axel

Dear Ara, Well, the thing is I don't see any difference between stalinism, marxism, bolshevism, trotskysm, maoism or any other variant of socialism... and I put Engels, Bakounine, Tchernychevsky, Herzen, Lenin, Zinoviev et al. in the same category for their premises are the same, the underlying philosophy being that of Ivan's Grand Inquisitor. And about the hatred towards the "petite bourgeoisie" as a motivation for Sartre's communism, should a true intellectual's position be induced by hatred or principle??? Why do you keep repeating the devil himself may quote the Holy Scriptures? satanism has more to do with materialistic marxism you seem so apologetic of than with any other philosophy. If you see flaws in one's arguments then point them out directly and do not use insinuation for this is the way the devil acts. [ February 05, 2003, 04:49 AM: Message edited by: axel ]

Sip jan, your definition of intelligence boils down to "the ability to solve a problem". But I believe this definition to be a bit flawed. It should rather be, "the ability to solve a problem given some tools and a certain amount of knowledge". In my view, intelligence is something quite difficult to define and to measure in the absolute. And it is polymorphic, one should at least consider logic and reasoning, analytical and abstraction skills (ie the ability to generalize (distinguish commonality from variability) and classify) as some of its pillars... quote:In my opinion, one way to define intelligence is the ability to solve problems efficiently. One can always employ a "brute force" type approach to problem solving ... try anything and everything imaginable hoping to stumble on the solution. The reason I am saying "efficiently", is because I don't think "brute force" indicates intelligence.Well, we agree on this one . But do you think that people who found efficient algorithms to solve problems they had never been confronted with actually did a brute force search on the space of all algorithmic solutions? If not, what knowledge did they use to optimize their search and how did they get this knowledge and so on? Your definition of intelligence seems to be more appropriate to qualify artificial intelligence (which is quite artificial indeed ). It doesn't apply to human intelligence. In my sense, the latter includes some degree of non-determinism. Coming up with an efficient algorithm requires intelligence. Applying one to solve a problem doesn't for this is quite a mechanical task. Intelligence is required for tasks which may not be automatized. Isn't that self-evident? [ February 05, 2003, 07:39 AM: Message edited by: axel ]

Dear Ara, what do you mean by "tolerant moderate"? I hope the following quote doesn't apply to such a person I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. (Rev 3:15-16)

Main Entry: sci·ence Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED Date: 14th century 1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge 3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE 4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws 5 capitalized : CHRISTIAN SCIENCE Knowledge is not intelligence. If science (and technology) were intelligence, then we would have to conclude that we are more intelligent than our immediate ancestors for our technology is obviously superior. I am afraid this is not the case. Technology is only a tool or technique. Intelligence allows us to develop tools and make advances in science building upon our existing knowledge. But the tool (eg the computer) in itself doesn't make us more intelligent. This forum provides us with a number of counterexamples which definitely invalidate such a pretentious theory.

quote:I think there can be different interpretations to the Icarus storyNo, I believe there is only one as in the Tower of Babel, the failure of Man-God. This does not mean we should be opposed to scientific development. However, we should condemn science as the religion of "progress" and the arrogance of man that follows from it. Science is just a tool and nothing more. Science is not intelligence. Pieter Brueghel's symbolic illustration of The Fall of Icarus: http://www.urtonart.com/history/Renaissance/BrueghelIcarus.jpg

quote:Sartre's Stalinism was only a phase -- a phase that was shared by many other wise men of the West, including some of our own ablest leaders and intellectualsI do not understand how true and honest intellectuals may have supported such a regime. In fact, some of its initial supporters distanced themselves from it when faced with its atrocious reality but Sartre never did. Worse, he justified it. quote:Sartre 's works cover many aspects of life and i think it is unfair to isolate only one and condemn his entire output.Stalinism was not but a "phase" in his life, it was its conclusion, the natural consequence of his atheist belief and philosophy. quote:As for Herzl and the other fellow: sorry, i don't know the other fellow; but i am familiar with Herzl's work and mission, which i consider a justified reaction to millennia of persecution, beginning with Pharaohnic times...Well, I am rather surprised you don't know "the other fellow" who happens to be the author of "La France Juive", french deputy and founder of an antisemitic party, and incidently, leader of the "anti-Dreyfusards". [ February 01, 2003, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: axel ]

