MJ

“Nastradamus,” Most of the half or part Armenians, and some of them in my own family, have no negative experiences in their lives due to their genetic “status.” Most of the Armenians who embrace the Armenian values and the Armenian purpose, whatever it may mean, are embraced as Armenians. People are judged by their personalities. Any non Armenian, who connects somehow with the Armenians is embraced like Armenian. Unfortunately, in our experience we come across with some half or whatever Armenians, who a priorily portray themselves as victims, while not being victims but elementary losers. It invites nothing but disgust. I would much rather prefer enemy Turks or whatever enemies than loser Armenians with a chip on their shoulders. Because they would definitely be the traitors and the back-stabbers under corresponding circumstances. That attitude of the loser Armenian invites nothing but a disgust. I don’t want to have anything common with him/her, and if I would meet him/her in a Forum or a supermarket, I would pretend not noticing him/her. The counting of “split peas in the soup” in either context invites nothing but resentment and contempt, and puts the “accountant” out of the normal. You are a rather senior person, if I am not mistaken. Isn’t it time that you realize that you need to present yourself not as an 88% Armenian, but a fellow human being first, who shares our values, aspirations, and maybe even our flaws? Maybe than, others will take you at that? By the way, the way you have described, you grandfather was far not a “Hreshdag.”

What a dramatic 5 hours 15 minutes game it was - two games time. It was a neck-to--neck hgame with four tiebreaks. Just two errors Andre made in the fourth tiebreak tossed the win to Sampras. Such a pity, but such a fulfilling match. Incredible!

No, you are wrong. I have a very good memory. He(me) was not imflamatory at all, but rather restrained, balanced, polite and to the point. I expect the Agassi-Sampras match is to start any moment now. I want to go and enjoy it. Talk to you later.

Not specifically. I am just very much aware of what is coming. Remember the "Fly-by-night visitor?"

I am not one of those who count the number of split peas in a soup. However, normally being a very tolerant and open minded, and by mentality cosmopolitan man, I have zero tolerance towards nonscientific, blown out of their proportions ideological declarations, and the like. I am sure you know what I am referring to.

Fine, but please take into consideration my appeal to you.

quote:Originally posted by MosJan: Clearer speaking this is how I can formulate the logic that prevails among Turks in this respect: “Saying that there is no ‘Armenian issue’ and consequently there is no issue of discussion we managed to bypass the issue for 85 years. Now we say ‘lets talk’ and if not so long but several decades we’ll be able to bypass the issue in this new way’. To the author of the article I would say that the formation of Reconciliation Commission itself attests to the fact of the existence of 'Armenian issue.' Otherwise, there is nothing to reconcile about.

Khodja, You have no idea about the Armenian mentality. And for heaven's sake, don't start here the argument, which has been your forte in the ArmenianCafe.

Timucin, Since the previous material is directed to Ali, I will not go through its details, but rather address a couple of points made, while apologizing to Ali for jumping ahead of him. 1. to address your question of what is “Genocide,” I would simply refer you to the following site: /cgi-bin/forum/ultim...c&f=10&t=000040 . Modern Turkey is signatory of this document, therefore, there is no ambiguity in the understanding of what means Genocide. The phenomenon characterized within the perimeters if this document is exactly what we are referring to. However, when you are raising issues on the subject of the meaning of the Genocide, I get an impression that you are interested in it from an epistemological point of view. That’s not what we are interested in. I think we can leave the epistemology of the perseption of the Genocide to the academicians, historians, psychiatrists, psychologists, and the bunch. Our interest in the matter is purely political. 2. we precisely know who is guilty for the Genocide – the effective government of Ottoman Turkey. And since the Republic of Turkey is the judicial hair of the ottoman Turkey (hardly one may want to deny this), the Modern Turkey bears the responsibility of it by heritage. The issue is what’s the remedy. 3. About two nations beink sick: I am not going to claim whether Turkish nation is sick or not. But our nation is wounded, not sick. It is deeply wounded, and it needs to have its wounds healed. 4. I, personally, couldn’t care less about the words expressing apology. In my view, the important thing is the acknowledgment and the remedy. Indeed the words of apology are not enough. 5. Dardian’s views, as the viewes of any normal person, not on a God-defined mission on the earth, have changed and evolved. Mine have done so, too (I am not trying to put myself on the same scale with Dadrian. ). Haven’t your views changed on whatever subjects, when you have studied them better? The killings of the era of Sultan Hamid, while not constituting Genocide on their own, have been the prelude of the Genocide, the intent of which has already existed in the minds of high ranking Turkish officials concerned about Europe’s activism on the Anatolian stage. Those killings have been sort of reconnaissance with the purpose of measuring Europe’s pulse. When talking on the subject of the Genocide of Armenians, we refer to the period 1915-1923. 5. The numbers don’t matter when defining a crime as Genocide. The intend does. The numbers matter in defining to what degree has the Genocide succeeded. I remember reading in 1988 (I think) about a Brazilian court sentencing some of their citizens for committing Genocide while killing four Indians/natives. Many nations, including the US, I think, have Genocide defined as crime in their Criminal Law.

