axel

A few quick remarks: about Ivan's argument: - First there is Aliosha's answer, then there's the Grand Inquisitor parabola which is a good synthesis of materialistic/atheist/socialist ideas. Ivan adheres to the Inquisitor's despicable views. But obviously the utopia of heaven on earth that characterizes chiliastic socialism or even the religion of progress is in contradiction with the preceding argument for both are ethically unacceptable. Berdyaev outlines some good arguments against the latter in the following article (see "The meaning of History" section) - Dostoevsky is the one who formulated all the possible arguments one could devise against God. He was well aware of these issues. Yet he didn't end up as an atheist nor as a deist, did he? Was he intellectually weaker than Ara Baliozian? - It is true that suffering of the innocent consitutes a fundamental problem. But one has to recall that evil in this world is not due to God's intention but to Man's free will (Man was created in the image of God). Does the existence of evil justify in itself that we do not attempt to do good? Obviously not. This may only serve as an argument to the hypocrite. In my own view, the question of a "perfect world" should not even be asked. Do we need the certainty of "heaven" or the fear of "hell" for doing good? Actually could we enjoy happiness in heaven (if we ever reach it) knowing that others would possibly "burn in hell" (which is related to one of the Grand Inquisitor's arguments)? I guess not. The "perfect world" problem is ill-formed. Maybe it does not exist and it doesn't matter anyway. Furthermore, as Dostoevsky rightfully states, I paraphrase, "even if one could prove me Christ is outside of the truth, I would prefer to stay with Him than follow this truth he is not part of". Good exists, we know in our heart what it is. Either we try to follow Christ or we do not. The choice is quite simple. btw, Somewhat related to the question of evil are the discussions between Andrei Rublev and Theophanes in Tarkovsky's movie. About generalizations being inevitable: that is yet another falsehood/sophism to justify inexcusable judgements. About areligiousness: it is precisely areligiousness and lack of faith (which may exist among organized religions' followers, "l'habit ne fait pas le moine") that is at the root of evil. Crime commited in the name of religion (which may serve as a rallying flag for the ignorant and the naive) follows from the "The ends justify the means" postulate. Such a postulate is precisely the negation of religion for religion states that the path is what matters, not the end. Only the ideologist fanatic, who is prepared to sacrifice the life of others (and not his own) for his idea (whereas the true religious does exactly the opposite) may adhere to such a conception. One last thing, Orthodoxy does not have to be held accountable for the deviances of catholicism or protestantism.

THIS IS A SCOOP. If Hamshenites have not been able to come back to this day, it is because of Axel, the Grand Inquisitor of HyeForum and his hostile stand towards them. I didn't know my writings had such impact on the fate of our nation. I am quite flattered Seriously though, if they feel as part of our Nation and adhere to our cause, who am I to "excommunicate" them? But if they identify with turks as the article above suggests, how can we consider them as armenians? Peace.

It would be to long to formulate and I'm kind of tired. But I see a nation as a spiritual entity sharing a common ideal, working towards a common end. Common culture, language, traditions, ethnicity are also to be considered. But the single most important thing is spirit. The Jews as diverse as they may be (ethnically...) qualify as a nation. Not exactly. I attend Church about twice a month and I certainly do not earn anything in return. I do it "for free". I have faith. Certainly not. Saying one does not belong to our nation doesn't imply expelling him, does it? btw, I've never said catholics or protestants did not belong to our nation. but hamshins left us and joined the turks. why should we consider them as part of our nation? if they want to come back and join us, I will be the first one to welcome them. the thing is we cannot include in our ranks those who exclude themselves. proselytizing? I am not defending Jehovah witnesses as MJ, am I? I am just defending our plurisecular faith. is this what you call proselytizing?

Arpa, here's a quick translation: These people do not belong to our Nation, they belong to the turkish flock. edited: I wrongly translated gregoriens as georgian instead of gregorian, sorry ps: this text appears to be turkish propaganda, should I leave it here?

Well then, Domino, you are somewhat asserting what Sasun refers to as "the reality of God". Am I wrong?

Well obviously this distinction is only acceptable to a non-follower. But I don't want to start (yet again) a sterile discussion with secular thinkers or libre-penseurs. I just want to add a few things regarding Voltaire. Deism is simply an intellectual stand, nothing more, basically admitting the existence of God as a principle. Obviously, it has nothing to do with Faith, it is areligious. When Voltaire states "si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer", it is precisely because he considers God as a way of maintaining social order. He adds in his Dictionnaire philosophique: "Philosophez tant qu'il vous plaira entre vous mais gardez vous d'exécuter ce concert devant le vulgaire ignorant et brutal. Si vous avez une bourgade à gouverner, il faut qu'elle est une religion" (if you have a city to rule, it has to have a religion). He therefore falls into the category of people who see religion as a tool of earthly power. Considering this, Ara's gratuitous generalization about "priests and mullahs" followed by a Voltaire's dictum is quite laughable. Such people, if they exist (actually it is an established fact that there are atheists/freemasons among clergymen), precisely share the views of such "philosophers". Btw, generalization is an anti-intellectual attitude. It is to be related with that of the worse ideologists, the bolsheviks or the nazis. One should be vigilant enough not to use the very means of the "hooligans" one so vehemently denounces. PS for Ara: your latest posts are plagued with sophisms. Great Job. True, "it is easier to get into a habit than out of one" (Naïri*) * the misunderstood genius who misunderstands herself

Because "it's easier to get into a habit than to get out of one" . easy one.