quote:Well I don't see any believers or non - or whatever as "enemy". We are all human beings who are trying to make the best of our lives here on earth.If I follow your reasoning, I guess you wouldn't have seen Talaat as an enemy. And what about Hitler you keep refering to? just wondering...

quote:Well I don't see any believers or non - or whatever as "enemy". We are all human beings who are trying to make the best of our lives here on earth.This was not my point. In fact, the human being is not reducible to its nature. However, one can only acknowledge there are forces working against Orthodoxy. Or should I consider satanist-inspired philosophies as Christian-friendly?

quote:all I am doing is rejecting your pre-canned explanations that it seems even you admit cannot be proven in any way shape or form.What explanations? I do not recall having mentioned any. quote:Have I - or other Atheists been launching crusades, inquisitions, trials or heriticsHave we? "The Church on earth judges for herself only, according to the grace of the Spirit, and the freedom granted her through Christ, inviting also the rest of mankind to the unity and adoption of God in Christ; but upon those who do not hear her appeal she pronounces no sentence, knowing the command of her Saviour and Head, "not to judge another man's servant" (Rom. 14. 4). " (Alexei Khomiakov, The Church is One ) [ January 27, 2003, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: axel ]

quote:It seems that most all Christians (& Monotheists in general) rule out any but their narrow interpretive belief as the "true" one....Well, this seems to be the view of atheists like you... Your atheist belief is the "true" one, isn't it?

just out of curiosity, are you armenian?

Dear Ara, you wrote: quote:If you have the Bible, Stalin, or Hitler on your side, who needs Socrates, Sartre, and Solzhenitsyn?Well, don't you know Sartre was a hardcore stalinist? I for one wouldn't put him on Socrates or Solzhenitsyn's side. And with respect to a gross simplification that appeared in one of your earlier posts, what about the close (and friendly) relationship between Theodor Herzl and Edouard Drumont? Things may be more complex than they appear at first glance. One would like to see more rigor in your judgements and less generalization [ January 27, 2003, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: axel ]

I still fail to see what Hitler, new age and luciferian theosophy, jesus-is-lord.com, the spanish inquisition and John Paul II have to do with Christian Orthodoxy and Armenian Christianity (except being their enemy). I believe I've already cited a passage about false prophets. Do I need to repeat myself? PS: As for my previous message, it was intended as humor. I thought it would be interpreted as such.

THOTH, I allow the possibility of your being an imbecile. [ January 24, 2003, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: axel ]

quote:The question was not whether Hitler was a Catholic or just plain ChristianI was responding to THOTH. are you following?

quote:Go fly a kiteWhat does this mean? Sorry, english is not my native tongue.

quote:Hitler saw himself/was a Catholic/ChristianThis is what he may have claimed. But there is a difference between what someone claims and what someone is. If you look closely into this question, you will find out he was also versed into paganism and occultism. The superiority of the aryan race, eugenism and the like have nothing to do with the message of Christ (at least as I understand it )

Christianism is not the religion of authority. It is the religion of Freedom.

quote:I have no need to fear punishment or to rely on some ficticious entity for the source of love & compassion. I find these concepts to be very primative and demeaning to me and to all humanity.But I hold the same view. You do not understand Christianism if you think true Christians do good for the fear of "hell" or the hope of "heaven". Those who act this way are not Christians. I for one would follow my conscience even if the highest authority were to tell me I would "burn in hell".

