MJ

I have not mentioned your name, have I? Why this insecurity? Something wrong deep inside? Supporting or not supporting one’s marriage is one thing, and not intervening is another. Long time ago I have gone to an Armenian Church in LA and Detroit. I have seen a lot of Turkish faces looking unpleasantly at Philipino wives. I don’t see where have I raised uproar on the subject. Do you? [ September 09, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

I think it was you who declared that you where 0% Armenian. So, I leave it there. But make your mind between being American, Armenian, Jew, etc. And speak only from one corenr of your mouth, please. As to the Soviets, your understanding of the Soviets is as decayed as anything else in your mind. I would like to keep this thread dedicated to its original subject.

quote:Originally posted by edward demian: I'm sure that they are called the same in Eastern Armenian. However, culturraly, Eastern Armenia up to the Genocide, had been a backwater place. Except for Echmiadzin which was a religious center. Kesaria, Edessa, Constantinopolis were the main cultural centers. Linguistically, Eastern Armenian is still a "lerayin parpar". And that is a "P" as in Paul. Dear Edward, Your statements about Eastern Armenia is resulted from your lack of knowledge, I think. It is OK not to know, but it is not OK to make unqualified statements. It is true that the Eastern Armenia has been economically backward region inside the Russian Empire. But it has nothing to do with its cultural dimension. In the last several centuries there have been three Armenian cultural centers, prior to the emergence of Soviet Armenia – Istanbul, Island of St. Lazarus, and Tiflis, the last one being the cultural center of Eastern Armenia. I am not trying to see the Eastern and Western Armenian cultures in a competing status, therefore, I would not denigrate the admirable Western Armenian cultural values, however, I would strongly advise you to do the same, therefore, I would advise that you first study the issue, please. I also think that not knowing Proper Eastern Armenian (don’t know how much Western Armenian you know), don’t make such strong ( and nonsense, btw) statements, please. I also couldn’t understand the message hidden under your comment on the pronunciation of “P,” though have a pretty good guess. However, I would urge a little bit more mature approach to these issues.

You don't want me to appeal to Mustafa, again, do you? And don't insult the American culture, please, by claiming that you are risen in that tradition. I can also add a couple of other comments about a type of schizophrenia we have touched on earlier, but I would prefer to spare the readers.

