Arad9

seaphan Premarital sex is wrong according to Rational Morality. Therefore you are immoral. Your statement, “if you don't hurt someone then it's ok”, this statement is a relative meaning. For example, I can punch someone and as long as it doesn’t leave a mark its ok because there is no physical mark of someone getting hurt. Or how about when a father disciplines his child, and the child is hurt, is that ok? Is it relative. You can also say things and hurt someone. So in your statement “if you don't hurt someone then it's ok” you are creating a relative definition instead of an absolute one. We are offering a universal and absolute definition that is given to the Church by God.

Are you asking “did God create Adam to fall?” If God created man to fall, then evil would be Gods fault. But, if God created man with choice, then evil came out of disobedience.

I meant to say God is good not good is God sorry. But I did answer your question didn’t I?

The first choice which you offer would make God not all powerful, therefore would in fact make God a limited being in the sense of not being able to control what is right and wrong. The second choice you offer is a bit better but it is incomplete, If I say God chooses what is right and wrong then you would say that God is responsible for what is right just as much as what is wrong. If I say that man responsible for what is wrong by choosing what he wants, then you would say that the definition of wrong is defined by man, therefore making it relative. But what if I were to tell you (and this is not a personal view it is the view of the Armenian Church) that I define good as God. He is the ultimate definition of truth and what we call Good. God cannot choose to do evil or wrong. If He could then He would stop being God. It is up to our own freewill to choose right(Godly) or wrong. Adam and Eve always had a choice, they could have not chosen to eat from the tree of knowledge as God warned them not to. God didn’t make robots, he made us human and at one point we were perfect until we chose ungodly decisions.

Sepahn You are misquoting Stormys rule, the rule is "As long as you do not physically and, to a reasonable degree, emotionally hurt a second person, you are free to do with your life as you wish." It's funny right after Stormy said that she tried to emotionally hurt me by saying Do you wish to change Stormys rule? She didn't say if it's possible. If you want to change it we can call it sepahn rule. Even then it won't work first for this reason (I hate to say it) but why should people make your rule as the universal rule for morality? Everyone have some kind of justification for what they do for example a thief could say I had to do it so my family wouldn't get hurt. The person that wants to kill the Turks says he is doing it to punish them for what they did and so on. the person doesn't have to be in jail for hurting someone it could be for a simple unpaid ticket. I could refute your comments one by one but my point is stormys rule is false. here is where we disagree. Is a prostitute moral? Is this the message you want people to teach their daughter? Being a poze its ok? In Jerry Springer this 18 year old boy was sleeping with his own mother but I guess he is not hurting anyone and they both wanted it. Come on be for real that rule doesn't work.I believe we are both rational but we disagree on this issue therefore rational morality doesn't make sense. the God of the bible goes back to Adam and Eve Armenians didn't accept Christianity until 301ad.I'm an owner of an auto mechanic shop I could rip off customers very easily. there are many ways to do it without anyone knowing I could make a lot of money that way tell me Domino what is the self punishment that I’ll receive if I rip them off without them knowing?

According to Stormy, as long as we don’t hurt anyone, then everything is fine. This doesn’t make sense. We hurt people by sending them to jail; we hurt our kids by punishing them; when we breakup with someone we hurt them; and when we get into an accident we unintentionally hurt others. Are these things wrong? As far as Domino, I still don’t know what his moral standards are. Are you moral if you are having premarital sex? Two people could rationale yet disagree on what is moral. When we don’t give some kind of standard for what is moral, how can we say anything is wrong or blame anybody for wrong doing? We always had the laws of the Bible from day one. Armenians relied on the church for moral values. Also, let’s say we did something that is really bad, is there a punishment if we don’t get caught? This brings up my argument. You are encouraging people to do whatever they want as long as they don’t get caught.