For the sake of the record: posted August 12, 2001 06:15 PM You have proved to me one thing with your typical racist Armenian attitudes. I would sooner rely on a Turkish source than an anonymous Armenian one - at least they will have a cernal of truth hidden somewhere. –The Cat posted August 12, 2001 07:43 PM My friend may be anonymous to you, but not to me. Meanwhile, the biggest anonymous here is you throughout the existence of this forum. Meanwhile, the biggest anonymous here is you throughout the existence of this forum. - MJ

Dear Ali, I have no knowledge, at least at this time, of other sources confirming the authenticity of Combon's report. However, knowing Dadrian, I am rather convinced that his references on the source of the information are rather accurate and diligent. After all, the material is published in one of the [if not the] most reputable professional journals on International Law. There is an Armenian expression in the domain of national grotesque describing the [similar] phenomenon referenced above in the material: “Ktits brnats man adzel,” which roughly translates as “to walk one around while holding him from his nostrils.” The unprofessionalism , loud-mouthedness and the adventurism of the Armenian Revolutionaries has found its way even into the Armenian Satirical literature of the time – in the writings of Hagob Baronian (I am a graduate of the High School in Yerevan named after him ) and Yervand Odian. If pressed hard, I can contact Dadrian and ask for help.

quote:Originally posted by Thorny Rose: I know, but I also remember you saying something about Steve being THE anonymous when he asked about your sources, or at least their credentials, if not their names... Yes, in reply to his allegation of my "sources" being anonymous. I found that raising the issue of anonimity here, while he and his sources were anonimous, too, was at least ridiculous. quote Me too. quote Now, life moves on...

