MJ

It appears that Havik, as usual, enjoys the taste of his own droppings. Drip-drip-drip, yum-yum-yum he goes. And each time he drops, he goes "cock-a-doodle-doo."

Piggeti, Could you be more explicite, please?

quote:Originally posted by gamavor: MJ, They were Parthian by origin, but Armenian by nationality, just like today’s Diaspora Armenians are Armenians by origin and with different nationalities. Gamavor, I am aware of it.

quote:Originally posted by gamavor: In that stage, their actions have had predominantly revenges character, usually against "social" or "moral" injustices. Thank you.

quote:Originally posted by Harut: i heard that Grigor Lousavorich was not Armenian. Reportedly he has been Parthian, as well as the few generations of early Armenian Catholici.

quote:Originally posted by gamavor: With great pleasure! Serop, Kevork Chaush, Bedo Semerdjian. For the rest I need to get my "yerkaran". Could you also add the accomplishments of each of them, and time stamp their heroism, please?

quote:Originally posted by Hovik: MJ what makes you speak so insolently? The money that you are sending to Armenia? Don't be so proud of it I am fairly sure it smells.... The only thing that smells in here is your stinking you know what.

quote:Originally posted by mankun: this is from real personal observance and please do not take it serious or personal: We won't.

quote:Originally posted by Juggernaut: Yes MJ, we have no heroes, our religion is corrupt and our culture is simple savagery. LOL Glad to see you in a better mood.

Havik, Next time you desert your hen-coop, try to cock-a-doodle-doo about an egg, not a dropping.

Gamavore, Could you mention some of them? [ August 08, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

Agree.

I suspect "tenchakaghts" or "denchakghts" may be quite close. Or, simply, "tenchatsogh."

Simply to the signing of the Russo-Turkish Treaty in March, 1921.

The legend says his head has turned into a boar's head.

MUCH NOISE ABOUT NOTHING I don’t see how is the so-called Reconciliation Commission going to divide the Diaspora any more than it is already divided. If the discussion of the existing issues by four Armenian individuals not having a State and National mandate is going to threaten the Diaspora, or the “unity” of Diaspora, then the Diaspora itself is a Much Noise About Nothing. What may be the worst case scenario implied from those discussions? Under a maximum stretch it would be a joint declaration of 10 individuals, however high their respective profiles may be, and a set of recommendations to the two Republics for further formal discussions. If their recommendations are not acceptable, I assume they would not be accepted. At least, we can afford postponing the noise until their recommendations are made public. However, I suspect the issue at hands is not the Commission but the hidden, perhaps, distrust towards the State of Armenia. On such note, there is no reason to trust more the motives of Diaspora, including its most radical wings, than there is a reason to trust the State of Armenia. No one owns the agenda of the Genocide, and no one is in the position to forbid anybody to engage in whatever relations/discussions with the Turkish side. The opponents may only express their relevant opinion/will when the issue is in a stage of decisions, which cannot be made without open deliberations and which, I suspect, is not going to happen anytime soon. And thinking of the noise surrounding this initiative, I get only an impression that it is about the ownership of the Agenda of the Genocide. Finally, what is the suggestion? That there cannot be a Reconciliation between us and the Turks, and "our unborn son has to hate their unborn son" forever? [ August 07, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

quote:Originally posted by Aaron: Hi everybody i'm back from a well deserved break ! MJ, please elaborate that last line of yours I don't understand what your talking about. And how do you guys think karabagh helps zangezur? with agriculture, militarily or... Are you asking how has the rebellion helped to preserve Zangezure within the borders of Armenia? If yes, then if not for this rebellion, Zangezure would've been put under the Azerbaijani mandate along the same lines as the Nakhichevan has been. Nzhdeh has agreed to end the rebellion only after prolonged negotiations with the Kremlin through Alexander Miasnikyan, the Russians have agreed to let Zangezure stay within the borders of Armenia. The rebellion, and the proclamation of the Mountainous Republic have also other implications.

quote:Originally posted by dragon: Let me see what can you do. What can MJ do, after he throws away the ''stone'' of the past. To answer you [rhetoric]question, I don't know what I can do. I don't know if there is anything I would succeed in doing. But "I have seen what you have done, and I have experienced it. I don't want any more of it." Also, keep doing what you are doing. Some day you may need writing for the "odars" that MJ (allegoric "MJ")was Armenian. And it may make you feel good inside, especially that it will make them learn that you are Armenian, too.