quote:How is love rational BTW? Explain that... I am not a rationalistic thothist atheist . You should answer this question. This is precisely what I have been trying to express. I see no "paradox". Orthodox Christians do not consider God as a "demanding" entity for Christ gave man the freedom to follow Him or not (=> forced conversions, as practised by catholicism, negate the essence of christianism). Could you rephrase the question, I am not sure I got your point.

quote:Then I fail to see an obstacle in recognizing Vatican involvement in crimes - NOT some "standpoint."This is off-topic. I am no apologist of the Vatican and I know of its crimes. But it cannot serve as an argument in the context of this discussion. quote:I have failed to see Thoth degrading the then-pope on whom you have focused - especially the WWII aspects.Thoth was arguing that nazism had a connection with catholicism. It did not. That was my point. quote:I fail to see the connection between "God" and justice.It depends on how you define "God". quote: quote:This is a simplistic view, one can do evil and yet be spared by evil.Argh. You demand from the system a guarantee that nobody does evil to you and, consequently, to no other.That was not what I meant. It was intended to serve as an introduction to the following question for I understood your position as saying one should do good in order to be spared by evil and not just for the sake of doing good. this is obviously not the case given the answer you provided to the question that followed quote: quote:If you were assured not to suffer the consequences of your evil deeds, would you still do good?I wouldn't do evil, that's for sure. It is something foreign to me.why? (what I am trying to argue is that there is no rational basis for such an attitude) quote:I said "why" - reason - NOT "what after?" - result. Even carefully planned wars don't steer the way you would expect them to. AND - discontent fuels revolutions, not chest-thumping.But why then didn't the oppressed russian masses deliver themselves from their bolshevik tyrants whose regime was far worse than the one they had put down? Force and terror was enough to control the masses. Doing "good" was not necessary to bring about an equilibrium. But is reaching an "equilibrium" something to be satisfied with as your reasoning seems to suggest? (I'm not saying that this is the way you think but that is how I understood your words) Public opinion and discontent is something that can be induced by propaganda.

quote:I don't remember involving Orthodoxy or the Armenian church.I didn't say that but if you intervene in a thread and put forward some arguments that appear to support the claims of one side (thothist atheist in this case ), you should at least be aware of the topic at hand and not lose everyone in considerations that do not belong there. quote:Moreover, I have not been saying anything about Christianity itself.Fine for me. quote:despite all the facts, people haven't disowned that hierarchy and body of power. If you had taken the time to read my posts, you would have understood that I am quite opposed to the catholic standpoint and to the Vatican I consider to be an earthly power. quote:Instead, I get papal excusing from someone who says they don't care much about them anyway but wants to go on anyway because their dignity won't allow for itNo papal excusing. Just restoring some facts and pointing out that THOTH claims are false allegations. quote:As for your initial question, would justice be the ideal of society, yes, it should, not because someone tells you soI for one never said that God existed because someone had told me it were true and I never resorted to any such argument in any circumstance. quote:but because you know if you want "good," you have to bring good most of the time to the greatest number of people - optimize it. Otherwise, I rob you, you rob Thoth, Thoth robs Sip, etc., and we're not going anywhere. That should be enough to explain why we want good.This is a simplistic view, one can do evil and yet be spared by evil. If you were assured not to suffer the consequences of your evil deeds, would you still do good? quote:I don't even feel like indulging into this, unless we want to discuss why the French Revolution or some such took place or something.If you think the french or the bolshevik revolutions were about "justice" and "freedom" or if you consider them to be spontaneous uprisings then you should ask yourself why the first one ended up in persecution and mass-killing of poor peasants, and the other one in yet worse atrocities (you might consider reading Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago). Revolution is about the greed of the masses being manipulated by a small "elite" that substitutes itself for the one in place. All the rest is propaganda.

I was only refering to the fallacious assertions associating catholicism with national-socialism in order to put the discredit on Christianism. These claims are utterly wrong so my integrity would not let me sit idle (although I do not have much respect for cesaro-papism and consider it to be a negation of Christianism). Anyhow, this is quite off-topic as most of what you and THOTH posted in this thread. What does Orthodoxy and Armenian Christianity in particular have to do with all of this? I didn't get the answer to my initial question. Is Justice the ideal of a society? if so, why? You should first answer this fundamental question. After all, if you consider your position to be valid, you should be able to defend it.