Terms of Reference TURKISH - ARMENIAN RECONCILIATION COMMISSION Terms of Reference are agreed to on this 9th day of July 2001 between Armenians and Turks from civil society who, working in an individual capacity, agree to establish The Reconciliation Commission. The Reconciliation Commission grew out of meetings held at the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna. The Reconciliation Commission seeks to promote mutual understanding and good will between Turks and Armenians and to encourage improved relations between Armenia and Turkey. The Reconciliation Commission appreciates that there are serious differences between Armenians and Turks, as well as obstacles to normal relations between Armenia and Turkey. The Reconciliation Commission hopes, through its efforts, to build on the increasing readiness for reconciliation among Turkish and Armenian civil societies including members of Diaspora communities. The Reconciliation Commission supports contact, dialogue and cooperation between Armenian and Turkish civil societies in order to create public awareness about the need for reconciliation and to derive practical benefits. The Reconciliation Commission will directly undertake activities and catalyze projects by other organizations. The Reconciliation Commissionwill develop recommendations to be submitted to concerned governments. The Reconciliation Commission will support collaborative track two activities in the fields of business, tourism, culture, education and research, environment, media, confidence building, and other areas which are to be determined. The Reconciliation Commissionwill secure expertise based on project requirements, and may include specialists on historical, psychological and legal matters, as well as other topics. The Reconciliation Commission will review progress after one year. The Reconciliation Commissionis established by: Gunduz Aktan (Ankara) Alexander Arzoumanian (Yerevan) Ustun Erguder (Istanbul) Sadi Erguvenc (Istanbul) David Hovhannissian (Yerevan) Van Z. Krikorian (New York) Andranik Migranian (Moscow) Ozdem Sanberk (Istanbul) Ilter Turkmen (Istanbul) Vamik D. Volkan (Charlottesville) September 3, 2001 Statement by the Armenian Members of the Commission The announcement of a private Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission has already opened new possibilities for Armenians and Turks. From around the world, most Armenians have offered support, both publicly and privately. They share with us the belief that if Armenians and Turks talk directly and in a structured fashion, addressing the numerous issues that divide us, some progress may follow. Thank you for your support. We anticipated that certain parties would criticize us and our undertaking. But we hope they will now take the time to thoughtfully reconsider and give us a chance. We ask our critics to report what they have done and what they intend to do in order to deal with the issues we are addressing and to create a better future for our people. This discussion is long overdue. We appreciate your understanding that the early, sensitive stages of discussion had to be negotiated confidentially. Now that the Commission is launched, we will try to answer the many questions you have raised to the best of our abilities and in a way that promotes our shared goals. Let us first state categorically that this is not an “historical commission” and there is no debate about the validity of the Armenian Genocide; it is an internationally recognized fact. But the legal, psychological and political issues that grew from it have long called out for rational, structured discussion. The lack of direct dialogue has only worsened a bad situation. There is also no question that other countries’ recognition of the Armenian Genocide is important in its own right. Each country must come to terms with its own record on this issue. It is a critical process which reconciliation efforts such as this one in no way impede. We agree with those who say there can be no true reconciliation until Turks acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. The question is how best to achieve this result. Our view is that reconciliation is a process, not an event. Our public Terms of Reference speak for themselves. We are not so presumptuous as to think that the Commissioners have a monopoly on good ideas or solutions and we in no way suggest that this body is a substitute for direct Armenia-Turkish government relations. The Commission’s first agreed activity is to listen and consider the advice of others. At the same time, we believe the Commission will be an example that will spark similar efforts and encourage others to deal with the past and improve our future. The Armenian people have lost faith in the false promises of demagogues. No third country has or will put its own national interest aside and force Turkey to reconcile. And Armenian historians have noted that in retrospect naïve belief in third countries in the late 19th and early 20th centuries did not save our nation. The Armenian Genocide is not the only issue that divides Armenians and Turks. We intend to look at differences and areas of common ground. We are treating our fellow Commissioners with respect and we believe they deserve credit for engaging in this good faith effort. In this Reconciliation Commission, the four of us are acting in our individual capacities but working as a team. Our backgrounds and current situations are diverse; while we expect to be given a fair chance, we do not pretend to represent all Armenians or the Armenian Government. Armenia’s leaders have fairly acknowledged that they were informed of this process and have correctly stated that this is not a governmental effort. We are nevertheless grateful for the support we have received. One of our goals is to promote much needed improvement in official relations. We have not decided when to increase our number from four, but more people will need to be brought into the process. The progress we have made so far gives us grounds for hope. Commissioner Alexander Arzoumanian Commissioner David Hovhannissian Commissioner Van Z. Krikorian Commissioner Andranik Migranian Mr. Van Krikorian, Chairman Board of Directors Armenian Assembly of America 122 C Street, NW Suite 350 Washington, DC 20001 Statement by Henry Morgenthau III Welcome news from Geneva recently announced that a private Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission is at work with the tacit approval of both governments. I commend the high level and respected Turkish and Armenian citizens who agreed to serve, as well as those who initiated this long overdue effort in promoting mutual understanding and good will. While I appreciate the need during the sensitive early stages for not putting the matter of Turkish recognition of the Armenian Genocide on the agenda, as the grandson of Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of World War I, I believe firmly that the festering mistrust on both sides stems from Turkish denial of that event. The Turkish people could benefit from the example of modern Germany, which has struggled successfully to come to terms with its Nazi past. Not until the Turks learn to accept their own history as a self-fulfilling act of redemption can long-standing wounds begin to heal. Henry Morgenthau III Cambridge, Massachusetts July 25, 2001 Statement by the Armenian World Alliance ARMENIAN WORLD ALLIANCE ALLIANCE MONDIALE ARMENIENNE Aug. 8, 2001 Mr. Van Z. Krikorian Commissioner Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission Dear Mr. Krikorian, The formation of the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission has been the most logical and worth while effort towards the rapprochement, considering the current political climate both in Armenia and Turkey. The Armenia Commissioners, based on their professional experience, past conduct, integrity, dedication and service to the Armenian people, are certainly very credible and capable individuals, acceptable to the vast majority of the Armenian people, both in Armenia and the diaspora. We sincerely believe that, this Commission, no matter what the result at this stage of contact and discussions, is destined to play a major and significant role in any future direct government to government talks. We are very proud of each and every Armenian Commissioner. We are confident that given their track record, they will be able to enhance the quality and substance of the dialogue. The Armenian World Alliance Canadian Central Board of Directors, fully supports the efforts of the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission and wishes all Commissioners success in their efforts and deliberations. Sincerely yours, Haig Misakyan President Statement by the Knights of Vartan, Inc. Grand Council-Avaktivan Dear Mr. Krikorian: The Grand Council of the Knights of Vartan is cognizant of the recent formation of the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission. Having closely followed the published comments made by numerous individuals and organizations, we are of the opinion that the concept behind the Commission, to establish a dialogue between Armenians and Turks, is a favorable alternative. While we are aware of the difficulties of such negotiations, we support the purposes of the current Commission and wish it well. Our support of the Commission's activities, however, should not be construed as a relaxation of our continued efforts to bring about a just resolution of the Genocide issues. The Knights of Vartan Organization remains faithful in its commitment to support all efforts that favorably address the universal recognition of the Armenian Genocide. We congratulate you, as a member of the Commission, for your willingness to accept the heavy burden of diplomatic responsibilities that may have a profound effect on the lives of the Armenian people. Attested, Yours Truly, Vartkes Barsam Robert E. Barsam Grand Recorder Grand Commander "An Undue Reaction to the Formation of the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission" Armenian Reporter, August 11, 2001 To view the editorial in its entirety, please visit the Armenian Reporter's Web site. "The ARF/ANC is once again in full attack mode -- this time against a high-level dialogue between Armenian and Turkish private citizens, known as the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC). This course of conduct has once again placed the ARF/ANC beyond the mainstream judgement of the Armenian people. TARC is now the most visible, but certainly not the only recent, effort by Armenians and Turks to explore historic and contemporary issues that divide the two peoples. All such efforts -- known generically as track-two contacts -- have one thing in common. These structured dialogues have the highly desirable effect of defeating the government of Turkey's policy of refusing meaningful dialogue with the government of Armenia... The Armenian Commissioners are either seasoned and senior former officials of the Republic of Armenia or experienced and recognized political activists. Each deserves credit for taking on this challenging responsibility. Since TARC was publicly launched, they have collectively commented on the praise and the criticism responsibly and transparently." There are a couple of more statements in *.PDF format, which I obviously couldn’t paste here. Visit http://www.aaainc.org/TARC/tarc.html for those materials. - MJ [ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

