KnightOfArmenia

Best news I've heard all day!

No, that WAS the difference. And Jesus had a wife, eh? I suppose you mean Mary Magdalene. Pray tell, how did you come upon this earth-shaking revelation? Especially since the Bible (the only text we have concerning Christ) says that she was a prostitute who reformed herself after hearing His words and became a follower, but far from the FIRST "disciple."

And I love how you put quotes on "Christian." I've read the vast majority of heresies; almost all of them are actually based on either who should have control of Christendom, or the physical manifestation of Jesus. None of them have any relevance in this particular discussion. The main argument between James and Paul was "who should be Christian?"; James argued that Jesus had NOT rebelled against Judaism, but was simply leading it into a new direction, and therefore the laws that governed Judaism (such as banned foods and who could join) should apply; the reason you can even CONSIDER yourself Christian is because Paul's view was the one that won out in the end. I could say the same thing to you, since you appear to not be able to understand something as simple as "THE THINGS YOU READ ABOUT JESUS WERE NOT WRITTEN BY WITNESSES WHATSOEVER." In court, if you try to testify that someone told you something that he was told by someone who saw the crime, you would be LAUGHED out of the witness stand. You do realize this, correct? That is why its called FAITH. If you don't believe, then it won't mean anything to you. You keep acting like you have read the magical manuscript that Jesus wrote directly to you, and thus you know who He was. I have not said once that your view on Christ is the wrong one, or is even WRONG in general. I have said that you cannot consider yourself CHRISTIAN if you don't follow the dogmata of CHRISTIANITY. Apparently this is too much of a concept for you.

dog·ma ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dôgm, dg-) n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t) 1. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion (emphasis mine), especially one considered to be absolutely true. Incorrect. The basis, the original dogmata that all Christian churches are based on, are the reported acts and statements of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. A group of people originally set down and reported these acts as the foundation of a new religion (up until Paul of Tarsus, Christianity was not a religion, but a sect of Judaism; by allowing non-Jews to join, and by going back and forth between Christian settlements and preaching a singular doctrine, Paul did much to unite Christianity into what it is today, vastly similar teachings with slight differences). To reject something as "dogma" and accept something else as "true" when BOTH are dogma is a personal choice, but when both are required to be part of a particular faith, then choice ends there. You can believe whatever you want; that is your own personal decision. But to be a Christian requires that one observe a set of doctrines that are universally accepted in the Christian world; to go further and, say, be a Catholic, or an Armenian Apostolic, you have to be more specific in what you observe. In Islam, there is Shia and Sunni; and there is the Wahabi sect in Sunni, as well as, say, the now-defunct Hashashin sect in Shia. There is Islam (belief of Mohammed as the last prophet of God, as well as the DOGMA set down in the Koran), then there is Shia and Sunni (difference over who should have been the Caliph of Islam), and then the Wahabi (puritanical Sunni that regards all other forms of Islam as heresy) and the Hashashin (puritanical Shia that regards all other forms of Islam as heresy). One can claim to be Muslim without going into the specific sects, just as one can claim to be Christian without going into the specific churches. But the vast list of dogmata set down in both holy texts must be observed to be considered the "basic" level, either Christian or Muslim. If you sprinkle those texts with texts of other religions, go ahead. That is your decision. But you aren't Christian if you believe in reincarnation, or sacredness of animals, or any of a list of articles of faith from other religions. It's that simple. For example, I personally do not care if people are gay or straight; it is honestly one of the least important concerns of my life, right down there with whether my toes are the same shade of peach. But the Bible makes it *very* clear what the stance of Christianity (and Judaism) is on practiced homosexuality; therefore, a homosexual who wants to be a normal pastor is impossible, at least as long as he PRACTICES homosexuality (since the Bible says not to lay with another man). It's not my OPINION, its not my DESIRE, its just fact. Am I getting through here?

This isn't an intelligent contest. I made a statement that you have frequently either misunderstood or ignored. The quotes of Jesus you have were written by whom? Which one of the followers of Jesus said "Hey! That's a nifty idea there! I better write it down!" My point is that you accept one part of the dogma (the Bible), and reject other parts because you say they don't go by the word of Christ. They DO, simply for the fact that the "word of Christ" is what is presented to us by the church(es) to AGREE with their dogma. You don't see the inherent misconception you are making?