For those who are not familiar with the history of the Republic of Mountainous Armenia, it was proclaimed by Garegin Nzhdeh in the result of the February 7th, 1921 rebellion of the Southern provinces of Armenia under the command of General Nzhdeh. In the result of this rebellion the Communist Regime was overthrown in Armenia for about six months - a unique event in the history of the Soviet Empire. This is one of the few heroic chapters in the entire Armenian history, and the only reason we ended up preserving Zangezure within the borders of Armenia is this rebellion. Additionally, this rebellion has huge legal implications in more serious issues.

quote:Originally posted by Kazza: I quite like people to worry for me It makes me feel nice and warm and cuddly inside, but tell me, WHY did you worry for me? That's the way I am raised, Kazza. Always worry about others.

Also check this: Arminianism The popular designation of the doctrines held by a party formed in the early days of the seventeenth century among the Calvinists of the Netherlands. The tendency of the human reason to revolt against Calvin's decretum horrible of predestination absolute and salvation and damnation meted out without regard to merit or demerit had aroused opposition in thinking minds from the first promulgation of the dogma; but whilst the fanatical wars of religion engrossed the attention of the masses, thinking minds were few and uninfluential. Calvin's reckless tenets had banished charity and mercy from the breasts of his followers and had everywhere aroused a fierce spirit of strife and bloodshed. It throve on paradoxes. This unnatural spirit could not survive a period of calm deliberation; a leader was sure to rise from the Calvinistic ranks who should point out the baneful corollaries of the Genevan creed, and be listened to. Such a leader was Jacobus Arminius (Jakob Hermanzoon), professor at the University of Leyden. He was born at Oudewater, South Holland, in 1560. While still an infant he lost his father, a cutler by trade, but through the generosity of strangers he was enabled to perfect his education at various universities at home and in foreign parts. In his twenty-second year the brilliant youth, whose talents were universally acknowledged, was sent to Geneva at the expense of the merchants' guild of Amsterdam, in order to imbibe genuine Calvinism at the feet of Beza. In 1586 he made a prolonged trip to Italy, which served to widen his mental horizon. Rumours beginning to spread that he had fallen under the influence of the Jesuits, Suarez and Bellarmin, he was recalled to Amsterdam, was pronounced orthodox, and appointed preacher of the reformed congregation. This office he filled with ever increasing renown for fifteen years. He had all the qualifications of a great pulpit orator -- a sonorous voice, a magnificent presence, and a thorough knowledge of Scripture, which he expounded in a clear and pleasing manner, dwelling with predilection on its ethical features and avoiding the polemical asperities characteristic of his age and sect. Yet his later years were fated to be embittered by polemical strife. The revolt against predestination absolute was taking shape. A professor at Leyden had already pronounced Calvin's God "a tyrant and an executioner". The learned layman Koornhert, in spite of ecclesiastical censures, continued to inveigh successfully against the dominant religion of Holland; and he had converted two ministers of Delft who had been chosen to argue him into submission, from the supralapsarian the infralapsarian position (See CALVINISM). The task of confounding the "heretic" was now entrusted to the disciple of Beza. Arminius addressed himself to the work; but he soon began to feel that Calvinism was repugnant to all the instincts of his soul. More and more clearly, as time went on, his writings and sermons taught the doctrines since associated with his name and after his death embodied by his disciples in the famous five propositions of the "Remonstrants". For the sake of reference we give the substance of the "Remonstrantie" as condensed by Professor Blok in his "History of the People of the Netherlands" (III, ch. xiv). "They (the Remonstrants) declared themselves opposed to the following doctrines: (1) Predestination in its defined form; as if God by an eternal and irrevocable decision had destined men, some to eternal bliss, others to eternal damnation, without any other law than His own pleasure. On the contrary, they thought that God by the same resolution wished to make all believers in Christ who persisted in their belief to the end blessed in Christ, and for His sake would only condemn the unconverted and unbelieving. (2) The doctrine of election according to which the chosen were counted as necessarily and unavoidably blessed and the outcasts necessarily and unavoidably lost. They urged the milder doctrine that Christ had died for all men, and that believers were only chosen in so far as they enjoyed he forgiveness of sins. (3) The doctrine that Christ died for the elect alone to make them blessed and no one else, ordained as mediator; on the contrary, they urged the possibility of salvation for others not elect. (4) The doctrine that the grace of God affects the elect only, while the reprobates cannot participate in this through their conversion, but only through their own strength. On the other hand, they, the 