Thorny, Everybody here, except Garo, MosJan, Ara Baliozian and a couple of others, is more or less anonymous – including me – for the most of the readers. Therefore, obviously, I wouldn’t try to imply that there is something wrong with being anonymous in the Hye Forum. It is part of the procedure, here. But if one reads carefully what I have said, and not how others have twisted what I have allegedly said (by the way, this fact itself is very telling), he/she would discover that my resentment has been directed at certain behavior while being anonymous, and not at being anonymous. For example, when would say anonymously in the Hye Forum, “I’ll kick your butt,” it would be a cowardly behavior. I am sure you would agree with it. Additionally, the alleged anonymity of many here is a very superficial illusion for the faint-hearted. The correct question to purse (if needed) would be anonymous to whom? Pretty much the parties from whom the anonymity is being maintained have enough information to trace you, me and the Cat, for example. Additionally, if you would go back and read the materials of this tread, you would find out that the anonymity is not something that I have brought to the discussion of this thread. "He just likes to go around wining and throwing irresponsible declarations. Such a safe thing to do anonymously, and especially over the Internet." – MJ [ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

Ali, I am not done yet with the references given yesterday. Another starting point for getting familiarized with Armenian Arts would be its most traditional expression – the Armenian Miniature. Some of it may be found at /cgi-bin/forum/ultim...ic&f=5&t=000094 . Also check http://www.itgateway.com/unesco/fullpage.htm for some sources of Armenian Miniatures. In general, you can see a lot of exhibitions of Armenian Art at http://www.gallery.am./ I will try to find some writings on the subject, later. /cgi-bin/forum/ultim...ic&f=5&t=000093 would be a good starting point for getting familiarized with the Armenian Architecture. The follwoing site may be a good starting point (also for many Armenians ) for getting familiarized with the Armenian Music: /cgi-bin/forum/ultim...ic&f=6&t=000113 To be continued. [ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