Setting the Record Straight:What Chalcedon Really Believes by Rev. P. Andrew Sandlin In a lawless, compromising, and apostate age, any Christian individual, church, or institution that stands unequivocally for the Biblical authority and the orthodox Christian Faith and, moreover, obedience to the Word of God and its application for all of life, is likely to be misunderstood, maligned, and slandered, both outside and inside the church. Often, these assaults are the result of misinformation, in that professed Christians routinely break the Ninth Commandment. Unintentionally, they just as frequently pass on to others erroneous information. The fact that their intent is often not malevolent does not absolve them from their guilt of violating God’s law. Others are truly malevolent. Their intent is malicious, and they employ their tongue to spread deceit, which they know to be deceit. Chalcedon is often the object of these attacks, both clearly malevolent as well as simply misinformed. Christians suckled on a pietistic view of the Faith and life simply cannot conceive of a world-conquering Christianity; because they cannot grasp this premise, they dismiss its defenders and spread misinformation about its position. Some are simply too irresponsible (or lazy) to acquaint themselves with our position and, failing to understand it, impute to Chalcedon positions and statements we do not espouse, and, in some cases, just the opposite of what we espouse. The malevolent detractors, on the other hand, know fully well what we believe and teach; their objective is to erect straw men, paint Chalcedon in the poorest possible light, and assassinate our position and character. We are not interested in dialoging with or defending ourselves against the accusations and innuendo of these malicious individuals. We are, however, patient with those who have not been sufficiently exposed to or who do not adequately grasp our position, and have simply been the recipients of misinformation. For that reason, I will set forth eight particular positions, often imputed to us, which we do not believe. At least on these points, I will set the record straight as to what Chalcedon actually believes so that sincere, honest inquirers may gain an informed understanding of our position, whether they agree with us or not. Justification by Law or Works Because we strongly emphasize the authority of Biblical law, holding it to be a verbal description of God’s character, and because we hold that Biblical law should govern every area of man’s life and thought, it is sometimes suggested we believe that man is justified by keeping the law, or somehow by his good works. This charge is not merely seriously erroneous; it is monstrously mistaken. As Calvinists, we believe that sinners are saved solely on the ground of Christ’s substitutionary, atoning death and law-keeping life, the passive and active obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:24). Further, we believe that justification, man’s legal acceptance in the sight of God as "not guilty," is appropriated by faith alone (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-10). Because faith itself is a gift of God, no law-keeping or works of any kind that man can perform could in any way secure or contribute to his justification or acceptance before God. God does not cooperate with man in saving him. God saves sinners; He does not help them save themselves. Law-keeping and good works are the essential results of justification; they are not the ground or means of appropriating justification. All who are truly justified will obey God’s law, progressively, though not perfectly, in this life (1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Jn. 1:8). God, by His matchless grace in the atoning death of His Son, saves those whom He has chosen. He does the deep work of regeneration and conversion in their lives. This is God’s work, not man’s. But the God who justifies also sanctifies, and sanctification means progressive obedience to God’s requirements, His law of the Old and New Testaments. Those who teach that man is justified by law-keeping or good works are pronounced cursed by God (Gal. 1:8-9; 2:16); just as clearly, those who as God’s covenant people do not obey His law are cursed by God (Dt. 28:15-68). Men are justified by Christ’s redemptive work alone, and appropriate this justification by faith alone; but those who are truly justified manifest that justification by their obedience to God’s law. Political Dominion Because we believe that the Bible should apply to all of life, including the state; and because we believe that the Christian state should enforce Biblical civil law; and finally, because we believe that the responsibility of Christians is to exercise dominion in the earth for God’s glory, it is sometimes assumed that we believe that capturing state apparatus and enforcing Biblical law on a pervasively unbelieving populace is one of our hidden objectives. Our critics sometimes imply or state outright that we are engaged in a subtle, covert attempt to capture conservative, right-wing politics in order to gain political power, which we will then use to "spring" Biblical law on our nation. This is flatly false. We do not believe that politics or the state are a chief sphere of dominion. It is understandable why many people assume that we do hold this position, however. We believe firmly in social change. Liberals believe firmly in social change. Liberals believe that social change is the effect almost exclusively of politics and state coercion. For example, they believe that we can change society by means of state-financed and governed "public education"; health, education, and welfare programs; and speech codes. In other words, they believe, like communists, that man is essentially a plastic being that can be fundamentally reshaped by external means -- education, wealth, health, penitentiaries, and so forth. Since no later than the French Revolution, most civil governments in the West have believed that social change occurs by revolution, not by regeneration. When, therefore, liberals (and even some alleged Christians) see us supporting and working toward social change, they presume that we are interested in political power. In simpler words, because they believe in social change exclusively by means of politics, they assume that anyone who supports social change or gets involved in politics is attempting to gain state power in order to further a social agenda. This is a serious miscalculation. We believe in regeneration, not in revolution. Men are not changed fundamentally by politics, but by the power of God. Men’s hearts are changed by regeneration (Jn. 3:3). They are translated from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of God’s dear Son (Col. 1:13). From that point, they progressively work to reorient their lives and every sphere they touch in terms of God’s holy, infallible Word. Long-term, pervasive social change is the result of extensive regeneration and obedience by the people of God. This means, of course, that there can be no Christian society of any significance or longevity unless a large number of its members are Christians. We do encourage Christian political involvement, but not for the reason that many people suppose. In fact, we believe it is important for Christians to get involved in politics because we do not believe politics is too important. The great problem with modern politics is that it is used as an instrument of social change. We at Chalcedon passionately oppose this. The role of the state is in essence to defend and protect, in the words of the early American Republic, life, liberty, and property. It is to reward the externally obedient by protecting them from the externally disobedient (Rom. 13:1-7). Its role is not to make men virtuous; we have a name for civil governments that attempt to create a virtuous society: totalitarian. Biblically, the role of the state is to suppress external evil: murder, theft, rape, and so forth. Its role is not to redistribute wealth, furnish medical care, or educate its citizens’ children. We do believe that the state one day will be Christian, but this no way implies that the role of the state is to Christianize its citizens. The Christian state is highly decentralized (localized). Our objective, therefore, in supporting Christian political involvement is to scale down the massive state in Western democracies, reducing it to its Biblical limits. We do not believe in political salvation of any kind. A Dispensable Church Because we believe that men should seek first the kingdom of God, not the church; because we believe that the kingdom of God is much wider than the church; and, consequently, because we believe that the institutional church is simply one dimension of the church, it is often charged that we believe the institutional church