'Remonstrants', a name they received later from this, their 'Remonstrance', hold that man 'has no saving belief in himself, nor out of the force of his free-will', if he lives in sin, but that it is necessary that 'he be born again from God in Christ by means of His Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding and affection, or will and all strength', since without grace man cannot resist sin, although he cannot be counted as irresistible to grace. (5) The doctrine that he who had once attained true saving grace can never lose it and be wholly debased. They held, on the contrary, that whoever had received Christ's quickening spirit had thereby a strong weapon against Satan, sin, the world, and his own flesh, although they would not decide at the time without further investigation -- later they adopted this too -- whether he could not lose this power 'forsaking the beginning of his being, Christ.'" The ultra-Calvinists responded by drafting a "Contra-Remonstrantie" in the following seven articles: (1) God had, after Adam's fall, reserved a certain number of human beings from destruction, and, in His eternal and unchangeable counsel, destined them to salvation through Christ, leaving the others alone in accordance with His righteous judgement. (2) The elect are not only the good Christians who are adult, but also the "children of the covenant as long as they do not prove the contrary by their action". (3) In this election God does not consider belief or conversion, but acts simply according to His pleasure. (4) God sent His Son, Christ, for the salvation of the elect, and of them alone. (5) The Holy Ghost in the Scriptures and in preaching speaks to them alone, to instruct and to convert them. (6) The elect can never lose the true belief, but they obtain power of resistance through the Holy Ghost active in them. (7) This would not lead them to follow the dictates of the flesh carelessly, but, on the contrary, they would go God's way, considering that thereby alone could they be saved. The defection of the popular and gifted divine was a severe blow to the rigid Calvinists and started a quarrel which eventually threatened the existence of the United Netherlands. His reputation was greatly enhanced by his heroic fidelity to pastoral duty during the plague of 1602, and the following year, through the influence of admirers like Grotius, he was, notwithstanding fierce opposition, appointed professor of theology at the University of Leyden. His life as professor was an unintermittent quarrel with his stern Calvinistic colleague, Francis Gomarus, which divided the university and the country into two hostile camps. Arminius did not live to see the ultimate results of the controversy, as he died of consumption in his forty-ninth Year, October, 1609. Although the principles of Arminius were solemnly condemned in the great Calvinist Synod held at Dordrecht, or Dort, in 1618-19, and the "Remonstrant heresy" was rigorously suppressed during the lifetime of Maurice of Orange, nevertheless the Leyden professor had given to ultra-Calvinism a blow from which it never recovered. The controversy was soon transplanted to England where it roused the same dissensions as in Holland. In the following century it divided the early Methodists into two parties, the followers of John Wesley adhering to the Arminian view, those of George Whitefield professing the strict Calvinistic tenets. Brant, Historia Vitae Arminii (Amsterdam, 1724); revised and enlarged by Mosheim (Brunswick, 1725); Nichols, Life of Arminius (London, 1843); Arminii opera theologica (incomplete-Frankfurt, 1635) tr. Nichols (London, 1825-28, Buffalo, 1853); Blok, History of the People of the Netherlands; Cambridge Modern History, III, xix; Rogge in Realencyclop die für protestantische Theologie und Kirche; Grube in Kirchenlex.; Brandt, Historia reformationis Belgicae (La Haye, 1726); Graf, Beitrag zur Gesch. der Syn. von Dortrecht (Basle, 1825). JAMES F. LOUGHLIN Transcribed by Robert H. Sarkissian The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I Copyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton Company Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01740c.htm

Any time, Steve.

quote:Originally posted by Juggernaut: MJ, I am not going to be bothered posting replies to your comments anymore, its a waste of time, a commodity I have little of. In any event whatever I post is dismissed by yourself in the wrong assumption that I am minor and my opinion will change with time. I am not denying that it probably will, but so will everyone elses. Currently my views stand, and I can reply to your post but I am not going to be bothered because it will lead nowhere. Thereby I am also saving your time, though judging by the amount of posts you have made you probably are a proficient typer. I am only going to reply to your posts only if you specifically ask me to or if your post p!sses me off. Cheers. Yes... Feel at liberty not to reply. I will ask you to post only when I am up to babysitting next time. (Not pissed yet, I hope? ) For now, I am done with it till MosJan raises my haourly rate.

quote:Originally posted by Juggernaut: MJ, I dont understand the point of this statement, unless you take me to be insane or somethin. No, dear Juggernaut, don't worry. You are not insane, nor "something." Just a little bit hot headed.

"The Glory of Armenia"