for Rusmeister only?

[Benedikt]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater

Rusmeister, with no bad thoughts, specific meanings or anything else. no one also told me to do it. i just thought it might be of interest to you. if not, no hard feelings, neither mine, nor Patrick.I do not know if it is for sale, to read on the Internet or what. while the poster is from Vienna, you can reply in Russian langauge. or English or German...

[rusmeister]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater

Rusmeister, with no bad thoughts, specific meanings or anything else. no one also told me to do it. i just thought it might be of interest to you. if not, no hard feelings, neither mine, nor Patrick.I do not know if it is for sale, to read on the Internet or what. while the poster is from Vienna, you can reply in Russian langauge. or English or German...

Nah. I know there is an extremist whacko element that wants to go all-out military. Fortunately, while noisy, they aren’t that numerous, at least in any church circle I know of. Some take an intelligent desire to defend one’s own country, national self-determination and all that, a little too far. Most just want the West to stop trying to push the secular vacuum of values into Russia (the Moscow Times being an actual example of that). Some lose their sense of perspective.

[Russian Lad]

Most just want the West to stop trying to push the secular vacuum of values into Russia

You hate secular values, Rusmeister? That's why have run away from the prospering secular United States of America?

[Benedikt]

You hate secular values, Rusmeister? That's why have run away from the prospering secular United States of America?

the USA is secular? they have the incense pushers even in the White House....and every morning the oath and allegiance to HIM and the USA. already in kindergarten. And a prayer before more or less everything that is official, half official and not so official. but because TV is there and it might upset the fuddy duddies if one does not pray. or at least move the lips in a make believe gesture. ...

[rusmeister]

You hate secular values, Rusmeister? That's why have run away from the prospering secular United States of America?

Secular “values” are undefined, and not valuable, generally speaking. The former means that they are whatever your changing moods want them to be, and the latter is a result of the general lack of a solid moral basis for them. The central truth that you refuse to realize is that if you abolish God, the government becomes the god. The ruling class comes to demand that you sacrifice to them. Many of your ideological predecessors found themselves in the Gulag to their shock and horror, when they had thought they were on the winning side.

[rusmeister]

the USA is secular? they have the incense pushers even in the White House....and every morning the oath and allegiance to HIM and the USA. already in kindergarten. And a prayer before more or less everything that is official, half official and not so official. but because TV is there and it might upset the fuddy duddies if one does not pray. or at least move the lips in a make believe gesture. ...

Ben, if you think a few prayers undo the secular nature of the government and laws, then you really don’t understand what the word means. Any society that demands that people keep their religion (but not their irreligion, of course) out of their politics is a secular society. “Secular” means “temporary”, “of this age”, and, I might add, cut off from considerations of eternity (from the same root that gives us “scissors”).

[Russian Lad]

The central truth that you refuse to realize is that if you abolish God, the government becomes the god.

A secular state doesn't mean someone wants to abolish God or to persecute believers. The state is simply separate from the church in a secular society. You find it wrong? In this respect Russia de facto is not a secular society anymore, though its secular status is written in the RF Constitution. Do you realize that if the Constitution is violated in a state by its own agencies such a state becomes increasingly weak?

[rusmeister]

A secular state doesn't mean someone wants to abolish God or to persecute believers. The state is simply separate from the church in a secular society. You find it wrong? In this respect Russia de facto is not a secular society anymore, though its secular status is written in the RF Constitution. Do you realize that if the Constitution is violated in a state by its own agencies such a state becomes increasingly weak?

Alas, no, that is not a secular society. It is as I stated. If your definition were accurate, there would be almost no such thing as a non-secular state. There is an enormous difference between a state in which the dominant religious authority can dictate policy to the state, and a state in which believers, including politicians who believe, support policies that reflect the teachings of the religion. You are not only against the first; you are also against the second. You want believers to leave what they believe to be true out of their politics, a standard you do not apply to yourself. We agree that the Church should not have direct authority in the state. No one argues that, and that is the only intelligent meaning of the separation of church and state. What YOU seem to desire is the separation not only of the Church as an institution from the political processes, but of believers themselves as citizens from said processes. You will be outraged by the outlawing of pornography, just to take an example, regardless of whether it is something commanded by the Church which the State must obey, or whether believers manage to muster up enough votes to get it outlawed. I think you will still cry "separation of church and state!", even in the latter case. Oh, you might not object to believers being involved as long as their involvement is impotent and accomplishes nothing. It is when it accomplishes something, like outlawing pornography or abortion, that I think you will play the "separation of church and state" card. That's my opinion, based on what you have said in the past; I would be happy to be wrong.

