axel

I guess it depends on the language you use In french we also have the word patriotism ("patriotisme"), and the word "patrie" (fatherland). It is quite possible to think in terms of "patrie spirituelle" or "spiritual fatherland" (spiritual encompassing cultural, religious... aspects). But maybe this doesn't sound well to an english speaker's ears. Anyway if we agree on the reality it designates... I might be away for some time. Take care.

I should emphasize that the choice shouldn't be between caricatural nationalism and hippie-style liberalism as some, esp. the advocates of the latter (eg Mr Baliozian), would want us to believe. There is room beyond those two fake and symbiotic alternatives for non-ideological yet uncompromising patriotism. PS: ethical does not and should not mean naive.

Hi TB, Patriotism and Nationalism As you've pointed out, the former has a positive connotation while the latter has a negative one yet they are commonly used to designate interchangeable realities in order to fit political agendas. Needless to say perversion of meaning is one of the preferred means of evil. But leaving aside the actual use of the words, if we look at the reality of pro-national sentiment, we usually see two distinct attitudes (I think I already wrote something about that in a previous thread). One which is "natural" yet ethical, the other which is essentially ideological (ie based on "the ends justify the means" premise). The latter is what would fall into the category of "nationalism" as it appears in Europe in the twentieth century (fascism, nazism...) having roots in the european enlightenment movement while the fomer would rather be deemed "patriotism" and would correspond to a more traditional attitude quite unrelated to the deification of the state as in fascism or of the race as in nazism. I suspect it may be the case that the denunciation of true patriotism as nationalism (which is ironically used by the ultra-nationalistic zionists to stigmatize any form of national resistance to their imperialistic ends, eg. Solzhenitsyn being referenced to as a russian ultra-nationalist!) has the actual side-effect of pushing would-be patriots towards ideological nationalism. My personal view is that nationalism as an ideology (and as all ideologies) can be extremely nefarious and destructive on a spiritual level. In fact, if defeated, it may cause the entire (and irreversible!) collapse of the nation it has taken over, having destroyed in its followers the spiritual forces which are so fundamental to national survival in the long run. There are a number of examples in recent history.

I don't know about soviet trash but you mentioned bnagir.am which publishes the "writings" of such whores as violet krikorian. The few translations of the latter's "works" by a french-armenian fagot (almost a pleonasm) I have had the "privilege" to get acquainted with gave me an idea of how excremental so-called contemporary "armenian literature" can get. This is not a subjective judgment but an objective truth.

I believe it would be a grave mistake to consider one of our greatest weaknesses as a quality to be fostered. We often mention the role of the Church in preserving armenian identity. Still I believe most people who do so fail to realize that it is not as much the role of the Church as a human institution which has not always been commendable but the role of faith in a common ideal (we've already mentionned this idea) that precisely transcended individualities and bound us together. "Individualism" (I put the word in quote for it is an anachronism but we agree on the reality it designates) is obviously one of the source of our ills throughout history and if we haven't completely vanished to this day, it is because it was counter-balanced by a common faith, which it is no longer, to some degree. Unleashing it at this point would be catastrophic for it serves the divide & conquer strategy of "globalization". As such, what appears first as individual "freedom" is the surest path to collective slavery. A change in political institutions is not the solution, our problems are much too profound to be address by such superficial means but on the other hand some changes in the wrong direction might be detrimental. I surely do not see the "western" model as one to be followed.

Nice try but no, guess again.

OK, a tough one (sadly)

Precisely addressed by the text I posted above If Christ did not die on the Cross, then He did not resurrect either. Sasun, don't you have anything else to do but post bullshit stuff in the religion forum? Please stop your bs proselytism. Thanks.