Actually, the only time the Armenian church has ever stood completely against any form of heresy was against the Arian heresy, and, later, the Nestorians. The first was banned in Armenia, the second (which was, according to some texts, created by an Armenian), never fully banned, but frowned upon and eventually removed from the country. We didn't have an inquisition, or anything even resembling it. Ten bucks says I know about more world religions, and more ABOUT those world religions, than you do. You're obviously referring to Hindu, which holds the cow as a sacred beast; the fact that this is what came to your mind, rather than simply the fact that I was going for the obvious absurd, says something about your psychological makeup, you know. And you obviously did not understand my point. And my reasons are as follows: Those dogmas came from the people that Christ gave the sovereign authority of SETTING dogma to; folks such as Peter, Thaddeus, etc. Paul, or Saul, as he was known before his conversion, was not one of the original Apostles, so it is debated whether he had any right to set doctrine. But, for Catholics, for example, the Papacy has the right to set doctrine because they come from the line of Peter, who was given authority by Christ (the "any laws you set on Earth, I shall honor in Heaven" clause). That you can ignore dogma means you are ignoring those who Christ specifically appointed to the task. And the crux of the matter, and why you had no understanding of my previous posts. "Christs word" (sp) that you read is what church elders present as the writings of the students of the followers of Christ. Jesus Christ did not, and I repeat, NOT write the New Testament, or ANYTHING. He wrote NOTHING. Neither did the Apostles. And of what we do have, most, if not all, was edited in the Council of Chalcedon, and other meetings between the various churches. This is fact, it is known. Apocryphal things were removed, stories that the elders felt were not right or did not present the "true" view of Christianity (stories that were almost comic in some cases, such as Peter talking to the lion who wanted to become a Christian and was baptised, and later did not eat him in the Roman colliseum; the elders felt that baptismal and Christianity were too important to be given to animals). Apparently the term "Christ" seems to overwhelm you here; it's not a new concept. Everything we know about Socrates, for example, comes from what his students have written about him, since he wrote nothing himself (he was, in fact, illiterate). Plato (the scholar) and Xenophon (the soldier) were his two best students; oddly enough, they wrote completely different tales about Socrates, so much so, in fact, that they seem to be writing about two completely different people. And these were first person accounts, written by people who had studied under Socrates for years. The New Testament is written by people who had never even MET Jesus Christ. Do you understand that? Everything you gleam, or believe you gleam, about Christ, could just as easily be absolutely wrong. Read the above. Oh, are they? Hinduism is about the same God, eh? And many others as well, since it is a polytheistic religion. Ahh, that kind of runs afoul with the "do not worship false gods" rule that God set down, doesn't it? Or what about Confucianism, which is based on ancestor worship, emperor worship, and absolute discipline, to the point where the oldest male of the family has absolute control over everyone in the family, up to and including killing any of them at will. Or maybe you meant Shinto, the emperor worship of Japan? I know that when I think of God Almighty, the first thing that pops into my head is the current incarnation of the Sun God, sitting upon the Chrysanthemum Throne in Kyoto and speaking to his subjects through the Voice of the Crane. Should I keep going? The ritual female circumcision of Africa? Or how about the Celtic nature-worship, so often lauded now because it was "eco-friendly," which encouraged, and, in fact, demanded human sacrifice, including the sacrifice of infants, to appease the spirits of the earth. Or the head-hunting faiths of the Pacific Islanders? By "world religions," you mean 1, at most 2 or 3 religions. Buddhism (almost surely), and maybe Islam, or Hindu. Buddhism, despite the common Hollywood "vibe" attached to it to make it cool, is Hindu. It's basic tenet is that the endless cycle of reincarnation into the caste system that the Hindu believe in can be broken out of it a person follows the Middle Way, not going into excess in anything. This doesn't mean "peace and love," it means controlling of the emotions. The reason Tibet did not fully fight against the Chinese wasn't that they were "peaceful people who had seen beyond the need of violence" or any of that new age crap that people living in the lap of luxury like to attach to other cultures; they did it because to fight back would require an effort and an emotion that would force them out of the Middle Way. There are soldiers who are Buddhists, simply because they are doing what they do, but they don't go into excess with their emotions. And Islam is Christianity, but very anti-woman, setting the female of the species as the worst thing in the world (below infidels and slaves, since infidels can be converted and slaves can be freed). Don't suppose that you know more than anyone unless you are sure of it.

Orthodoxy and Apostolic are two different beasts entirely. Now, aside from the initial war against the pagans of Armenia (for good or ill, is still being debated), name whose blood the Apostolic Church has shed for itself. Go ahead.