I am clearly not an apologist of the catholic church but I cannot stand your lies anymore so here are some facts. A Righteous Gentile: Pope Pius XII and the Jews By Rabbi David Dalin, Ph.D. About The Author Rabbi David G. Dalin, a widely-published scholar of American Judaism and the history of Christian-Jewish Relations (...) In recent years, Eugenio Pacelli, who became Pope Pius XII in 1939, has been the subject of considerable public criticism, and even vilification, for his alleged failure to speak out against Hitler during the Holocaust. Pope Pius' alleged "silence," in the face of the worst Nazi atrocities, has led some of his harshest critics to accuse him of being a Nazi sympathizer or an anti-Semite. In 1999, the British journalist John Cornwell created an international sensation with the publication of his best-selling attack on Pius XII, vilifying Eugenio Pacelli as "Hitler's Pope." (...) For Jewish leaders of a previous generation, this harsh portrayal of Pope Pius XII, and the campaign of vilification against him, would have been a source of profound shock and sadness. From the end of World War II until at least five years after his death, Pope Pius enjoyed an enviable reputation amongst Christians and Jews alike. At the end of the war, Pius XII was hailed as "the inspired moral prophet of victory," and "enjoyed near-universal acclaim for aiding European Jews." Numerous Jewish leaders, including Albert Einstein, Israeli Prime Ministers Golda Meir and Moshe Sharett, and Chief Rabbi Isaac Herzog, expressed their public gratitude to Pius XII, praising him as a "righteous gentile," who had saved thousands of Jews during the Holocaust. In his meticulously researched and comprehensive 1967 book, Three Popes and the Jews, the Israeli historian and diplomat Pinchas Lapide, who had served as the Israeli Counsel General in Milan, and had spoken with many Italian Jewish Holocaust survivors who owed their life to Pius, provided the empirical basis for their gratitude, concluding that Pius XII "was instrumental in saving at least 700,000, but probably as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands." To this day, the Lapide volume remains the definitive work, by a Jewish scholar, on the subject. The campaign of vilification against Pope Pius can be traced to the debut in Berlin in February 1963 of a play, by a young, Protestant, left-wing West German writer and playwright, Rolf Hochhuth. The Deputy, in which Hochhuth depicts Pacelli as a Nazi collaborator, guilty of moral cowardice and "silence" in the face of the Nazi onslaught, is a scathing indictment of Pope Pius XII's alleged indifferences to the plight of European Jewry during the Holocaust. Hochhuth's play ignited a public controversy about Pius XII that continues this day. Despite the fact that The Deputy was a purely fictional and highly polemical play, which offered little or no historical evidence for its allegations against Pope Pius XII, it was widely discussed and acclaimed. Indeed, it inspired a new generation of revisionist journalists and scholars, who were intent on discrediting the well-documented efforts of Pope Pius XII to save Jews during the Holocaust. Their denunciation of Pius received widespread publicity with the commercial success of Hitler's Pope, in which John Cornwell denounced him as "the most dangerous churchman in modern history," without whom "Hitler might never have…been able to press forward with the Holocaust." Although an unusually harsh and bitter judgment, it was one with which Pius XII's other recent detractors, such as Wills and Zucotti, implicitly concur. Moreover, in their persistent efforts to vilify Pius, and defame his memory, his detractors have largely dismissed or completely ignored Pinchas Lapide's seminal and comprehensive study that so conclusively documents the instrumental role played by Pope Pius XII in rescuing and sheltering Jews during the Holocaust. The Historical Record: What Pius XII Did for the Jews Despite allegations and misrepresentations to the contrary, it can now be documented conclusively that Pope Pius XII was responsible for saving hundreds of thousands of Jews during the Holocaust. Although the villainous "silence" of the Pope has been repeatedly alleged since the early 1960's, there is much historical evidence to confirm that he was not silent, that before and after he became Pope he spoke out against Hitler and that he was almost universally recognized, especially