²Ü вê²ð²Î²ÚÜàôÂÚ²Ü Ðºî в𲴺ðàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ ì²ðâàôÂÚàôÜ Æ ·ÇïáõÃÛáõÝ Ñ»éáõëï³ÁÝÏ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ 05.09.2001 è¸-áõÙ ÐÐ ¹»ëå³Ý êáõñ»Ý ê³Ñ³ÏÛ³ÝÇÝ ¿ ѳëó»³·ñ»É Çñ ݳٳÏÁ IV ºíñ³ëÇ³Ï³Ý Ñ»éáõëï³÷³é³ïáÝÇ ·É˳íáñ åñá¹Ûáõë»ñ ì.èáõ½ÇÝÁ: ܳٳÏÁ Ñ»éáõëï÷³é³ïáÝÇ Ý³Ë³å³ïñ³ëïÙ³Ý í»ñ³µ»ñÛ³É ¿ ¨ ѳëó»³·ñí³Í ¿ г۳ëï³ÝÇ Ñ³Ù³å³ï³ëË³Ý ß³Ñ³·ñ·Çé ϳ½Ù³Ï»ñåáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇÝ: ܳٳÏáõÙ Ù³ëݳíáñ³å»ë ³ëíáõÙ ¿. §2001 Ãí³Ï³ÝÇ ÑáÏï»Ùµ»ñÇ 1-5-Á ØáëÏí³ÛÇ §ÎáëÙáë¦ ÑÛáõñ³ÝáóáõÙ Ïϳ۳ݳ IV ºíñ³ëÇ³Ï³Ý Ñ»éáõëï³÷³é³ïáÝÁª ÝíÇñí³Í ²äÐ 10-³ÙÛ³ÏÇÝ: Ø»Ýù íëï³Ñ »Ýù, áñ ÐÐ-Ç Ñ»éáõëï³ÁÝÏ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ ϳñáÕ »Ý Ý»ñϳ۳óÝ»É Ñ»ï³ùñùÇñ ¨ ³ñųÝÇ ³ß˳ï³ÝùÝ»ñ, áñáÝù ѳçáÕáõÃÛ³Ùµ ÏÝ»ñϳ۳óí»Ý Ñ»éáõëï³ýÇÉÙ»ñÇ ëï»Õͳ·áñÍ³Ï³Ý ÙñóáõÛÃÝ»ñÇÝ: ²é³ç³ñÏáõÙ »Ýù ݳ¨ IV ºíñ³ëÇ³Ï³Ý Ñ»éáõëï³÷³é³ïáÝÇ ÙÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ Ñ»éáõëï³ßáõϳÛáõ٠ϳ½Ù³Ï»ñå»É ëï»Ý¹ г۳ëï³ÝÇ å»ï³Ï³Ý Ñ»éáõëï³ï»ëáõÃÛ³Ý í»ñ³µ»ñÛ³É, áñï»Õ ÏÝ»ñϳ۳óí»Ý Ñ»éáõëï³ÁÝÏ»ñáõÃÛ³Ý ï»Õ»Ï³ïí³Ï³Ý ÝÛáõûñÁ ¨ Íñ³·ñ»ñÁ¦: ܳٳÏÇÝ Ïóí³Í ¿ ݳ¨ IV ºíñ³ëÇ³Ï³Ý Ñ»éáõëï³÷³é³ïáÝÇ ïÝûñÇÝáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ³ëó»Ý, áñï»Õ ϳñ»ÉÇ ¿ ëï³Ý³É Éñ³óáõóÇã ï»Õ»ÏáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñ. 129515, Ìîñêâà óëèöà Àêàäåìèêà Êîðîëåâà äîì 13 à/ÿ 78 E-mail: scip@cityline.ru, scipfilm@cityline.ru tel: /095/ 217-33-19, 215-90-74, 216-65-80 fax: /095/ 215-94-83, 217-33-46 ²Ü ï»Õ»Ï³ïíáõÃÛ³Ý µ³ÅÇÝ [ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

Ali, Unfortunately, at this time we don't have the English version of the text, but I am sure that in a day or two it will emerge in the Press.

Another reference is The Early history of Indo-European Languages, Thomas V. Gamkrelidze, V.V. Ivanov, Scientific America, March 1990, P.110 http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/65...ronicle120.html