Welcome back Stormy Fedix is here to protect you

Domino Good answer unlike Stormy. What is moral? Even killing is not always wrong. We kill in wars and so on. Domino one thing that remains unanswered is what is wrong and what is right? To some people Genocide is not wrong. Were all the Turks psychopaths? Also what about the person that commits adultery? Is it wrong if so why? Here is the only answer that someone gave and it’s from Stormys opinion. Do you agree with her?

Stormy Some one could say That is your opinion why should I believe it? They could say killing a Turk is not wrong and that is their opinion. Why should everyone believe your truth? As far as cheating it's only hurtful to the other person when you get caught. If you don't get caught you have pleasured two people. So getting caught is hurting the other person. Therefore it's bad only to get caught and not the actual cheating itself. This is the mentality of people that cheat (not me ). You could make a study and put male and female monkeys in a cage for two years then throw another female I guarantee you that the male monkey will cheat with the other monkey. Does that make it right for us to do the same?

Are you guys saying what's right for you have to be right for someone else? Let's say an Armenian Guy wanted to kill a Turk, to him he thinks he is doing the right thing. Does that make it right? Another example let's say your animal Instinct tell you to cheat on your wife and you feel like it's ok. Does that make it right? Since you are comparing humans to monkeys, there is no problem with monkey orgy or cheating

To assimilate or not to assimilate that is the question. Should Armenians in Diaspora assimilate to the country that they are living, if yes then to what degree?

He thinks it's right you think it's wrong. if he thinks it's ok then is it ok? Why shouldn't he do it?

What if someone want's to kill you and your family he think it's ok. Why should he believe your view?

Can we say what turks did to Armenians being wrong, if we don't believe in a absolute moral law giver?

Wow! I am really impressed! With all the material I wrote refuting your evidence. This is the by far the best historical reference you have given me. Thank you!

Well people lets hear what you got to say. Can there be a moral law without a moral law giver?

All the tribes in the region more or less assimilated into the Armenians. If you want details I will more than happily show you Armenian's still use some of the words from the "dead" tribal languages. Oh come on! There were Armenians, there were no interactions with the other major civilazations at that time. According to your train of thought, its like saying, if a tree fell in a forest, it would not make any noise, because no one heard it.

The bible is not one book. you are simply saying whoever is a jew or a christian you are not going to believe them. It seems you have this hatred against Jews and Christians. you should read the bible before making statements like these, Noah came from Seth and not from Cain.

Axel-Hang in there Buddy! Please let me know where you got the above information from, because I would like to correct the author of it. I recommend reading Movses Khorenatsi’s account since it is the actual Armenian source. http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-...#P10524_3318454 There a list of kings named Abgar starting from the time of Christ. 15. Abgar (V) Ukomo Bar Ma’nu (III) (4 B.C.-7 A.D.) 16. Ma’nu (IV) Bar Ma’nu (III) Saflul (7-13 A.D.) 17. Abgar (V) Ukomo (second time) (13-50 A.D.) 18. Ma’nu (V) Bar Abgar (V) Ukomo (50-57 A.D.) * 19. Ma’nu (VI) Bar Abgar (V) Ukomo (57-71 A.D.) 20. Abgar (VI) Bar Ma’nu (VI) (71 -91 A.D.) ** 21. Abgar (VII) Bar Ezat (109-116 A. D.) *** And I am happy that you included this link but you left you this part in your quote http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05282a.htm It was at first more or less under the protectorate of the Parthians, If you read the history of Protestant missionaries in eastern Turkey you will see that they were not suppose to convert the Armenians. And this was a strict order! The missionaries were suppose to support and evangelized the Armenians. It was the Protestants that broke the agreements written by there own church, and started teaching that the Armenian Church is wrong and converting the Armenians. You can read about it more if you want, there is a book written by Vahan H. Tootikian is a Armenian Evangelical minister. So then Arpa I ask you, what do you believe? Do you believe in the Armenian Church(and there is only one)? Do you believe what She has stood for for 2000 years?