I think you are supremely uninterested in learning that there is intelligent faith, that agrees with you on real abuses and wrongs, and has answers that are NOT fundamentalist whacko answers. But if you do become interested, I'd be happy to talk.

[Russian Lad]

What YOU seem to desire is the separation not only of the Church as an institution from the political processes, but of believers themselves as citizens from said processes. You will be outraged by the outlawing of pornography, just to take an example, regardless of whether it is something commanded by the Church which the State must obey, or whether believers manage to muster up enough votes to get it outlawed. I think you will still cry "separation of church and state!", even in the latter case. Oh, you might not object to believers being involved as long as their involvement is impotent and accomplishes nothing. It is when it accomplishes something, like outlawing pornography or abortion, that I think you will play the "separation of church and state" card. That's my opinion, based on what you have said in the past; I would be happy to be wrong.

Your "beloved" communists actually were the ones who tried to outlaw abortion, under Stalin - http://anticapitalist.ru/2016/10/04/...0%D0%BC%D0%B8/. The result was mutilated females who tried to resort to illegal abortions at home, there were so many negative effects that the commies gave up on the idea. Perhaps you are a hard core stalinist in your heart of hearts, Rusmeister?
Pornography, just like prostitution - you cannot eradicate those simply by banning them. Prostitution was banned in USSR, it is still banned in Russia today. But there is a brothel basically in every block of apartments - consult your local taxi drivers and/or Internet (shall we ban taxi drivers and Internet who may lead us to the prostitutes who are banned anyway?).

That said, I don't oppose to the Christians participating in all sorts of legal processes, incuding elections and law-making - including attempts to ban pornography and abortion through intelligent public debates and official procedures, I am not against all that at all. What I oppose to, solely and exclusively, is the cohesion of the state and the church (illegal by the Constitution) when the state money is spent on the church needs and when the state supports the church by giving it financing, land, resources, preferences, exemption from taxation, free television time, security services etc. - all at the expense of the state. I thought you studied the notion of the separation of the church from the state in high school but it looks like you skipped some classes, Rusmeister. Am always happy to fill in your basic education gaps, just ask.

[rusmeister]

Your "beloved" communists actually were the ones who tried to outlaw abortion, under Stalin - The result was mutilated females who tried to resort to illegal abortions at home, there were so many negative effects that the commies gave up on the idea. Perhaps you are a hard core stalinist in your heart of hearts, Rusmeister?
Pornography, just like prostitution - you cannot eradicate those simply by banning them. Prostitution was banned in USSR, it is still banned in Russia today. But there is a brothel basically in every block of apartments - consult your local taxi drivers and/or Internet (shall we ban taxi drivers and Internet who may lead us to the prostitutes who are banned anyway?).

That said, I don't oppose to the Christians participating in all sorts of legal processes, incuding elections and law-making - including attempts to ban pornography and abortion through intelligent public debates and official procedures, I am not against all that at all. What I oppose to, solely and exclusively, is the cohesion of the state and the church (illegal by the Constitution) when the state money is spent on the church needs and when the state supports the church by giving it financing, land, resources, preferences, exemption from taxation, free television time, security services etc. - all at the expense of the state. I thought you studied the notion of the separation of the church from the state in high school but it looks like you skipped some classes, Rusmeister. Am always happy to fill in your basic education gaps, just ask.

You don’t seem to understand that I mostly agree with you. It is as if you thought I approve of the state as such interfering in Church affairs or vice-versa. Setting aside what I think about some of the things you listed, however, one thing I think can be legitimately refuted - taxation. No, religious organizations that do volunteer work that you don’t should NOT be taxed, for the same reason that non-profits that really don’t aim to make profits but to do,good in this world should not be taxed. Freedom from taxation is NOT taking money from the State; it is the State refraining from taking money from a person or organization for a good reason. You may think that a “gap” in my education, but I don’t think many people will agree with you here on that one.