Well, here's what I found after a quick lookup: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=a%20fortiori

Not exactly At present, I work as a software engineer. But who knows? btw, the latin expression "a fortiori" is commonly used in french. I thought it would be understandable in english.

Don't you remember St John Chrysostom? I think you do. Maybe this will refresh your memory, honey.

You wouldn't have said this: if you really thought so.

I don't remember you and I don't care. After all, it is common that people will act less than their age - it is when they act more than their age that there's something goin', dontcha think? Well I am younger than you are.

Stormy, I'm just curious, how old do you think I am?

this (linguo-centric?) conception is utterly wrong. language is no substitute for religion. a language is first and foremost a vector of communication. one may attach a sentimental value to it (a fortiori when it is endangered) but it cannot define us as a nation. What defines us as a nation is our spirit. we can have a look at other nations, they still use the same language but the spirit has run dry. Take the french for example. They no longer exist as a nation. No national identity. No aspiration.Total indifference to the fate of their nation. Nothing exists beyond the individual. Take the germans, even the russians to a large extent... The list is endless for the same phenomenon is occurring everywhere. The same pattern. National decay is always due to spiritual collapse. Destruction of the faith is the best way to achieve destruction of a nation for when faith in a shared ideal disappears so does the reality of union. How can one be blind enough not to see? Even from a non-religious perspective, christian faith is the best shield against sweeping materialism. if we succumb to the latter (to some extent it is already the case ), it will enslave us and we will drown in the ocean of imperialistic globalization. What has held us together until now is not geographical isolation or language or any other tradition (tradition is just empty and meaningless without the underlying spirit, the inner fire) or the existence of the Armenian Church as an institution. it is our shared faith. Our decay over the centuries has been that of our faith. PS: sorry addai, my post is off topic.

there are ideas that hold the seed of evil as history has proved.

Edward, when I say the Armenian Church, one should not understand the building or even the priest, but the mystical entity that is invisible and eternal. I do agree that one has to find God within oneself in the sense that one has to undertake a specific path. However, I believe that without spiritual communion, there may be no God, just a biased projection of an individual (subjective) ideal. Arpa, I don't want to be rude but you are the one who is going through a spiritual crisis. Your overreactions on the subject are quite telling.

Is "tolerance" a virtue in the absolute? Can we tolerate what we consider to be evil? Wouldn't this amount to criminal indifference? Should we be tolerant towards a liar?

Sasun, don't get me wrong. I didn't say the Armenian Church was the only place where God could be found. I just said that if one is not able to find God in the Armenian Church, one is not be able to find Him elsewhere, which is different

I've never said the contrary. I wouldn't be spending my time in religious discussions if i didn't consider spirituality to be fundamental. But I am quite sorry, genuine spirituality is not Sri Chinmoy. If we are not able to find God inside the Armenian Church, we will not find Him anywhere else. What we may find is just "spiritual" illusion.

http://www.stgregoryofnarek.am

Dear Ara, before mentioning Solzhenitsyn, you should start reading him. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/...arvard1978.html You may read the rest. BTW you haven't read Joseph de Maistre, have you? His religious outlook doesn't fit with your views at all.

This is quite true. I am not superstitious, yet I consider myself as religious. I think religion is not about superstition or "belief". But this point of view, I confess, is very very rare among most Armenians I know (relatives or friends). Western Armenians are almost entirely secularized. And the Armenian Church in the Diaspora doesn't work effectively against this secularization process. It almost lends itself to the secular view reducing it to a cultural institution instead of the spiritual guide it ought to be.

Sasun, you ought to see this movie (if you haven't done so already )

Well Sasun, I don't think Arad9 is either a liar or a hypocrite. I just think he is fed up as much as I am. One cannot judge you as an individual, you may be full of good intentions. one can only judge the ideas or beliefs you express and these are not christian.

I strongly agree with what Naïri said. I would just add: if you want to build a long-lasting relationship, be yourself from the start. A relationship may not hold if your partner doesn't have interest in your true self (ie like/love you for who you are). But there are also convoluted signs you must be able to interpret, for instance, if she wants to put you under a burqa, it might just be a special kind of declaration...