Well Arpa I can honestley say that I am enjoying this discussion First of all why didn’t you address the origins of the Armenian Church I brought up? You seem to have addressed other parts of my comments but not this part. It is relative to Thaddeus is it not? In all fairness I understand your point, but why not explain it. So you have read contrary statement regarding Thaddeus and his martyrdom. So to you Thaddeus was martyred in India, for example. Why is it ok for you to believe other sources and not the Armenian? Just because some other religious group wrote about it? How about the historians that had problems with the Armenian’s like the Byzantine’s who wanted to basically remove all the Armenian elements from the Armenian Church? And, if to your reasoning Thaddeus wasn’t martyred in Armenia does this make a difference of Her origins and doctrine? There are Armenians who have no idea who and what an Armenian is outside of Genocide. Don’t you agree? Which is one of my disappointments, my Great Grandfather was one of General Antranig’s commanders and personal friend, I don’t think he had the victimization mentality that Armenians have today. Who is name calling now? Touché I will finish up my comments and corrections to your post in the later.

Harout The problem is that there is a spiritual genocide that is going on right now that you don't know about. There are many Armenians that are being killed spiritually by cults and the occult. They are loosing their salvation due the lack of spiritual guidance and education. Since the people in this forum don't think that the Armenian Genocide is trivial. I don't think our religion and our Christian history is trivial. And has a equal amount of importance just as the Genocide. That is why it is a concern that Armenians joining other religions or religious sects. To deny the existence of a spiritual war, is the same process of Turks denying the Armenian Genocide.

Iknow

There is misconception about the term and definition of Aryan. So I went to dictionary.com and websters online dictionary to check it out. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=aryan http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary There is nothing that states that Aryan's are blonde hair and blue eyed. I am not saying that people with blonde hair and blue eyes are not Aryan. It is the misunderstood definition that only people with blonde hair and blue eye physiotype are called Aryan. Where did the false definition come from? If you read the definition of Aryan it is synonymous with the word Iran. So the nation of Aryan's would be considered as the Iranian's.

Harut are you asking that is it ok to convert from paganism to Christianity as a nation with no problem, but there is a problem with converting to Protestantism? There are some changes that are right and some changes are wrong. Do you think its ok for Armenian to become a Muslim for personal reasons and deny the Genocide?

Apostolic means a Church that was established by the apostles. Several apostles, including Saint Andrew (by Saint Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus) Saint Simon (also known as Canaanite, or Cananean, or Zealot) and Saint John the Evangelist, helped preach Christianity and cultivated it Armenia. Among the twelve the apostles Thaddeus and Bartholomew have been attributed to bringing Gospel of Jesus to Armenia, therefore are called the "First Illuminators," by the Armenians. Therefore, establishing the Armenian Apostolic Church. So with the Gospel brought to Armenia by the Apostles, the Armenians had their foundation of the Armenian Apostolic Church. We continue into the 2nd century where the second century African church father Tertullian already listed the Armenians among the people who had received Christianity, and the mid-third century letter of Bishop Dionysis of Alexandria to an Armenian bishop named Meruzanes which unequivocally indicates a sizable community. Therefore, by the 2nd Century A.D. Armenians already had some churches and at the least 1 bishop. Also I can go into the story of King Abgar. If you have any misunderstanding about the story, which you probably will, I can clarify it for you. And here is a link for Thaddeus: http://www.saintjudeshrine.com/whoisstjude.htm So hear is a little history lesson for you about the Armenian Church. If you want I can go into further details about the establishment of the Armenian Church prior to Saint Gregory. Also last time I checked the Region where Thaddeus was martyred was in historical Armenia. Which now you say is India?? Who are the sources for that web site. I have heard Turkey(which was historical Armenia) and Northern Persia(which was historical Armenia as well)but I stick to Ormanians history of the Armenian Church which is said it that Thaddues was martyred at the foot of mount Ararat. If you want some Barthalomew history it would be my pleasure.