is a dispensable, and perhaps even unnecessary, institution. This is greatly in error. While in the Bible there is but one true church, this church can been seen from several different perspectives. The Reformers recognized, for example, the invisible dimension of the church: that group of genuine believers throughout history seen only to the eye of God. This was not, in their mind, the institutional church. They were far from dismissing the institutional church, however. The Calvinists of the British Isles, for example, went so far as to concur with the church of Rome in identifying the institutional church with the kingdom of God. To their credit, more recent Reformed theologians have recognized the mistake of this view, though this does not imply that they believe that the institutional dimension of the church is unnecessary. On this we agree fully with them. The church as mentioned in the New Testament is the ecclesia. It began in the Old Testament as the visible covenant community. It is, in Rushdoony’s words, God’s government in the earth, and it is this government both within and without its institutional dimension. But its institutional dimension is one vital aspect of the church. Must the church be limited to its institutional expression? Surely not. Schools, colleges, mission agencies, evangelistic organizations, Christian foundations, and on and on may truly be considered an aspect of the church even though they are not themselves the institutional church. The kingdom of God is bigger than the church, just as the church is bigger than its institutional dimensions. However, the institutional church as the visible covenant community under the government of godly elders is a vital part of the church and the kingdom of God. Every Christian should be a member of some orthodox, institutional church. This institutional church should not monopolize or dominate the Christian life or the Faith, but it is a vital part of it. The institutional church as an agency for preaching the gospel, administering the sacraments, edifying the saints, and exercising godly dominion is an essential feature of God’s kingdom. Kingdom by the Power of Man Because we affirm postmillennialism, and because we believe that no church (in any of its dimensions) will ever have any qualitatively different and superior divine resources at its disposal than it now has, we are often accused of believing that man by his efforts, ingenuity, and strength is to bring in the kingdom of God on the earth. We are accused, in other words, of an implicit humanism. This is a woefully mistaken charge. In the first place, Jesus Christ already "brought in the kingdom" at His first coming. His glorious reign was formalized at His ascension (Dan. 7:13-14), after which He showered His royal gifts on His people so that they could advance His kingdom in the earth (Ac. 2:17-18, 30-33). Christ’s kingdom is something that Christ Himself brings in. Christians do not bring in the kingdom; Christ brings in the kingdom. We do believe that God uses Christians as instruments to advance His kingdom. Thus, just as He used His covenant people in the Old Testament to advance His kingdom among the Hebrews, so He uses His people in the great multi-racial, multi-national church to advance His kingdom and His world-conquering gospel. The so-called Great Commission (Mt. 28:18-20) is the Marching Order of the King. Christians are His subjects, and they are called to obey Him in every area of their lives. Further, they are called to exercise godly dominion in every sphere with which they come into contact. Every area of the Christian¹s life is to be governed by God and His written Word, the Bible. God uses man’s obedience to advance His kingdom. Jesus Christ did not tell His disciples that it was essential for Him to remain on earth so that the kingdom would be advanced; rather, He told them it was essential for Him to leave so that they could do greater works (Jn. 14:12; 16:7). Christians can do greater kingdom-advancing works in the King’s absence, because at His ascension He was crowned with great gifts which He bestowed on His people by which His saints take dominion in the earth (Dan. 7:18, 22, 27). But fundamentally the work is God’s, not man’s. Persecution for Religious Beliefs Because we believe that the state is an inherently religious institution, and because we believe that a Christian state should enforce the law of God appropriate to the civil sphere, some have accused us of endorsing state persecution for religious beliefs. This is wrong. Biblical law does require criminalization of a few sins like murder, kidnapping, theft, and child sacrifice; but these are not religious beliefs; they are violent practices that assault the fabric of society. The Bible does not permit the state to persecute or suppress any religious belief, only certain dangerous, socially destructive practices. Further, Biblical civil law is designed for a covenanted society, just as Biblical ecclesiastical and familial law are: Paul’s epistles, for example, are written to Christian churches, not to Satanic synagogues. Biblical law governing the family is designed for Christian families. Likewise, Biblical civil law is created for a covenanted, Christian society. This is why God dictated His legislation (including civic legislation) to ancient Israel after He had entered into covenant with her (Ex. 19). Biblical civil legislation is for a covenanted nation, not for modern, secular Western democracies at war with God. Our first objective is to work to Christianize them. Automatic Christian Children Because we believe that the children of Christian parents are to be included in the visible covenant of the church, and because we believe that these children should be treated as though they are among God’s elect unless they give definite, objective evidence otherwise, occasionally some assume that we believe children of Christian parents are "automatically" saved because they are born into a Christian family, and that they do not need to hear the gospel. This is flagrantly untrue. The gospel is the chief component of man¹s salvation (Rom. 10:13-15). The gospel is the good news of salvation by faith in Christ alone, in His great sacrificial work of redemption on the cross. No one is saved apart from this work, or from the message of the gospel. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). Nevertheless, the Bible generally promises salvation to covenant children ‹ that is, the children of Christian parents. This is one vital provision of the Abrahamic covenant: God would be a God to the seed of Abraham in the same sense He was a God to Abraham himself (Gen. 17:7). This is the promise to which Christian parents cling (Gal. 3:29). It is the promise not merely of "common grace," or general providential provision, but of salvation. This fact is reinforced in Acts 2:38-39: “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” The promise of salvation is not just to those adults who believe, but also to their children. This is not a promise that every single covenant child will certainly be saved (Rom. 9:6-9), but we have good Biblical warrant to assume that our children are the elect of God unless they demonstrate otherwise by their faithlessness and disobedience. In the pithy Puritan quote: “God casts the lines of elections in the loins of Christian parents.” In no way does this imply that they do not need to hear the gospel; indeed, it means that we must be more urgent in preaching to them the gospel. 2 Timothy 3:15 teaches us that the Old Testament Scriptures instructed the child Timothy in salvation, and it is most likely that his godly mother and grandmother nourished him in the gospel (2 Tim. 1:4-5). This is the calling of Christian parents: to nourish our children in the gospel and in the Faith. From infancy they must be taught that they are sinners and stand under God¹s judgment, that the only hope of salvation is Christ’s redemptive work which can be appropriated only by faith. Those who do not nourish their children in the gospel, but simply presume that their covenant inclusion guarantees regeneration, run the risk that their children will never, or only rarely, hear the gospel by which men alone are saved. We may very well never know the exact moment of regeneration and conversion in Christian children; our calling as parents is not to absolute knowledge, but to faithful obedience. We nourish and bathe them in the gospel and the Faith and train them up as Christians (Eph. 6:1-4), as God¹s property (Ezek. 16:8, 20-21). Sinners are saved by the sovereign grace of God, but the preaching of the gospel is the instrument by which He accomplishes this salvation. Faith is Mainly Scholarship Because we stress the importance of ideas, and because we believe that sound Christian scholarship is essential to the advancement of Christ¹s