axel

I think "Human rights" organizations should concentrate on the disgraceful events taking place in Irak.

french??

Actually most believers have gone through a phase of atheism. Just consider the spiritual evolution of people such as Dostoevsky or Solzhenitsyn... In fact, each one of the Karamazov brothers, Mitia, Ivan and Aliosha, portrays a period in the life of Dostoevsky, respectively, ignorance/intuition, "knowledge"/atheism, understanding/spirituality.

If this may help, I too used to consider myself as an atheist. Worse, ten years ago, I would systematically put down people who were trying to assert the existence of the soul. I recall I would almost ridiculize believers lacking analytical skills in my philosophy class. Now I feel punished whenever I see people arguing for materialism. Science may at best describe material phenomenons, that have been observed, through models (ie approximations of reality that are valid under certain conditions but are in no sense absolute truths). It may not explain anything, even less provide a basis for disproving the existence of the non-material. There seems to be a confusion between the how? and the why? question. Science may never answer the why? question. Already had this discussion btw with Sasun, Sip, Domino et al. http://armenians.com/forum/index.php?showt...indpost&p=54572

Independent media in Georgia "The Soros fund has also funded the opposition Rustavi-2 TV channel. The Canadian newspaper Globe and Mail claimed that Soros organizations' money was used to transport opposition members to Tbilisi, and a huge screen was placed in front of the parliament building for Shevardnadze's opponents." http://www.yerkir.am/eng/index.php?sub=new...mber=05&id=3173 Independent opposition groups "Georgians first formed links with Otpor in the spring of 2003, when several civil society activists visited Belgrade on a trip sponsored by the Soros foundation (created by billionaire financier George Soros). " http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3288547.stm

Independent vs government-controlled media About RFE/RL Under IRS rules, RFE/RL is a private, non-profit Sec. 501© 3 corporation. Chartered in Delaware, it receives federal grants as a private grantee. RFE/RL's corporate board of directors consists of the nine presidential appointees to the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). The chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors is Kenneth Tomlinson. The president of RFE/RL is Thomas A. Dine. Prior to his appointment in August, 1997, he served as assistant administrator for Europe and the New Independent States at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Earlier, he headed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). http://www.rferl.org/about/organization/structure.asp About AIPAC http://www.aipac.org

Sorry Sasun I haven't read the whole thread

Sorry Armat, just one last message Oh dear, how shall I express my gratitude for such lenient a chastisement? How considerate you are to give up inflicting your presence on me so that I will no longer have to suffer the uninterrupted flood of stupidities coming out of your (charming) mouth.

Oh ma douce, j'en suis sincèrement navré... Comment saurais-je m'acquitter de ce forfait?

I believe those who declare themselves as atheists do it mostly out of (misplaced) pride.

Steve, Getting back to my analogy. The blind doesn't see the light. Can he infer from that that his brother cannot see? He may choose to deny the reality of light and declare it a fantasy. It may be that most people are blind and only a few can see (and of course, you may have some charlatans who pretend to see yet don't) I have no time to elaborate (and my english is not good enough) but think about it carefully. Also leave alone your own preconceptions about religious people. True, there are some soft-brained individuals which cannot see the spirit past the letter. These are as blind as the atheists. True religious sentiment is not belief in the letter. Anon, Well I guess you too belong with the "greatest minds" of the forum. I apologize for erroneously putting you aside.

This is a gratuitous statement. Religious sentiment may correspond to some kind of non-material yet graspable ("observable") reality. The fact that you may not personaly be able to grasp this reality doesn't imply its non-existence. Would blind people be justified in asserting light does not exist?

Anonymouse, You are quite bold to dare confront your pale elucubrations with the science of HyeForum's greatest minds (including knowledge-empowered Stormig). Who do you think you are? Do you actually watch the weakest link? Would you have guessed 'origano'? I think not.

Interesting, I had the same thought recently. This indecent love for dead cultures one has strived to euthanize, I may only equate with necrophilia.

Boghos, Anka, I don't understand the purpose of your posts. It seems you want to take revenge of having lost your own faith by attempting to destroy the faith of others. This is somewhat reminiscent of the attitude of THOTH, the militant atheist. I tell you, you are wasting your time.

Matthew 7 7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

They are a race, a race of spirit.

FYI I am half-armenian, half-french (not a strong partisan of mixed marriages though) I am not defending biological armenianness but rather spiritual armenianness. About "achieving success in the real world", who says I haven't?

Boghos wrote: There is one historical counterexample to this thesis: the Jews, with the actual difference that it is they who deliberately chose to build a diaspora outside of their homeland. and also: If your children die tomorrow, what would be the problem? What is the meaning of your life if it does not transcend your own existence? btw, coming from someone who professes to be armenian, such a remark is deeply consternating. Armenian Pirate, I believe the problem is not mixed marriage in itself but rather the indifference to national fate which is demonstrated by "pure" armenians (thus invalidating part of your theories). The most worrying issue is not genetic mixing but spiritual assimilation and the adoption of the destructive "modern"/"western"/individualistic/materialistic mindset. Mixed marriage (in heavy volumes) is not the root of the problem but a mere consequence of this development.

for the guy is not friendly enough as is... Essentially remove what is the essence of christianism so that everyone may subscribe to what is left with "ease". Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. If people believe in Christ' "teachings", do they need Christ' deity to be denied in order to put them into practise? Negating the deity of Christ amounts to reducing Christianism to a mere human philosophy (thus a philosophy among others) which it is not. Arianism Encyclopædia Britannica Online A Christian heresy originating in early in the fourth century by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius. It affirmed that Christ is not truly divine but a created being. Arius' basic premise was the uniqueness of God, who is alone self-existent and immutable; the Son, who is not self-existent, cannot be God. Because the Godhead is unique, it cannot be shared or communicated, so the Son cannot be God. Because the Godhead is immutable, the Son, who is mutable, being represented in the Gospels as subject to growth and change, cannot be God. The Son must, therefore, be deemed a creature who has been called into existence out of nothing and has had a beginning. Moreover, the Son can have no direct knowledge of the Father since the Son is finite and of a different order of existence. According to its opponents, especially the bishop Athanasius, Arius' teaching reduced the Son to a demigod, reintroduced polytheism (since worship of the Son was not abandoned), and undermined the Christian concept of redemption since only he who was truly God could be deemed to have reconciled man to the Godhead. The controversy seemed to have been brought to an end by the Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.), which condemned Arius and his teaching and issued a creed to safeguard orthodox Christian belief. This creed states that the Son is homoousion to Patri ("of one substance with the Father"), thus declaring him to be all that the Father is: he is completely divine. In fact, however, this was only the beginning of a long-protracted dispute. (...) Arianism continued among some of the Germanic tribes to the end of the seventh century. In modern times some Unitarians are virtually Arians in that they are unwilling either to reduce Christ to a mere human being or to attribute to him a divine nature identical with that of the Father. The Christology of Jehovah's Witnesses, also, is a form of Arianism; they regard Arius as a forerunner of Charles Taze Russell, the founder of their movement.

http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/20030102.php

Did I try to use God to prove anything??!! What is this obsession you have with proofs? truly sickening...

I was hoping it would make you more humble. But I was wrong. Knowledge? with a capital K? It seems you haven't benefited from Socrates' wisdom. Legalistic concern is foreign to the spirit of Christian Orthodoxy. Study orthodox philosophy before spitting out nonsense.

Who says the "abducted" wasn't consenting?