And you missed the major point I was making. The Bible was not written by Christ, nor even by the Apostles who followed Him; they were written by students of the Apostles. They are second-hand reports (at best). And even these come to us THROUGH centuries of church officials, who have cut and pasted as they saw fit. So how can you read the Bible (which is what the various churches present as the writings of followers of followers of Christ) and believe that any viewpoint of Christ is your own? And, even saying you did, how can you then claim that you are Christian if you do not follow the accepted Christian laws, but those that you yourself are able to divine from the Text. That is like saying you are a Muslim because you believe Mohammed is the prophet, but then going off and coming up with your own things. Like I said, I could say that I believe Christ was a cow that will give us all magic milk when the world ends, which will turn us all into cows, too; this may be my BELIEF, and I may still be worshipping CHRIST, but I would NOT be a Christian. You can have your own religious views, that is accepted; but you can't come up with your own half-cocked ideas, and then claim to still be part of a major religion.

It's not just about "believing in Christ," although that is the fundamental part of Christianity; you also have to remember that He gave authority to the Apostles, to spread the word. Everything we know of the Christ came from the same people who set up the dogma; how can you believe in Him if you don't also believe in the dogma? People simply say "Christ said love" out of ignorance; remember that he attacked the usurers in the Temple. There is more than just a simple sentence designed to make people feel good. If I say that I worship Christ as a giant winged cow who would give the Magic Milk on Armageddon, I would be worshipping him WRONG. Things like "opinions" have no sway whatsoever in the religious terms; either you are a member of a certain faith, or you aren't.

LOL axel. You said just about everything I was going to say. That cut my responses short so... Here's a ninja!

If that IS his reasoning, then it is more acceptable, although it opens a new can of worms. Mixed marriages are frowned upon simply because there aren't that many of us LEFT; the majority of half-breeds tend to NOT consider themselves Armenian (I can't explain how much I hate the statement "oh, my dad is Armenian"). Some things, I agree, should change; homosexuality is an inbalance in the brain that happens before birth; the vast majority of the time, it is not a choice. But since the Bible's view towards this is pretty clear, it is stupid to be angry at the Church for not approving. And you really should look back; gamavor has reason for calling him things like "Mehmet." Some of the things he rails against are mainstays in our culture to the point of defining our culture.

His other posts blast at the "religious right" because of their views on homosexuality. From what I've seen, he has a solid set of ethics and morals, and is outraged that that the Armenian community at large, or at least the religious Armenian community (though he has blasted the entire community as well), disagrees with them.

Dude, what in the hell is wrong with you? Christ, I hate people who stand on a soapbox and condemn everyone not like them! This isn't about me not liking you, since I don't know you. I don't like it when you not only try to divide the Armenian community, but also group thousands of individuals as "despicable Armenian conservatives" and insult them. turk kitsats.

Uhm... Yes. The shield/lion/eagle is the emblem of Armenia.

Reason.com is rather leftist (not liberal; far leftists are against religion for the most part); I'm not surprised someone there speaks against the religious right (that is like being shocked that a turk says the Genocide never happened). Even ignoring that, it gives a single person's account of a piece written by followers of Falwell about a piece written by Rushdoony; that makes it, what, a 4th person account? That's still not a direct quote. And back to my original point; just because a religion does not look favorably upon YOU or YOUR lifestyle does NOT make it wrong. To think that anything YOU don't agree with is automatically incorrect is a very egotistical idea.

Well, his crucification is an article of faith; God decreed that he HAD to die on the cross, in order to suffer for the sins of Man and redeem us. But the way that America-Hye crystalizes his own views as the "right" one and scoffs other views is just incredible.

Christ... people hear one little thing and believe they have a degree in the field. First, the Syrian god was not "Sol Invictus;" that term itself is Latin. The sun worship was basically the worship of Apollo, which had become extremely popular in the Roman worlde. Constantine simply overlapped many of the Roman Catholic holidays with the sun worshippers' holidays to let people fall into the same routine. He also combined many aspects of Mithraism into Christianity; you get bonus points if you know what Mithraism is without having to look it up. To say that we are not "true followers of Christ," by the way, completely removes you from this conversation as a fair judge. Once again, my point; you stand on your soapbox and preach against anyone who DARES stand on another soapbox and preach! How DARE they!! Guess what? It could just as likely be that your view on Christianity is the skewed one. Did that even occur to you? Or were you so holier-than-thou that you didn't stop to think that you could be wrong. And Constantine was about 1700 years ago, not 1500. 1500 was approximately the time that the Battle of Avarayr was fought; Constantine converted the Roman Empire in 313 AD.