kingdom, it is sometimes thought that we believe that the Christian Faith is mainly a matter of Christian scholarship, and that those who are not scholars are second-class Christians. This is severely in error. God and the Faith, not scholarship, are central. Scholarship is instrumental; it can be used for good or evil purposes. The Bible forbids and condemns godless, faithless scholarship, not godly faithful scholarship (1 Cor. 1:18-31; 1 Tim. 4:13). Moses, Paul, and Apollos all used their extensive learning for the sake of Christ and His kingdom. Festus declared of St. Paul, “Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad” (Ac. 26:24). Critics of Christian scholarship often draw attention to 1 Corinthians 1, where Paul extols the foolish things of the world that confound the wise. What Paul is arguing against, of course, is not godly learning, but the pseudo-scholarship of the Greeks. The apostle’s methodical argument in the book of Romans is a masterpiece of scholarly theological argumentation. In today’s world, scholarship is almost exclusively on the side of God-haters, humanists, and apostates. Almost all of the leading seminaries in the country are apostate, and this is only slightly less true of colleges. Higher education is morally lower education. Many Christians, therefore, simply equate scholarship and learning with modernism, apostasy, and so forth. This is not merely mistaken from a Biblical standpoint; it is historically uninformed. The highest point of scholarship in the medieval world was within the bosom of the church; and although it was defective at certain key points, it was at least an attempt at intellectual reverence for God. The scholarship of the Reformation was even more rigorously Biblical, and this was no less true of the Reformation¹s successors, the Puritans, who greatly influenced England and the formation of the United States. The earliest institutions of higher education in the Americas were distinctly Christian, and only later apostatized with the advent of Deism, Rationalism, Transcendentalism, and other heresies. Scholarship should grow out of a vigorous Faith, but it is God and the Faith, not scholarship, that is central. Chalcedon agrees with Richard Weaver’s premise that ideas have consequences. Men are saved by grace, not by ideas, but ideas are the result of a work of grace ‹ this is why salvation has an inescapably intellectual component (Lk. 1:77). The Bible itself is a revelation of ideas as much as it is words; it is not a collection of isolated words, but of words that are divinely inspired and arranged to set forth ideas. Biblical revelation is propositional: it comes to us in words and sentences, conveying thought. To say that we should dismiss ideas and the work of scholarship is really to say that we should dismiss God’s written revelation. One is deeply impressed, for example, with the wide scholarship of men like the Apostle Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Kuyper, Van Til, and many others. But this scholarship, in every case, springs from a simple faith -- faith in the sovereign, Triune God and the authority of the Word of God. Scholarship is an instrument in the service of the advancement of the Faith and of Christ’s kingdom. Scholarship is not central to the Faith, but a vigorous Faith requires scholarship. It is this sort of scholarship to which Chalcedon is dedicated. Racist Religion Because we believe that the godly are called to exercise dominion in the earth; and because the notion of godly dominionism has been revived in the United States; and, finally, because some who claim to believe in dominion are also racists, it is occasionally presumed that we hold to a racist religion. The term “racism” itself can be and has been variously defined. One thing is for certain: We do not believe that one race is inherently superior to another, or that only one sector of the race is to take dominion as Christians, or that sinners of whatever race do not stand equally guilty in the sight of God, or that Christians of a certain race do not stand equally justified in the sight of God. Therefore, we believe that the racism of the KKK, the Arian Nation, the Identity Movement, Black Power, the Black Panthers, and the Asian, Hispanic, and Indian racist movements are anti-Christian at their very core. Chalcedon supports only one form of “racism”: God blesses, nourishes, and honors the Royal Race of the Redeemed, all of those of whatever physical race that have placed their faith and trust in Jesus Christ, and God curses the race of the First Adam, all of those who live in unbelief, rebellion, and work-righteousness (Rom. 5:12-21). This is the only “racial discrimination” the Bible knows anything about. God discriminates in favor of covenant-keepers, and discriminates against covenant-breakers (Dt. 28). Some may object that He favors the race of Israel in the Old Testament era, but it must be immediately noted that His choice was not fundamentally racial, but religious. For this reason, Gentiles could become a part of the Jewish race, and thus a part of the covenant people of God (Gen. 17:12-13). The non-racial aspect of Biblical Faith is clear from Ephesians 2:11-15: “Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace....” All converted Jews and Gentiles stand on the same plane of blessing in God’s sight, just as all unconverted Jews and Gentiles stand on the same plane of judgment in God’s sight. The race God favors is the race of the Second Adam; the race He disfavors is the race of the First Adam. And this has nothing to do with physical race. Disposable Eschatology Because we believe that Christ’s first coming established His kingdom (Mt. 3:2), and His church is presently energized to advance that kingdom (Mt. 28:18-20, and because some heretics have suggested that His Second Advent, and the final resurrection and judgment of the just and unjust occurred in A. D. 70, we are sometimes criticized for diminishing the importance of the great eschatological (future) events of Christianity. This charge is quite erroneous. As we noted above, Jesus Christ bestowed His royal gifts on His people after His ascension. He does not delay His blessings for kingdom advancement until His Second Coming. Nonetheless, there will be no sinlessness until the eternal state, which follows the Second Coming (1 Cor. 15:23-25). There will be a great time of future earthly peace and prosperity before the end (Is. 65:17-25), as a result of the success of the gospel; but there will still be death and sin in this era (Rev. 20:7-10). Death will not be finally overcome until Christ returns (1 Cor. 15:24-27). The millennium is a Godly Golden Age, but it is no utopia. The Second Coming definitively puts the finishing touches on God¹s plan for the earth and human history. It is the ringing culmination of His providential dealings with man. Further, those who claim that Jesus Christ’s Second Advent, and the final resurrection and judgment of the just and unjust occurred in A. D. 70, assault the Bible and the Faith. Acts 1:11 tells us that Jesus will return just as he ascended -- bodily and visibly, with his disciples gazing at him, and we know that this has not yet happened in history. He is to come “n flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thes. 1:8). Likewise, 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 declares: “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” This teaches that the final physical resurrection of the redeemed will occur when Christ returns, with great royal fanfare: “a shout…voice of the archangel, and…the trump of God.” This is the announcement of the King’s return to his earthly jurisdiction. It is a physical coming creating momentous physical consequences: resurrection of bodies, and the equipment of the redeemed for the eternal state and the unredeemed for eternal perdition. It concludes human history. Thus, while we must never diminish the power granted the church because of the operation of Christ’s First Coming, we must be careful also never to diminish the finality of Christ’s work in the world which the Second Advent initiates. The Second Coming and its attending events are crucial to the Christian Faith. Conclusion This should set the record straight on certain key issues on which Chalcedon’s views are often misunderstood. We will continue to suffer slander at the hands of unscrupulous, devious men -- inside the church and out. But honest Christians, whether they agree with us or not, are entitled to hear a forthright declaration of our position on these misunderstood issues. P. Andrew Sandlin is executive vice president of Chalcedon and editor of the Chalcedon Report and other Chalcedon publications. He has written hundreds of scholarly and popular articles and several monographs. http://www.chalcedon.edu/faith/sandlin_wha...on_believes.htm