Ali, Here is a tentative list of books available from Amazon.com, which I am sure needs to be filtered out further - I am sure you don't want to go for all of them. Perhaps, you would be better of looking at Richard Hovhannissian's book(s), first. I will also make a list of few other books. I would ask the rest of the members to give their recommendations, too. Armenians : Their History and Culture; Ara Baliozian A History of Armenian Literature : From Ancient Times to the Nineteenth Century; S. P. Hayrapetean, Srbouhi Hairapetian Armenian Image in History and Literature; Richard Hovannisian Armenia: cradle of civilization; David Marshall Lang The peoples of the hills: ancient Ararat and Caucasus; Charles Allen Burney Armenia and the Near East (Middle East in the Twentieth Century Ser.); Fridtjof Nansen Armenia : The Survival of a Nation; Christopher J. Walker The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times : Foreign Dominion to Statehood : The Fifteenth Century to the Twentieth Century Vol 2 The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times : The Dynastic Periods : From Antiquity to the Fourteenth Century Vol 1; Richard G. Hovannisian (Editor) Cilician Kingdom of Armenia; T. S. R. Boase (Editor) The ancient civilization of Urartu; B. B. Piotrovskiæi Contributions to the Archaeology of Armenia (Harvard University, Peabody Museum of Archaeology; Ethnology, Russian Translat); V.P. Alekseev, et al Transcaucasia, Nationalism, and Social Change : Essays in the History of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia; Ronald Grigor Suny (Editor), Kennan Institute for Advanced Russia Armenia on the Road to Independence, 1918; Richard G. Hovannisia Armenian Revolutionary Movement : The Development of Armenian Political Parties Through the Nineteenth Century; Louise Z. Nalbandian The Republic of Armenia Vol 1; Richard G. Hovannisian The Republic of Armenia : From London to Sevres, February-August, 1920 (Vol Iii) Vol 3; Richard G. Hovannisian The Republic of Armenia : Between Crescent and Sickle : Partition and Sovietization (Vol 4) Vol 4; Richard G. Hovannisian The Kingdom of Armenia; M. Chahin Armenians in the Service of the Ottoman Empire 1860-1908; Mesrob K. Krikorian Armenia and the Crusades : Tenth to Twelfth Centuries : The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa (Armenian Heritage); Matthew, et al The Tricolor over the Taurus : The Franco-Turkish War for Cilicia, Crucible of the National Liberation Movement (American University Studies. Series); Robert F. Zeidner Armenia between Byzantium and the Sasanians; Nina G. Garsoèian Pre-History of the Armenian People; Igor Mikhailovich Diakonov East of Byzantium : Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period; Nina G. Garsoian (Editor) The Fortifications of Armenian Cilicia; Robert W. Edwards Eastern Armenia in the Last Decades of Persian Rule 1807-1828; George A. Bournoutian Politics and Demography : Armenians, Turks and Kurds in the Ootoman Empire (Zoryans Institute, Special Reprots : No 4); Levon Marashlian Nationalism and socialism in the Armenian revolutionary movement (1887-1912); Anahide Ter Minassian Transcaucasia : Nationalism and Social Change-Essays in the History of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia (East European Ser: No 2); Ronald Suny (Editor) Armenian victories at Khznavous and Sardarabad on May 23, 1918 : and program for re-establishment of independent and neutral state of Armenia; Arthur A. Ayvazian The Khanate of Erevan Under Qajar Rule : 1795-1828 (Persian Studies Series, No. 13); George A. Bournoutian A History of the Armenian People : Prehistory to 1500 Ad Vol 1 Turkish Armenia; Henry F. Tozer Geographical names according to Urartian texts; Igoâr Mikhæailovich Dëiìakonov History of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, Dashnaktsutiun, 1890-1924; Hrach® Tasnapetean Medieval Armenian Culture; Dr. H. Markarian Conference on American Culture; Armenian Costumes Through the Centuries New Approaches to Medieval Armenian Language and Literature (Dutch Studies in Armenian Language and Literature ; 3); J.J.S. Weitenberg (Editor)

Please do so. As a matter of fact, I would love to see here (not in this thread, however) someone who may make the case for the Armenian Apostolic Church. Maybe then, he can return home the prodigal son.

quote:Originally posted by gamavor: it doesn't matter that he was not affiliated with the Armenian Church Given Armenian Church’s Ecumenical activism, that shouldn’t be a concern, am I right?

LOL... Edward, you have misunderstood the picture. I think by referring to 14 billion francs, you are referring to the estimate presented by the Armenian Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 as compensation for the estimated loses resulted from the Genocide. That amount doesn't reflect the accrued interest rates, inflation, deflation, etc. The appropriately adjusted amount based on that estimate would be something that Turkey would be in no position whatsoever to settle, even if it sells its entire state property, I suspect.

quote:Originally posted by gamavor: Matthew 22:21 - They said, "Caesar's." Then he said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." You might've noticed that I like quoting the same passage in this forum, too. But I am sure that Rushdoony was also aware of it. By the way, some place I read that he is not opposed to the separation of Church and State, he opposes the separation of the government from God. But I know too little about his doctrine and him to bring arguments in his defense. However, one thing is evident that we are "too small of puppies to bark at him." One possible explanation may be his answer in the courtroom about the creation of the earth desribed in the Eulogy by his son. [ September 04, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