The Religion of the Future by Fr. Seraphim Rose IT IS DEEPLY INDICATIVE of the spiritual state of contemporary mankind that the "charismatic" and "meditation" experiences are taking root among "Christians." An Eastern religious influence is undeniably at work in such "Christians," but it is only as a result of something much more fundamental: the loss of the very feeling and savor of Christianity, due to which something so alien to Christianity as Eastern "meditation" can take hold of "Christian" souls. The life of self-centeredness and self-satisfaction lived by most of today's "Christians" is so all-pervading that it effectively seals them off from any understanding at all of spiritual life; and when such people do undertake "spiritual life," it is only as another form of self-satisfaction. This can be seen quite clearly in the totally false religious ideal both of the "charismatic" movement and the various forms of "Christian meditation": all of them promise (and give very quickly) an experience of "contentment" and "peace." But this is not the Christian ideal at all, which if anything may be summed up as a fierce battle and struggle. The "contentment" and "peace" described in these contemporary "spiritual" movements are quite manifestly the product of spiritual deception, of spiritual self-satisfaction - which is the absolute death of the God-oriented spiritual life. All these forms of "Christian meditation" operate solely on the psychic level and have nothing whatever in common with Christian spirituality. Christian spirituality is formed in the arduous struggle to acquire the eternal Kingdom of Heaven, which fully begins only with the dissolution of this temporal world, and the true Christian struggler never finds repose even in the foretastes of eternal blessedness which might be vouchsafed to him in this life; but the Eastern religions, to which the Kingdom of Heaven has not been revealed, strive only to acquire psychic states which begin and end in this life. In our age of apostasy preceding the manifestation of antichrist, the devil has been loosed for a time (Apoc. 20:7) to work the false miracles which he could not work during the "thousand years" of Grace in the Church of Christ (Apoc. 20:3), and to gather in his hellish harvest of those souls who "received not the love of the truth" (2 Thess. 2:10). We can tell that the time of antichrist is truly near by the very fact that this satanic harvest is now being reaped not merely among the pagan peoples, who have not heard of Christ, but even more among "Christians" who have lost the savor of Christianity. It is of the very nature of antichrist to present the kingdom of the devil as if it were of Christ. The present-day "charismatic" movement and "Christian meditation," and the "new religious consciousness" of which they are part, are forerunners of the religion of the future, the religion of the last humanity, the religion of antichrist, and their chief "spiritual" function is to make available to Christians the demonic initiation hitherto restricted to the pagan world. Let it be that these "religious experiments" are still often of a tentative and groping nature, that there is in them at least as much psychic self-deception as there is a genuinely demonic initiation rite; doubtless not everyone who has successfully "meditated" or thinks he has received the "Baptism of the Spirit" has actually received initiation into the kingdom of satan. But this is the aim of these "experiments," and doubtless the techniques of initiation will become ever more efficient as mankind becomes prepared for them by the attitudes or passivity and openness to new "religious experiences" which are inculcated by these movements. What has brought humanity - and indeed "Christendom" - to this desperate state? Certainly it is not any overt worship of the devil, which is limited always to a few people; rather, it is something much more subtle, and something fearful for a conscious Orthodox Christian to reflect on: it is the loss of the grace of God, which follows on the loss of the savor of Christianity. Roman Catholics and Protestants today have not fully tasted of God's grace, and so it is not surprising that they should be unable to discern its demonic counterfeit. But alas! The success of counterfeit spirituality even among Orthodox Christians today reveals how much they also have lost the savor of Christianity and so can no longer distinguish between true Christianity and pseudo-Christianity. For too long have Orthodox Christians taken for granted the precious treasure of their Faith and neglected to put into use the pure gold of its teachings. How many Orthodox Christians even know of the existence of the basic texts of Orthodox spiritual life, which teach precisely how to distinguish between genuine and counterfeit spirituality, texts which give the life and teaching of holy men and women who attained an abundant measure of God¹s grace in this life? How many have made their own the teaching of the Lausiac History, the Ladder of St. John, the Homilies of St. Macarius, the Lives of the God-bearing Fathers of the desert, Unseen Warfare, St. John of Kronstadt's My Life in Christ? In the Life of the great Father of the Egyptian desert, St. Paisius the Great (June 19), we may see a shocking example of how easy it is to lose the grace of God. Once a disciple of his was walking to a city in Egypt to sell his handiwork. On the way he met a Jew who, seeing his simplicity, began to deceive him, saying: "O beloved, why do you believe in a simple, crucified Man, when He was not at all the awaited Messiah? Another is to come, but not He." The disciple, being weak in mind and simple in heart, began to listen to these words and allowed himself to say: "Perhaps what you say is correct." When he returned to the desert, St. Paisius turned away from him and would not speak a single word to him. Finally, after the disciple¹s long entreaty, the Saint said to him: "Who are you? I do not know you. This disciple of mine was a Christian and had upon him the grace of Baptism, but you are not such a one; if you are actually my disciple, then the grace of Baptism has left you and the image of a Christian has been removed." The disciple with tears related his conversation with the Jew, to which the Saint replied: "O wretched one! What could be worse and more foul than such words, by which you renounced Christ and His divine Baptism? Now go and weep over yourself as you wish, for you have no place with me; your name is written with those who have renounced Christ, and together with them you will receive judgment and torments." On hearing this judgment the disciple was filled with repentance, and at his entreaty the Saint shut himself up and prayed to the Lord to forgive his disciple this sin. The Lord heard the Saint¹s prayer and granted him to behold a sign of His forgiveness of the disciple. The Saint then warned the disciple: "O child, give glory and thanksgiving to Christ God together with me, for the unclean, blasphemous spirit has departed from you, and in his place the Holy Spirit has descended upon you, restoring to you the grace of Baptism. And so, guard yourself now, lest out of sloth and carelessness the nets of the enemy should fall upon you again and, having sinned, you should inherit the fire of gehenna." Significantly, it is among "ecumenical Christians" that the "charismatic" and "meditation" movements have taken root. The characteristic belief of the heresy of ecumenism is this: that the Orthodox Church is not the one true Church of Christ; that the grace of God is present also in other "Christian" denominations, and even in non-Christian religions; that the narrow path of salvation according to the teaching of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church is only "one path among many" to salvation; and that the details of one's belief in Christ are of little importance, as is one's membership in any particular church. Not all the Orthodox participants in the ecumenical movement believe this entirely (although Protestants and Roman Catholics most certainly do); but by their very participation in this movement, including invariably common prayer with those who believe wrongly about Christ and His Church, they tell the heretics who behold them: "Perhaps what you say is correct," even as the wretched disciple of St. Paisius did. No more than this is required for an Orthodox Christian to lose the grace of God; and what labor it will cost for him to gain it back! How much, then, must Orthodox Christians walk in the fear of God, trembling lest they lose His grace, which by no means is given to everyone, but only to those who hold the true Faith, lead a life of Christian struggle, and treasure the grace of God which leads them heavenward. And how much more cautiously must Orthodox Christians walk today above all, when they are surrounded by a counterfeit Christianity that gives its own experiences of "grace" and the "Holy Spirit" and can abundantly quote the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers to "prove" it! Surely the last times are near, when there will come spiritual deception so persuasive as to "deceive, if it were possible, even the very elect" (Matt. 24:24). Orthodox Christians! Hold fast to the grace which you have; never let it become a matter of habit; never measure it by merely human standards or expect it to be logical or comprehensible to those who understand nothing higher than what is human or who think to obtain the grace of the Holy Spirit in some other way than that which the one Church of Christ has handed down to us. True Orthodoxy by its very nature must seem totally out of place in these demonic times, a dwindling minority of the despised and "foolish," in the midst of a religious "revival" inspired by another kind of spirit. But let us take comfort from the certain words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Fear not, little flock, for it is your Fathers good pleasure to give you the Kingdom" (Luke 12:32). Let all true Orthodox Christians strengthen themselves for the battle ahead, never forgetting that in Christ the victory is already ours. He has promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church (Matt. 16:18), and that for the sake of the elect He will cut short the days of the last great tribulation (Matt. 24:22). And in truth, "If God be for us, who can be against us?" (Rom. 8:31). Even in the midst of the cruelest temptations, we are commanded to be of good cheer; I have overcome the world (John 16:33). Let us live, even as true Christians of all times have lived, in expectation of the end of all things and the coming of our dear Saviour; for "He that giveth testimony of these things saith: Surely I come quickly. Amen. Come, Lord Jesus" (Apoc. 22:20). http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/en...al_s_rose_e.htm