The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason. - Gilbert K. Chesterton http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/sandlin_...vs_ideology.htm

quote:Originally posted by edward demian: Sulamita How could I forget. Greece=Hunastan India=Hentkastan All that is correct Western Armenian denominations for some of the people they met in antiquity. Why Western, Edward? How are they called in Eastern Armenian, you think?

quote:Originally posted by Harut: are you sure Martin? i think you have to go through "zaks" to be officially recognized as married couple. even if so, was that only in Armenia or in all Soviet republics? Yes, Harut. I am sure. Even if you would've not gone to "zags," the merriage through the church would've been recognized by the state as legal in the entire USSR.

quote:Originally posted by edward demian: 1. I am appaled on how inconsiderate Eastern Armenian leaders, political and religious, are of Cilician and Western Armenian rights and claims. 2. Culturally, I think the population of Armenia has lost much more of their culture and linguistic purity than the Western Armenians. Edward, 1. Please formulate the essance of Cilician and Western Armenian claims, and I will try to address it. 2. I beg to differ with you significantly. What's the basis of your such statement?

Perhaps other businessmen... The business in Moscow is highly zonal.

quote:Originally posted by Harut: are you serious? that Victoria, with dark hair and dark eyes, who also plays in soap operas, and "owns" that underwear company is this books character? I don't think so. According to the passage above, Victoria has committed suicide years ago.

quote:Originally posted by dragon: Anybody wants to try? it's really fun The eternal life and Paradise?

quote:Originally posted by Harut: 1.as far as i know, in Armenia you have to get married in front of state to be recognized by law. You are wrong, Harut. Even in the Soviet era, when getting married just through the Church, the state has recognized the legitimacy of the merriage, even if the merriage had not been reiterated through the state seal.

Timucin, I'll be brief: You are indeed doing a terrible job presenting your case - as always, by the way. Your thoughts are too much tangled out and incoherent. I will take you at your word that you don't mean to say what comes across in your passages.