by the Nazis themselves, as an unrelenting opponent of the Nazi regime. Pius XII publicly and privately warned of the dangers of Nazism. Throughout World War II, he spoke out on behalf of Europe's Jews. When Pius learned of the Nazi atrocities in Poland, he urged the bishops of Europe to do all they could to save the Jews and other victims of Nazi persecution. On January 19, 1940, at the Pope's instruction, Vatican radio and L'Osservatore Romano revealed to the world "the dreadful cruelties of uncivilized tyranny" that the Nazis were inflicting on Jewish and Catholic Poles. The following week, the Jewish Advocate of Boston reported the Vatican radio broadcast, praising its "outspoken denunciation of German atrocities in Nazi [occupied] Poland, declaring they affronted the moral conscience of mankind." In his 1940 Easter homily, Pius XII condemned the Nazi bombardment of defenseless citizens, aged and sick people, and innocent children. On May 11, 1940, he publicly condemned the Nazi invasions of Belgium, Holland, and Luxemburg and lamented "a world poisoned by lies and disloyalty and wounded by excesses of violence." In June 1942, Pius spoke out against the mass deportation of Jews from Nazi-occupied France, further instructing his Papal Nuncio in Paris to protest to Marshal Henri Petain, Vichy France's Chief of State, against "the inhuman arrests and deportations of Jews from the French occupied zone to Silesia and parts of Russia." The London Times of October 1, 1942, explicitly praises him for his condemnation of Nazism and his public support for the Jewish victims of Nazi terror. "A study of the words which Pope Pius XII has addressed since his accession," noted the Times, "leaves no room for doubt. He condemns the worship of force and its concrete manifestations in the suppression of national liberties and in the persecution of the Jewish race." Pius XII's Christmas addresses of 1941 and 1942, broadcast over Vatican radio to millions throughout the world, also help to refute the fallacious claim that Pope Pius was "silent." Indeed, as The New York Times described Pius' 1941 Christmas address in its editorial the following day, it specifically applauded the Pope, as a "lonely" voice of public protest against Hitler: "The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas…In calling for a 'real new order' based on 'liberty, justice, and love'…the Pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism. (...) These points are especially significant in evaluating Pope Pius XII's enduring legacy for twentieth, and twenty-first, century Jews. It needs to be remembered, as noted earlier, that no other Pope in history has been so universally praised by Jews. So, too, the compelling reason for this unprecedented Jewish praise for, and gratitude to, a Pope needs to be better remembered than it has been in recent years: Today, more than fifty years after the Holocaust, it needs to be more widely recognized and appreciated that Pius XII was indeed a very "righteous gentile," a true friend of the Jewish people, who saved more Jewish lives than any other person, including Raoul Wallenberg and Oskar Schindler. A new authentically Jewish history of Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust, emphasizing his historic role and accomplishments as a "righteous gentile," may help to bring some long-overdue recognition to his too little known and appreciated legacy as one of the century's great friends of the Jewish people.

quote:religion has been the cause of so many wars, deaths, persecutionsReligion was not the cause of wars, greed and the thirst of power have always been. Is greed advocated by religion? But in all times, the ignorance and blindness of some has been instrumentalized in order to fulfill earthly ambitions. At the expense of repeating myself, "the atheist ideologies of the twentieth century (socialism, communism, nazism) are the one that killed the most. [...] All the atrocities of the twentieth century were committed in the name of progress, freedom, democracy and other false gods and lies." Loreley, you should read history before making such statements, real history that is, not the one fabricated by american "history teachers" who ignore that Armenia was the first Nation to embrace Christianity and who would probably equate Vartan Mamikonian with a blood-thirsty Christian and take Ghengis Khan or Teymur Lang for pre-democratic leaders attempting to unify the human race...