what I meant by "inner light" was faith. in this regard, people are not 'unaware' of their 'inner light', they either have it or they don't. in any circumstance, faith is not something that may acquired through teachings or discussions. I am quite suspicious when I read things like "helping you to find and identify yourself with your own light". Whether you want it or not, these people will orient you according to their own beliefs, they will insidiously project their own perspectives in place of yours without your noticing and of course will make you believe you are making 'progress' on your own. What they call 'your own light' is what they want you to believe is 'your own light'. Well I am not sure what you are trying to convey here. I do not feel I have my own "divinity" nor do I believe that "we are all part of God". That the Holy Spirit may at times work through us and inspire some of our deeds is something quite different but I am not ready to make the huge semantic jump between the latter and the former. They are also false teachers that may not tell you this and even say the contrary while effectively making you dependent upon them. If you are not, you should accept my 'challenge'. (and read the Fathers of the Church whose insights are certainly no less valuable than that of contemporary 'gurus')

if you are on the right path you shouldn't be afraid of keeping away from your master (I don't like this title btw) for a few months. Consider it as a challenge. or are you afraid your inner candle might die off once you are no longer close to him? if so, what kind of faith is that that you have? Spiritual realization certainly does not come with one submitting his/her self to someone else's will. PS: my argument has nothing to do with anoushik's post

Sasun, do not let yourself be fooled by the charisma or the eloquence of the master. You are on a wrong spiritual path (and surely not a christian one). Of course, you are free to do as you please but consider at least staying away from the group, taking some time off to calmly evaluate your situation free from the influence of its members. Read other sources (eg the Fathers of the Church) and confront these sane readings with the 'teachings' of your guru. Let's say you cut all ties with the group for a year or so so that you can freely make up your mind. Wherever the truth stands and whatever your decision at the end, such a reflection/meditation period can only prove to be beneficial if not strengthening, spiritually speaking.