Gamavor, As much as I can understand your source of anger, I am compelled to issue your first formal warning. You have two more to earn to be banned.

Altounian Wins Second State Championship of the Year By JACK PETERS, INTERNATIONAL MASTER Sept. 7, 2001 Position No. 5654: White to play and win. From the game S. Ernst -Cruz Lopez, Amsterdam 2001. Solution to Position No. 5653: Black wins with 1 ... Rc1+ 2 Bf1 Rxf1+! 3 Qxf1 (or 3 Kxf1 Qh1 mate) e2 4 Qe1 Bc5+. If 2 Rd1, then 2 ... Rxd1+ 3 Qxd1 e2 4 Qe1 Qd4+ 5 Kh1 Qd1 wins.SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OPEN The 23rd Southern California Open, held last weekend in San Diego, was the most successful in years. The turnout of 191 players, including 21 masters, enabled the sponsoring San Diego Chess Club to record a substantial profit on a tournament that had slumped badly since 1995. Levon Altounian, who won the state invitational championship in July, collected his fifth state championship title with an undefeated 5-1 score. He defeated four masters and yielded draws to Michael Casella and IM Rashid Ziatdinov. It's only the second time that a player has won both tournaments outright in the same year. Ziatdinov and former state champion Cyrus Lakdawala tied for second place at 41/2-11/2. Lakdawala defeated IM Mark Ginsburg in one of the few decisive encounters among the contenders but hurt his chances for first place by taking two half-point byes. Casella, Robby Adamson, high school star Minas Nordanyan and former state champion Armen Ambartsoumian were next at 4-2. Other winners: Jorge Balares, 51/2-1/2 in the Express (under 2150) section; Rod Parayno, 51/2-1/2 in the Reserve (under 1850) section; and Mehrshad Mirkhan and Julieta Stepanyan, each 51/2-1/2 in the Special (under 1550) section. WORLD JUNIOR CHAMPIONSHIP Peter Acs, a 20-year-old grandmaster from Hungary, won the 2001 World Junior Championship in Athens. Acs scored 10-3 to outdistance a field of 89 young (born in 1981 or later) players representing 56 countries. Next at 91/2-31/2 were 16-year-old IM Merab Gagunashvili (Republic of Georgia) and 18-year-old GM Levon Aronian (Armenia). On tiebreak, Gagunashvili took the silver medal. http://198.95.130.91/features/lifestyle/la...2160sep07.story [ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

quote:Originally posted by Hmayk: Is she the owner of women's underwear brand ''Victoria Secret''? Any idea? Apparently.

