes, and humans.

The earliest known catarrhine is Kamoyapithecus from uppermost Oligocene at Eragaleit in the northern Kenya Rift Valley, dated to 24 million years ago.[39] Its ancestry is thought to be species related to Aegyptopithecus, Propliopithecus, and Parapithecus from the Fayum, at around 35 million years ago.[40] In 2010, Saadanius was described as a close relative of the last common ancestor of the crown catarrhines, and tentatively dated to 29–28 million years ago, helping to fill an 11-million-year gap in the fossil record.[41]"

Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.niu.edu/pubaffairs/RELEASES/2000/MAR/primate/images/color_tree_thumb.jpg

"As there are thousands of fossils, mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth with complete skulls and skeletons rare,[1] this overview is not meant to be complete, but does show some of the most important finds. The fossils are arranged by approximate age as determined by radiometric dating and/or incremental dating. The species name represents current consensus, when there is no clear scientific consensus the other possible classifications are indicated; deprecated classifications may be found on the fossil's page. Most of the fossils shown are not considered direct ancestors to Homo sapiens but are closely related to direct ancestors and are therefore important to the study of the lineage."

It's absolutely ridiculous when you admit that there were evolutions of Primates or Horses (or Giraffes) and at the same time you suppose that the human beings apeared on the Earth by miracle... :)))))

It's simply illogical after all.

http://images.tutorvista.com/content/heredity-evolution/evolution-of-horse.jpeg

But ther most amazing thing for me... that for indulging the Russian Orthodox Church they deleted all mentions about the Human Evolution from the russian version of Wikipedia.

Bravo Putin !

rusmeister
13-05-2012, 20:57
It is obvious, Gena, that for you, only your own facts, assumptions and first principles exist.

The difference between your approach and mine us that it is obvious to me that yours must be refuted, and not merely pooh-poohed. The reverse is not obvious to you.

I could post charts, timelines, claims, etc, making claims - on different grounds - from my side, but if the assumptions and first principles are assumed, and not dealt with, who can I convince but people who already agree with me?

The first goal needs to be challenging root assumptions, and not ultimate conclusions. If a person believes in God, and that God created the universe, then why? If not, then why not? You start from an assumption that intelligent people, as you conceive them, already know that there is no God. I start from no such assumption. I know that doubters must first deal with primal issues.

Korotky Gennady
13-05-2012, 21:24
I could post charts, timelines, claims, etc, making claims - on different grounds - from my side, but if the assumptions and first principles are assumed, and not dealt with, who can I convince but people who already agree with me?

.
Nope, you can't becoz there is no one.

You mess deduction and logical valid inference from the facts. I speak not about some new theory. I speak about the facts which everyone can see in telescope for example.

http://science.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/Science/Images/Content/supernova-remnant-2007-sw.jpg

Or everyone can see the fossils of dinosours. http://effspeechcamille.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/mussaurus-dinosaur-fossil.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crab_Nebula.jpg

Everyone can see the evolution of cosmos stars through the telescope.



If a person believes... that God created the universe, then why?


What are your facts you made this assumption on ?

Please give me your facts... please don't refer to Bible again and again.

I mean you make the assumption that "god created the Universe"... But what are your facts which make the basis for this fantastical speculation ?

Korotky Gennady
13-05-2012, 21:53
Who has seen God ?

Who did see how He (or She) created the Universe during seven days 6000 years ago ?

If nobody did, what all your fuss is about ?

:fireworks:

Stop to deceive people.

For instance if I make the assertion that some person killed a man, the police demand some facts of that from me... The same thing goes when you assert that the Universe has been created by God.

It's a simple logic. Even child can understand my argumention.

Even the child but you couldn't or you didn't want to...

rusmeister
13-05-2012, 22:07
Nope, you can't becoz there is no one.

You mess deduction and logical valid inference from the facts. I speak not about some new theory. I speak about the facts which everyone can see in telescope for example.

http://science.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/Science/Images/Content/supernova-remnant-2007-sw.jpg

Or everyone can see the fossils of dinosours. http://effspeechcamille.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/mussaurus-dinosaur-fossil.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crab_Nebula.jpg

Everyone can see the evolution of cosmos stars through the telescope.



What are your facts you made this assumption on ?

Please give me your facts... please don't refer to Bible again and again.

I mean you make the assumption that "god created the Universe"... But what are your facts which make the basis for this fantastical speculation ?

Gena, you amaze me.
I have almost NEVER referred to the Bible here at expat.ru . For me, it is evidence that you don't hear me, that you imagine some fundamentalist argument and respond to that.

I see the same facts and pictures you do. I can imagine explanations that explain te facts and images and involve a Creator. You dogmatically exclude such a possibility, and precisely on the bass of faith in the non-existence of said Creator. We say He could create things instantaneously, or through swift or slow processes, including evolution. The priest whose video I posted accepts evolutionary theory. We don't exclude it - only the versions that insist that God wasn't involved.

So my facts, to a great extent, are the same as your facts.

Korotky Gennady
13-05-2012, 22:14
We say He could create things instantaneously, or through swift or slow processes, including evolution.
.

No, no... You and Mr. Yak never admit the fact of evolution of the Nature.

But how can we name the process of the change of live creatures or the cosmos stars as not an "evolution" ?