Remaining celibate isn't the only article of faith in the Armenian church. Observing the religious holidays, going to church, prayer; all of these are part of the foundation on which the Armenian faith is built upon. You are not a practitioner of the Armenian faith, by your own admission; that you condemn the "religious right" and the Rev. (who, I believe, is not of the Apostolic Church?) for their views is the proof that you are judging them. If the Rev. came up and punched you in the face, yes, that is acceptable to "judge" then, because you are an injured party; but to stand on your own soapbox and preach against HIM standing on a soapbox and preaching is hypocrisy in a rather pure form. The Christian faith is not what it was 2000 years ago, and those who claim to maintain the faith of a particular church have to follow the articles and codes of that particular church as well; open homosexuals can't be Catholic for the simple reason that Catholicism does not approve of homosexuality. The fact that people try to apply "isms" to religion is laughably absurd; calling a denomination racist or sexist because it does not approve of something or other is as judgmental as the church. Guess what? Churches don't exist to please everyone. They exist to continue a code set upon at a certain time, and provide followers of that particular code a comfortable place of worship. I don't believe Mohammed was anything other than just another Arab; that doesn't mean I go protesting at the local mosque, saying that they are liars. And until you provide the quote that you repeatedly use, I won't give it a response.

Also, you are judging them based on religious matters; to do so, you, yourself, have to abide by said religion, to be able to accuse them of not following the letter (or the spirit) of the faith. Since you are not, you are, again, not one to judge. And being angry at a religion because it frowns upon you, your lifestyle, or whatever, is not the best reason to use in a debate.

Since we allow lower Church officials to marry, unlike the absolute Catholic forced celibacy, I find it hard to believe that Armenian holy men abused you in any way. Spanking, that I would believe; I myself was punished, though I did deserve it

The Catholic Church has pulled back on its stance against so many, especially under John Paul II; so now you say it proclaims fatwas. That's just greeeaaat. The Church has remained the same. You, on the other hand, are a foreign born, foreign raised individual who believes that what YOU have learned MUST be the truth, and therefore any individual or institution that has a different viewpoint is not only wrong, but is evil. Listen to yourself and the wording of your condemnations of others; you repeatedly break the commandment, "Thou shalt not judge;" you are not one to point fingers at others.

Did I say that is what I believe, or that I believe it was a good justification? Or did I say that is what the Old Testament actually says? Considering that you are the one that are twisting words and mistranslating text, who is the nauseating one? I personally am against death in general; I think war is a great injustice, but until all rights are wronged (such as the case with the Armenians), war will still be necessary. I think capital punishment is murder, and no one has the right to kill you if you kill another; that said, I believe that capital punishment should be applied only to cases of treason, where the actions of a person (or group of people) don't harm/kill one person, or a group of people, but an entire nation, and the unique culture therein. And please give me the quote where the Rev. (who I have never heard of before, admittedly) says, "Go out into the streets and kill or maim any who do not agree with you." Until then, stop misquoting people, and twisting their words.

I honestly don't care whatsoever that Kucinich is a vegan; Hitler was a vegetarian, you know. I'm voting for him because I believe in his views. The true translation from Hebrew is "Thou shalt not murder;" if you've ever read the Old Testament, you'll see that the Hebrews wiped out the Philistines to the man, as per God's specific commands of not letting a single male Philistine live. And Western law IS based on a mixture of Roman law, Biblical law, and Napoleonic law. Europe has banned capital punishment; where do you think the idea of not killing anyone came from? The most annoying type of person, in my eyes, is the type that argues for equality and lashes out at anyone who has a different point of view; the irony of that just annoys me to no end. "Everyone should say what they want, and if you don't like it, you can just go to hell!" naturally leaves dissidents out of the "everyone" group. You speak against the religious activists, (seemingly) against the Armenian church, and even against the Armenian community's mindset in general; think of it this way: if it wasn't for that mindset, for that church, for those activists, the Armenian side of you would be long dead, or have been dilluted into some turk mongrel's litter.

Explain how a religious sermon caused a serious illness? I, myself, am an ardent Democrat, and am actually volunteering for Dennis Kucinich for the 2004 Democratic candidate. I think, in the matters of US politics, the Republicans are travelling the wrong road. But if, right now, Bush comes out and recognizes the Armenian Genocide, demands that Turkey return to us our occupied homes, and pay reparations for the decades of pain and anguish, I would not only vote Republican for the rest of my life, but I would die for the man. To me, my politics here matter only so far as they benefit the Mother Country. Kucinich has voted pro-Armenian in every vote I have seen in Congress; therefore, he has my vote as well.

I'm the "true" one, I guess; never been to this forum before. Last forum I was on that discussed Armenian things was the Turkey.com one, where that idiot turk would come every once in a while and yell about how he would kill all Armenians.