Dear Timucin, I would first like to address the issue of the Turkish vs. Armenian forum members and their dynamics of their thinking. You say: I have observed quite a few Turks over the years in these forums, and in other dimensions of life in Turkey on this issue and I have seen many that were able to change in a positive manner. I am yet to see equal number of Armenians, perhaps with the exception of one person, okay, maybe two, to show anything in similar terms. Perhaps you have a point or two here, which I would like to try to elaborate further. First, we have to notice that by in large, the Armenians from Armenia proper are not represented in this forum due to the very high cost of access to Internet in Armenia, their not too much fluency in English (those who have access), and perhaps due to other reasons which I didn’t have explanation for. That is about the half of the Armenian nation, to which the readers of this or other forums have not been exposed to at all. Now, there are members here, he are born in Armenia, but are grown in America, Europe, elsewhere, and they are not too much reflective of the mentality of the population of Armenia. I am born in Armenia, however, I live in the US for the last 10 years. I am a typical representative of an intellectual Armenian from Armenia (if I don’t lift my profile up who would do it, right? ). Maybe I am a little more cosmopolitan than others like me would be. I have been such prior to my arrival to America. While my heart is Made in Armenia, my mind is an American product. Most of the people in this forum are Armenians whose lives have been directly impacted by the Genocide, even though they are quite young. Professional studies conducted by high level psychiatrists under the auspices of the UN testify that the Genocide of Armenian has resulted in a very significant schizophrenia in some (perhaps vast) segments of Armenians. This is a sad fact. While not being a psychiatrist, I think I can observe it in few Armenian online forums. It is not something to laugh at. It is another testimony on the horror of the Genocide, and its implications three generations later. As far as the discussions of the genetic makeup of the Turks are concerned, I have to bring to your attention that there are also such discussions in these forums about the genetic makeup of Armenians, half-Armenians, quarter Aremnians, etc. As indicated by one of the members of this forum as late as yesterday, in my view to these discussions about the genetics are indeed an form of schizophrenia making me really to vomit – I have no words of justifications for it. But the sight of one thing has not to be lost – due to our realities, it has been impossible to provide adequate exposure to the Armenian cultural thought to the vast segments of Armenians. Many have grown up in ghettos, have been exposed to some “insights” by some uneducated patriarchal “uncles,” some accidental priests, etc. It is our sad reality, but our newly established statehood gives us reasons for optimism. About my ‘court’ example. I am not in a position not to allow ‘you’ plead ‘not guilty.’ As a matter of fact, this is what ‘you’ where doing all along with rare exceptions of some honorable individuals, and presenting 'yourself' as a victim in this sense looks a little bit disingenuous, if I am to be diplomatic. You definitely are allowed also to ask a lot of questions, only I don’t see why should you get so defensive about it, and using the terminology of financial markets, I don’t see why do you want to “hedge your exposures” after each sentence. I think it is suggestive of something. What do you think? The ‘jury’ is already made up. We are not the one who has made it up. There are two major International bodies, which can serve as ‘jury,’ and they are representative of their respective nations – EuroParliament and the UN. Both bodies have recognized Turkey guilty in genocide – the EuroParliament has done so in 1980, I think, and the HU Human Right’s Commission has done it in mid 80’s, if I am not mistaken. I hope you are not going to claim bias. Talking about blackmailing, I think one who lives in a glass house, should not cast a stone. Armenians in no way can compete with the blackmailing capacity of the Turkish state, which has vigorously and consistently exercised that ability for decades against the US, UK, France, Israel, other countries, forcing their corresponding Ministries of Foreign Affairs and the Military-Industrial establishments exert pressure on their legislative bodies. Does the interference of namely these bodies suggest something about the Turkish blackmail, you think? And I think you are very wrong about it. For example, my US Congressman has written me a formal letter in response to my appeal to him to vote for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide in the House of Representatives that while he acknowledges the fact of the Genocide, and considers it as crime against the humanity, and he thinks that it should be recognized, he had to give considerations to the arguments of the State Department, according to which the lives of the US military and other personnel on the Turkish soil would’ve been endangered. I have had no leverage on him to influence his position one or another way, have never contributed money to his campaigns, nor I believe there may be more than a handful Armenians in our districts, whose votes would be of any concern to him – he recognizes the occurrence of the Armenian Genocide based on his own judgment. When talking about what Steve has written here, I don’t know what are you insinuating, therefore cannot address it. With all due respect, and contrary to your allegation, I think it is you who doesn’t get what I am talking about when saying that Turkey has to step up and claim ownership of the Armenian Genocide. What I mean is that the liability of the Armenian Genocide belongs to Turkey, while understandably, the genocide being crime against the humanity, its tragedy belongs to the whole humanity. Unless we are interested in making this argument a linguistic game, and making arguments for the sake of the arguments themselves, I don’t see how this simple thing may require further deliberations. Creating excuse for the problem, as you suggest, whereas the problem is the Genocide itself, is not in our interests. If anybody is creating or attempting to create excuses for it, I think it is you, here. In what way relaying on the document which is the defining document of Genocide in the international practice is an attempt from our side to create excuses? Why should we create excuses if the crime is created by Turkey? I have to also indicate that I find your remarks about me “imaginingg myself for a moment as a fellow human being” quite offensive and uncalled for. What makes you to burst like this? About the current Turkish state being another Turkish sate, and ran by other people, and consisting from other people… I find this statement to be a total absurd (forgive my French, please). It is interesting that when it comes to assuming the liabilities of the Ottoman Turkey, you want to distinguish the modern Turkey from the previous one, but when it comes to the assets, you want to keep the inheritance of the assets from the Ottomans? Does it make a lot of sense to you? If I am going to take your word for it, are you (meaning the modern Turkish state) ready to denounce the Treaties signed by the Ottoman Turkey, and to revert the history back to the pre-Republic of Turkey period? Forgive me my friend, but your argument doesn’t have legs, and I am sure the first opponent of such argument of yours would be the government of the Republic of Turkey. I also have to tell you that I am much puzzled and almost enraged at your contemplation of us wanting war, bombing Turkey, but not willing to send our infantry. My expectations from you where much higher, I have to admit. Didn’t expect such machoism from you. Your more intellectual arguments just pail under the shadow of this one. Don’t you understand that what we are doing is exactly for the sake of preventing another war and another tragedy, because the unrepentant party is prone to strike again? Lobbying, or whatever you call a congressman is a manifestation of democracy in action. It is a vehicle for us, the US citizens to make our voices heard by our elective representatives. How do you make your voices heard by your representatives in Turkey, or what is your recommendation? Should we just forget things? I also find your outburst about Dadrian’s concerns of being killed in Turkey very strange. From one side you claim that “as long as you do not pick up a fight with it[meaning Turkey -MJ], you can have your own life without nothing happening to you,” but you recommend Dadrian to do the very thing that you are reluctant to do. And if you don’t care about the issue, and all you care is your daughter, why are you here, and what are you trying to accomplish? Don’t you find that you contradict yourself too frequently? If I am not mistaken you are a psychology major, right? In such case, you would be an interesting cases studies for yourself, I think. I have to also admit that I agree that there is not much coherence in what you have written. Only it is not only about the one passage that you have pointed to, but more or less your entire material. You say, “By the way, I was not trying to mail you the Dadrian paper. I though I had made this clear.” You were apologetic there by saying, “Unfortunately, I cannot mail the only copy I have either.” My intend was to indicate that there was no need to feel apologetic, sinse there was no need for you to mail it to me. As far as the merits of the Hamidian massacres are concerned, I know exactly what Dadrian’s argument is, and I know exactly that Suny doesn’t agree with him on this matter. That is Dadrian, and that is Suny. What is your pint here? By the way, for the record, I haven’t said me and Suny where personal friends, but there was friendship between our families (in the years we have resided in Ann Arbor). And indeed some of his thoughts deserve admiration. To conclude this dialog, which I have to admit that I am not conducting with great pleasure, I would like to ask you to confirm or deny that you have posted the following material in another forum: “I respect your argument, but... by timucin (no login) the Genocide argument is an already old story. In politics, you can not stick to the same slogan for too long. You create a slogan, do your thing and get your results. If the whole thing is not swift then people will get bored and go home. This is always the major dilemma in every revolutionary and political movement. The only solution right now is a long term one; the evolutionary kind, the one that depends on education, and in this kind of struggle you try to look for long term interests. Anyway, I am talking in fragments; I am probably not very clear. I am sleepy anyway. But, the genocide argument is done with. It is a different game now, one that is more about reconciliation and creating normalcy in relations between both nations. End the Genocide! That end word implies swiftness. It is like let us go and end it right now right here. Well, if you cannot then it fails. You go to the American Congress and lose it. Your Patriarch falls in contradiction with you. What - two major losses. The momentum goes down. People lose interest. Time is now on the Turkish side. The crucial point here is that nobody in this world can get the Turkish state end its denial unless it does it voluntarily. It is simple as that. Reconcilation on the other hand is about time; it implies slow and evolutionary movement. If you are careful you can see that the whole mood is slowly changing. We are going from confrontational politics to the kind based on negotiations in this conflict. Both sides tested the waters. Now they are more aware of their capabilities. There is now actually more hope for both nations. “ If it is indeed a statement that you have made in the past, please help us to understand what to make out of it and your postings in our forum.