I refer to the exact words of yakspeare



Do you know that such skeletons, when found to be actually human, only prove diversity within the human gene pool-they show natural selection and breeding but not evolution to higher forms of life.

but the evoution - the process by which different kinds of living organism developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
.

yakspeare
14-05-2012, 00:03
No, no... You and Mr. Yak never admit the fact of evolution of the Nature.

But how can we name the process of the change of live creatures or the cosmos stars as not an "evolution" ?

I refer to the exact words of yakspeare



but the evoution - the process by which different kinds of living organism developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
.

Please don't quote me to argue with Rus, quote Rus' beliefs to debate him and what I say to debate me.

Sorry your example of a horse only proves my argument. What it shows is likely breeding and nutrition and that various types of horses have died out.....it DOES NOT show a horse becoming a frog, an elephant or a man.

Natural selection is a fact but don't confuse that with modern evolutionary theory which supposes that we came from amoebic slime and became aquatic life, whereupon we came on to land, took to the skies, became warm blooded , became primates and eventually became humans...the two ideas are very distinct from each other.

I am surprised that our resident commie is such a fan of evolution when it comes to man, as this falls right into the trap of the Nazis who argued that their race were descended from the stronger neanderthals...if such evolution as you suggest exists, then it stands to reason that either a) some races are more advanced than others in evolutionary terms or b) that some races were once as such. A dangerous argument.

We know Neanderthal man shared the Earth at the same time as the ancestors of the rest of us and that some European groups have 1-4% DNA from them- this doesn't mean we evolved from them, rather they were here and died out, just as many tribes are dying out to this day.

http://nishi.slv.vic.gov.au/latrobejournal/issue/latrobe-41/fig-latrobe-41-021a.html

http://www.voiceseducation.org/category/tag/tasmania

Have a look at the skull structures and facial characterisitics of Tasmanian Aborigines and compare them to illustrations of primitive man. Are these people less human than we are? Of course not. But they have died out now and they only exist in the genetic code of some people of that island. No full bloods exist anymore.

Korotky Gennady
14-05-2012, 00:18
Please don't quote me to argue with Rus, quote Rus' beliefs to debate him and what I say to debate me.

. I quote anything I consider relevant in this case.



I am surprised that our resident commie is such a fan of evolution when it comes to man, as this falls right into the trap of the Nazis who argued that their race were descended from the stronger neanderthals...if such evolution as you suggest exists, then it stands to reason that either a) some races are more advanced than others in evolutionary terms or b) that some races were once as such. A dangerous argument.
.

Please don't ascribe the racism to me.

But yes. Races differ anatomically. It's the fact all impartial scientists know. And this anatomical defference is the result of Human Evolution.

But even if it's so that doesn't prove that one human race is superiour to the other.

For example... it's obvious for everyone that a cat is not superiour to a dog and othewise... :))))))

All soviet school-kids knew that the races are distinct genetically divergent populations within the same species with relatively small morphological and genetic differences.

The populations can be described as ecological races if they arise from adaptation to different local habitats or geographic races when they are geographically isolated. :)))

We studied that in school.

yakspeare
14-05-2012, 00:30
I quote anything I consider relevant in this case.



Please don't ascribe the racism to me.

But yes. Races differ anatomically. It's the fact all impartial scientists know. And this anatomical defference is the result of Human Evolution.

But even if it's so that doesn't prove that one human race is superiour to the other.

For example... it's obvious for everyone that a cat is not superiour to a dog and othewise... :))))))

You quote anything you like to support your case, I can ascribe anything I like for mine :)

rusmeister
14-05-2012, 07:12
I quote anything I consider relevant in this case.



Please don't ascribe the racism to me.

But yes. Races differ anatomically. It's the fact all impartial scientists know. And this anatomical defference is the result of Human Evolution.

But even if it's so that doesn't prove that one human race is superiour to the other.

For example... it's obvious for everyone that a cat is not superiour to a dog and othewise... :))))))

All soviet school-kids knew that the races are distinct genetically divergent populations within the same species with relatively small morphological and genetic differences.

The populations can be described as ecological races if they arise from adaptation to different local habitats or geographic races when they are geographically isolated. :)))

We studied that in school.

But I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you didn't study logic, dialectic, rhetoric or debate in school (few do).

Ascribing Yak's thoughts to my arguments is a form of evasion. We hold different world views and so here only defend the same things by chance. In genuine debate (as opposed to the parodies fed us on television in politics today) one confines himself to the arguments his opponent actually presents, instead of ascribing arguments that he DOESN'T defend to him.

No scientist is impartial. All are human. All have desires and failings. They, like all humans, begin with a world view in the framework of which they interpret the data they obtain. They do NOT interpret data in a vacuum outside of that world view. The atheist scientist sees random chance, and the believing scientist sees the handiwork of God in the pictures and facts you keep throwing at us. That you interpret it all as an absence Of God is merely the partiality of your worldview.

Yak is right once again in where the logic of human evolution leads (as opposed to the general idea of evolution). Logically speaking, if natural selection is true, then strength is justified if it can conquer justice and mercy, for the goal is to survive, and so the Nazis justified themselves in the conduct of their policies, and so do all unbelieving regimes and nations. (Of course, they want to do it unto others and not have it be done to them...)

But herein lies a contradiction for you, Gena - because you really DO believe in justice and mercy, and do not accept that logic of natural selection.


"The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man."