When you talk of “the Church”, you seem to see only richly dressed hierarchs living it up in luxury and plotting how to wring more money out of people. There are such people in the Church, as there are in the world, “werewolves” among the police, corrupt politicians in the pay of someone or another. What you DON’T seem to see is the mass of ordinary people running soup kitchens, offering free lunches (which you can even get at my church after Liturgy, no charge, and once every few months I and my wife take a turn in the rotation at feeding people), Orthodox hospices and orphanages, miloserdiye. You don’t see that. I understand. They don’t show them on TV, you have to go to where they are and watch them, and see that they are doing good for a reason, that is not about being stupid, or suckers, but because they have a philosophy of life that tells them that they need to love their neighbor, no matter what they may think of him.

Anyway, if we ever met in person, I imagine we would find each other a lot more likable than these online interchanges would suggest, and I’d be happy to show you the operations that I am aware of (such as the collection of goods and clothing for prisoners in the Ivanovo oblast), to,show you around my church, and the things a millionaire did when his son was tragically killed, and he realized that his living for his wealth was dust and ashes, introduce you to my priest, a friendly intellectual that you might even hit it off with over, say, opposition to neo-Stalinism, and talking about Dostoyevsky.

[Russian Lad]

No, religious organizations that do volunteer work that you don’t should NOT be taxed

Are you aware that ROC has stakes in many businesses including the oil, the alco and the hospitality business? Of course I am not talking about taxing volunteer work (which is not paid for by default and is not a business anyway, so I am not sure why you listed this as an example).

[Benedikt]

Are you aware that ROC has stakes in many businesses including the oil, the alco and the hospitality business? Of course I am not talking about taxing volunteer work (which is not paid for by default and is not a business anyway, so I am not sure why you listed this as an example).

RL do you think the Roman Catholic Church is any better? one of the richest land and estate owners in Rome. Has their fingers in everything from Fiat (the Automaker) to banking and what else have you..https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/how-rich-v...d-away-1478219

[rusmeister]

Are you aware that ROC has stakes in many businesses including the oil, the alco and the hospitality business? Of course I am not talking about taxing volunteer work (which is not paid for by default and is not a business anyway, so I am not sure why you listed this as an example).

I’m against the Church as such (as opposed to individuals who happen to be Church members) engaging in any for-profit business activities. But I’d iterate that there is nothing wrong with Church laity happening to be successful businessmen.

I listed them as an example because your ire has been directed at the Church in general, which happens to include me and people who do volunteer work. One thing you should understand is that we don’t control the Church; it’s not a democratic body, nor is it a hierarchal one of obligatory obedience based on force. Its people are what they are, and do what they do, and if we can distinguish between nominal believers, who don’t really believe that they should try to change their lives at all, and genuine believers, who do believe and try to do that, however poorly, the Church is still comprosed of messed-up people who continue to sin. The true believers see sinning as falling down and “getting up” means repenting, being sorry for it and trying not to do whatever it is. But we are all messed up (“For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God”). Even the Patriarch is subject to that. He’s not a magic man, just another ordinary man who is also supposed to engage in this continual repentance. Dotto for the hierarchy in general. But I can’t make them do it. I can’t “vote them out of office”. Any one of them would have to do something egregious that everyone can see is simply awful, so that there was an outcry, and so individual hierarchs are removed from office from time to time, but it’s not something that can be initiated by a few people with strong opinions.

I’ve been through the disappointment of learning that other people in the Church are going to disappoint me. It doesn’t matter. What the Church teaches is TRUE, itnpredicts the sin and corruption of its members, and winds up being proved right, not wrong as a result, and I can see that in the messed-up actions, states, and even ideas of others (such as the pro-Stalinist and ultra-militant types who happen to be believers). Since I find the teachings to contain the Truth, I have little choice but to try to live by them. I can’t change or end Church corruption because I can hardly change or end it in myself. All I can do is try to have a positive effect on a few of the people around me, and I can do that by how I live more than by my words.

And no, I think the Church of Rome is worse and more worldly, because I think it has less of the Truth; though intelligent Catholics still have more than most (again, if we can distinguish between superstitious peasants and people who want their life to be illuminated by logic and reason as well as faith), so Catholics are pretty much in the same general situation.

[Russian Lad]

RL do you think the Roman Catholic Church is any better? one of the richest land and estate owners in Rome. Has their fingers in everything from Fiat (the Automaker) to banking and what else have you..https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/how-rich-v...d-away-1478219

It is wrong if it is so. One wrong doesn't justify another wrong. I don't know much about RCC, so I cannot comment a whole lot on this. Besides saying that I am extremely sceptical about "butwhataboutthemtheyarenobetter" type of argument.

[FatAndy]