quote:Originally posted by dragon: MJ, you're so cute Yeah.. so says my wife.

Victoria's Secret: A Conspiracy of Silence Review: Genealogical and Historical Society of Sacramento Valley ...this story reveals more than family secrets...enlightens us about a culture and a people the world knows little of... California State Assemblyman, Howard Kaloogian This is a journey of discovery...you will see your parents, grandparents, and their parents in a new light. Former Professor of Armenian Studies at CSU, Fresno, Arra S. Avakian ...people need to tell the world what happened to our nation...you have done just that. To her family, she was the black sheep who befriended the local Armenian immigrants; to her son, she was a reliable, kind and loving mother; to her namesake granddaughter, Victoria was a mystery woman whose tragic suicide appeared to be a silent testimony echoing through time. In Victoria's Secret: A Conspiracy of Silence, Vickie Smith Foston takes a historical journey to the lifetime that preceded her grandmother's death leap from the top of a sixteen-story building. Past decades of family resistance and obstacles of concealment, Vickie discovers an ancient culture, a nearly forgotten history, and a secret past that was supposed to have been been buried with Victoria. Related Information About the Author As this story was unfolding, Vickie Smith Foston received a Master's Degree in Sociology from California State University, Sacramento. She lives in Northern California with her three daughters, where she works in the field of education and operates a research business named in honor of her grandmother's memory. http://www.narek-store.com/shop/SearchResu...Stock=BK%2D5751

quote:Originally posted by aurguplu: oh god so you started off as someone who loved maths, then who figured out that he had to do something "useful" with it and ended up in the most mind-numbing subchapter of your beloved subject just do make a living, am i correct? In some ways I am a pragmatist and in other ways maximalist. I asscribe to the idea that the real life is the best test for all theories. I look at my career as one consistant line of evolution. No regrets - I enjoy what I am doing. Life may be a btich sometimes, but one may try to extract value even from that. [ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

It has been a torturous path from Pure Mathematics through Applied Mathematics to Applied Finance.

Dear Ali, No arguments, again. I am not the Khrushchev type to send a bulldozer to demolish the academia (did you know that he has allegedly ordered a bulldozer to be sent to demolish the Russian House of Artists, as allegedly a cradle of homosexuals. ) I have always been around some tremendous academic authorities, and I owe them a lot. I have been in the right places, but at the wrong time, though. One of the things that attracts me in Dadrian is his training and degree in Mathematics and Philosophy.

Dear Ali, Indeed it was confusing. Sorry, I meant to address it to Timucin, as indicated above. My name indeed is Martin. P.S. I had pasted Timucin's text in MS Word page, and was typing my text on it, and didn't notice to delete his address to me on the top, preserving it in my text. Now it is fixed. [ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

quote:Originally posted by MJ: Martin, There are few things in every aspect of life, LOL... Meant to address it to Timucin.