An interesting one: Publisher's Foreword: Evangelicalism By Rev. R. J. Rushdoony Evangelicalism is a beautiful word that has come into a little disrepute because of its misuse in recent years. Early in the 20th century, a movement arose calling itself fundamentalism. Very early, the Arminian wing gained control, stressed certain views strongly, and became known as the "fighting fundamentalists." While not Reformed, they were zealous and effective, much hated for their successes. After World War II, great segments of this movement drifted into compromises, especially on inerrancy, and called themselves evangelicals. They waged war on fundamentalism, and also often on Cornelius Van Til and his presuppositionalism. The notable institution for evangelicals is Fuller Seminary, at war against Biblical inerrancy, and the Rev. Billy Graham, with his congenial spirit of compromise. The heart of this new evangelicalism can be seen in the Fuller Seminary position on the Bible. Professor Donald A. Hagner, in Theology News & Notes, June, 1998, held that "it is hard to imagine anything more debilitating to the work of a Biblical scholar than a priori insistence on inerrancy" (p. 7). This new evangelicalism sees its future better based on the critical premise of modernism than on the historic foundations of the Christian Faith. It sees orthodoxy as imposing alien, non-scholarly premises on Christian scholarship whereas the premises of modernism are supposedly scientific and valid. It will not admit that all starting points are a priori acts of faith, and that no scholarship is possible without them. The question is rather this: Do we begin with God or man, with the word according to God or the word according to man? The new evangelicalism begins with man, not with God. In so doing, it ignores man's fallen state. Certainly Dr. Hagner never mentions nor considers it. Yet the Biblical Faith requires it. Is man a fallen sinner or a capable scholar and judge over God and his word? Dr. Hagner sees no question of competency, but the Bible presupposes it. The new evangelicalism is at odds with the Reformation and often in open sympathy with St. Thomas Aquinas and his rationalism. This should not surprise us. Rationalism is too much a part of evangelicalism. Dr. Hagner is concerned with "the credibility of the evangelical perspective in the larger intellectual world" (p. 8). But is it our calling to please that "large intellectual world" or our Almighty God and Redeemer? As a young man, I recall being told of an aging modernist scholar who in his younger days had held he was as good a fundamentalist as any! Claims are cheap; affirmations must be yea, yea--not a vague, compromising word. In due time, these new "evangelicals" will discard the term as having served its purpose. It is our duty to uphold the Faith, not the popular, nor the noted. The days of these compromisers are numbered because God is God. One report lists only eleven Christian colleges, universities, or seminaries as still maintaining inerrancy. So much the worse for the rest of them. Christendom has more than once seen the faithful almost disappear, but the true Faith survives and revives. Will you? http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/98oct/Rush...gelicalism.html