Who cares about Kerry's ethnic background? On the other hand, one should be aware of the policies he plans to conduct. "The focal point of this liberal internationalist/interventionist movement is, Hand points out, the Democratic Leadership Council and its affiliated think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute, which have ties with Kerry. “Proponents of ‘progressive internationalism’ are a lock to control leadership positions at the State Department and key civilian posts at the Pentagon in a John Kerry administration. How do we know this? Because these New Democrats obviously ghostwrote Kerry’s campaign book, A Call to Service: My Vision for A Better America.”24 Israeli influence While Hand illustrates the identical foreign policy views of Kerry and the DLC/PPI advocates of “progressive internationalism,” he completely overlooks the Zionist orientation of the DLC/PPI. It is quite evident that the effect of Kerry’s “progressive internationalism” would advance Israeli interests inasmuch as it would involve an international effort to fight “terrorism” (i.e., the enemies of Israel), eliminate WMD (remove weapons from Israel’s enemies leaving it with a WMD monopoly in the Middle East), and promote democracy (force other Middle East countries to undergo social and political change while Israel remains the same with continued control of the occupied territories.) Moreover, significant figures in the DLC/PPI have close ties to Israel. One of the leading founders of PPI, was Michael Steinhardt, who made his fortune as a hedge fund operator and has become a Jewish philanthropist. Steinhardt helped to establish Birthright Israel, a program that sends young Jews to Israel.25 Vice Chairman of the DLC is David Steiner, a former president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), who was forced to resign that position when he was secretly tape-recorded bragging about how he manipulated American government on behalf of Israel during the time of the first Gulf War in 1991.26 Barry Rubin, a featured speaker of PPI, is deputy director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University in Israel. Rubin also writes Middle East/Israel briefings for the American Jewish Committee, which sponsors the neoconservative Commentary Magazine, a strong backer of the Israel and the war on Iraq27 John Kerry himself blathers on about the high ideals of the state of Israel and the moral imperative for the US to support it in a recent article that came out in the Brown [university] Students for Israel publication, “Perspectives: An Israel Review.” In the article, Kerry recites the usual platitudes regarding Israel: the threat to Israeli security, Israel as the “Promised Land,” Jewish heroism, the democratic nature of the state of Israel. Kerry concludes by proclaiming that Americans “must again reaffirm we are enlisted for the duration--and reaffirm our belief that the cause of Israel must be the cause of America--and the cause of people of conscience everywhere.” 28 Kerry goes far in supporting some of Prime Minister Sharon’s most extreme policies. Whereas he once referred to Israel’s “security fence” as a “barrier to peace,” he more recently described its construction as a “legitimate act of self defense.”29 Given the pro-Israeli power in the US, it must be recognized that all successful candidates must pledge some degree of fealty to Israel. For instance, Bill Clinton, who managed to evade military service in the United States, went so far as to claim that if Saddam’s Iraq invaded Israel he “would personally get in a ditch, grab a rifle, and fight and die” on behalf of Israel’s defense.30 Continuation of militaristic imperialism in Middle East Kerry’s positions differ little from the Bush administration’s favorable policy toward Sharon’s Israel. As reporter Rannie Amiri correctly observes: “But regardless of whether it is George Bush or John Kerry who wins the 2004 presidential race, Israel is assured of being the ultimate winner. And that is a sure bet.”31 Overriding Kerry’s sympathy for Israel is the simple fact that his stated positions clearly reveal that he will continue the militaristic imperialism in the Middle East introduced by the Bush administration. The irony is, of course, that he draws substantial support from the anti-war segment of the American population. In the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush (or at least his handler’s) felt the need to trick the American voters regarding the type of foreign policy his administration would pursue by including in his speeches pledges to avoid the “nation building” that Clinton had attempted in Haiti, Somalia, and the Balkans and to pursue a “humbler” foreign policy. With his neoconservative warmongering foreign policy advisers already close by his side during the 2000 campaign, the observant could infer that the reality of a Bush administration foreign policy would be radically different from its campaign rhetoric. With Kerry, however, his policies are an open book. He is a pro-war, pro-imperialist candidate, who will capture the peace vote. " full article with footnotes and references: http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/2004/03/20040302.php

Domino, you should note that your definition implies that it is possible for "half-armenians" to become "full-armenians". I have a related question. Is there an abrupt jump in status (or promotion) from "half-armenian" to "full-armenian" as the degree of fluency increases or is this a continuous function? For example, how about people with one armenian parent (who speaks armenian) and who themselves understand the common language yet do not speak it nor read/write it fluently although, say, they have basic knowledge of the alphabet, the grammar... do they qualify as 3/4 armenians, sqrt(2)/2 armenians or rather 212/357 armenians?