I will let Rushdoony himself reply to the previous allegations. (Condensed from "This Independent Republic"1) The idea of sphere law is basic to Christian orthodoxy and to an understanding of Western history. The concept is also termed sphere sovereignty, not an altogether accurate designation, since sovereignty is not ascribed to the spheres but to God and His law. Moreover, the term sphere sovereignty is a modern one, owing its central philosophical formulation to Abraham Kuyper and its great development to Herman Dooyeweerd.2 The historical and theological origins, however, are much older and are of vast significance to our history. In ancient history, the Tower of Babel stands as the best witness to man's virtually universal faith.3 The unity of life was asserted, the unity of god or gods and man, of divine and human, so that man's total life, religious and political, was under the power of this unified divine-human order, against which there was no appeal. The sole exception to this was ancient Israel when faithful to the Lord. The priestly and kingly offices were strictly separated, although without separating religious responsibilities from the king. In apostasy, the state sought this union of powers in pagan cults. This unity, however, was forbidden to the human order; only in the Messiah were the priestly and royal offices, common to pagan monarchs, to be united. The development of Judaism, however, represented the apotheosis of this unity, so that, as Christ, representing the incarnation and transcendental focus of this unity, came onto the scene, He clashed at once with a hierarchy which saw the challenge of His presence. The hope of the Jews had become a world order governed by themselves as God's chosen people, with the Messiah, where accepted by a particular party within the state, seen as subservient to this hope. The coming of Christ was thus a challenge to the truly totalitarian world of antiquity. The Caesars recognized the challenge and fought it savagely and bitterly, and lost.4 With Athanasius and Augustine, the faith triumphed that there can be no confusion between the human and the divine orders. The history of the Christian era has been largely the struggle in some sense to reestablish the divine and unitary state, the Tower of Babel bond of heaven and earth, as against the Christian sundering of that bond. In the West, the Holy Roman Empire quickly developed the same claim to represent total order, and its one-power theory led it to claim "apostolic" rights over the church. Against this, in terms of the Christian faith, there was the bulwark of Augustinian and Gelasian affirmations of the two-power theory, i.e., church and state, both under God. Later, however, Pope Innocent III abandoned this concept in favor of the one power idea, the church as the divine-human bond of heaven and earth, the kingdom of God on earth, though various factors within the church paved the way for the development of sphere law and the integrity of creaturely activity. The Reformation, while challenging the one-power concept of Innocentine faith, and of the state, was also a continuation of the new sense of priesthood being developed by the Tertiaries. Significantly, also, Augustine was a major influence on both Luther and Calvin. With respect to sphere law, Calvin at three major points fashioned the doctrines of a new world order: 1. Calvinism denied that the kingdom of God is to be equated with the church. Instead, wherever God reigns, there is the kingdom and God should reign everywhere. Hence, man can serve God everywhere, and the kingdom of God includes every area of life, and every institution which obeys His commandments. 2. Calvinism, both in terms of this concept of the kingdom and in terms especially of justification by faith, which relates man directly to God, asserted the priesthood of all believers. Thus, man is as fully a priest of God at his business desk and cobbler's bench, when he faithfully obeys God, as is any ordained man in the pulpit. He has direct access to God, and serves God everywhere. Hence, the glory of the closed church meant for Protestantism that the institution and building were there for worship, but not needed for access constantly to God, Who heard men everywhere. Every sphere of life is an area of priesthood and a place of nearness to God. Similarly, man under God is king or vicegerent of creation, called to exercise dominion over creation by godly exploitation, exploration, knowledge, and activity. Again, he is a prophet, called upon to interpret creation in terms of the Word of God. 3. This led to a third factor, not immediately recognized but steadily asserting itself. In view of this doctrine of the spheres, and the kingdom, neither church nor state has any right to rule over the spheres, since each is directly under God and equally in the kingdom. It is Christ Who is the mediator, and the only mediator, and no institution, order, or person can interfere between God and man. Interventionism is a pretension to deity, a claim to powers of mediation and to divine government, and hence is inadmissible. Medieval feudalism, whatever its weaknesses, still had the Christian virtue of asserting against total government the limitation of powers and the responsible, contractual or feudal nature of power. It was thus a forerunner of true federalism. To this inheritance was added the Protestant concept. The independence of the spheres was an interdependence in life and activity but an independence in terms of human authority. It meant for society a necessary division of powers in institutional and sphere activity: in civil government (as developed in the United States, executive, legislative, and judicial branches, all under a constitution which presupposes a higher law), in the church (minister, session or board, members, church synods and conferences, creeds, Bible), in education (the development in the United States of trustees, a new concept and derived from church lay rule), and in other realms a like division. Man, being a sinner, needs checks and balances. Man, being in the kingdom and a priest, serves God everywhere. Every area has its own law-sphere, and every area its own powers as well as God-imposed restraints on its powers. The unity of these activities and spheres is not in any one of them, in man, or in the whole, but is transcendental; it is in God only. Man experiences the spheres as unity, but he sins if he seeks to unify them under his government. Thus, no institution or sphere, nor man himself, individually or collectively, can claim to be the source or the mediator of unity and authority. Totalitarianism, civil or ecclesiastical, claims institutional divinity and authority. The sources of American liberty are deeply rooted in this faith and cannot long survive apart from it. The U. S. Constitution had a severe conception of the limitation of powers, and most present federal activity is in violation of the express power doctrine of the Constitution. Instead of being rootless, American history is deeply rooted and hence hostile to the empty forms of traditionalism. Its emphasis on localism and development within context are aspects of this respect for sphere law, or, from a theological point of view, for the priesthood of all believers. __________ 1 Condensed from chapter 11, "Sphere Laws" in R. J. Rushdoony, This Independent Republic (Nutley, NJ: The Craig Press, 1964). Ross House Books will be republishing this book in 2001. 2 For this development, see Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1961); Evan Runner in Christian Perspectives 1961 (Hamilton, Ontario: Guardian Publishing Co., 1961), 188; Herman Dooyeweerd, A New Critique of Theoretical Thought (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 19531958), 4v. 3 See Eric Burroughs, "Some Cosmological Patterns in Babylonian Religion," in S. H. Hooke, ed., The Labyrinth, Further Studies in the Relation between Myth and Ritual in the Ancient World (London: SPCK, 1935), 4370; and Andre Parrot, The Tower of Babel (New York: Philosophical Library, 1955). 4 Ethelbert Stauffer, Christ and the Caesars (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1955). http://www.chalcedonreport.com/html/0701_0...701_0801CR.html