as i see it - Pt. III

[axel]

A few quick remarks:

 

about Ivan's argument:

- First there is Aliosha's answer, then there's the Grand Inquisitor parabola which is a good synthesis of materialistic/atheist/socialist ideas. Ivan adheres to the Inquisitor's despicable views. But obviously the utopia of heaven on earth that characterizes chiliastic socialism or even the religion of progress is in contradiction with the preceding argument for both are ethically unacceptable. Berdyaev outlines some good arguments against the latter in the following article (see "The meaning of History" section)

 

- Dostoevsky is the one who formulated all the possible arguments one could devise against God. He was well aware of these issues. Yet he didn't end up as an atheist nor as a deist, did he? Was he intellectually weaker than Ara Baliozian?

 

- It is true that suffering of the innocent consitutes a fundamental problem. But one has to recall that evil in this world is not due to God's intention but to Man's free will (Man was created in the image of God). Does the existence of evil justify in itself that we do not attempt to do good? Obviously not. This may only serve as an argument to the hypocrite. In my own view, the question of a "perfect world" should not even be asked. Do we need the certainty of "heaven" or the fear of "hell" for doing good? Actually could we enjoy happiness in heaven (if we ever reach it) knowing that others would possibly "burn in hell" (which is related to one of the Grand Inquisitor's arguments)? I guess not. The "perfect world" problem is ill-formed. Maybe it does not exist and it doesn't matter anyway. Furthermore, as Dostoevsky rightfully states, I paraphrase, "even if one could prove me Christ is outside of the truth, I would prefer to stay with Him than follow this truth he is not part of". Good exists, we know in our heart what it is. Either we try to follow Christ or we do not. The choice is quite simple.

 

btw, Somewhat related to the question of evil are the discussions between Andrei Rublev and Theophanes in Tarkovsky's movie.

 

About generalizations being inevitable:

that is yet another falsehood/sophism to justify inexcusable judgements.

 

About areligiousness:

it is precisely areligiousness and lack of faith (which may exist among organized religions' followers, "l'habit ne fait pas le moine") that is at the root of evil. Crime commited in the name of religion (which may serve as a rallying flag for the ignorant and the naive) follows from the "The ends justify the means" postulate. Such a postulate is precisely the negation of religion for religion states that the path is what matters, not the end. Only the ideologist fanatic, who is prepared to sacrifice the life of others (and not his own) for his idea (whereas the true religious does exactly the opposite) may adhere to such a conception.

 

One last thing, Orthodoxy does not have to be held accountable for the deviances of catholicism or protestantism.

Edited October 27, 2003 by axel

[Sasun]

what's wrong with being areligious or even anti-organized religious...if you consider their history and add up all their crimes?

Well there is nothing wrong with that, it is up to the person. Also, there is nothing wrong with being religious, institutional or otherwise.

 

I don't think your view of organized religions is nearly close to reality. I mean, let's consider some of the calamities that we know from the history:

 

WWI - millions perished (no religion involved)

WWII - millions perished (no religion involved)

Hundreds of big and small wars in Europe and elsewhere over a piece of this and that (no religion involved)

Armenian Genocide - 1.5 million perished (no religion involved)

Jewish Holocaust - 6 million perished (no religion involved)

Other genocides of the 20th century - millions died (no religion involved)

Internal victims of Stalin's dictatorship - millions died (no religion involved)

Numerous revolutions in the world - many died (no religion involved)

Ordinary murders that happen on a daily basis (no religion involved)

etc etc etc...

We don't need to go into further details, I think you get my point.

 

For every person that died because of religious fanaticism or some kind of religious judgement there are thousands who died for no religious reason at all. Certainly many crimes happened in the name of God, and religious hatred and fanaticism are taking their toll as we speak. However, I challenge you to make a list of religious crimes and match my list above.

[Sasun]

Well obviously this distinction is only acceptable to a non-follower.

Axel, are you saying that God and religion are the same?

[axel]

Axel, are you saying that God and religion are the same?

Well to the follower, this is a tautology. One does not think in terms of "religion" or "organized religion". That is a secular view.

 

The Orthodox Christians share a common Faith and consider the Church to be the Body of Christ.

[Sasun]

Well to the follower, this is a tautology.

There are many followers, which one are you talking about?

 

One does not think in terms of "religion" or "organized religion".

 

Who is the one? Do you expect everyone to think exactly like you?

 

I can tell you this - all religions together are too small to be considered God. Any separate religion is even smaller. So if you think your particular religion is God then you are severely limiting the Infinite.

[axel]

There are many followers, which one are you talking about?

 

Any follower of any given religion considers his "religion" to be the absolute Truth.

 

you expect everyone to think exactly like you?

 

Certainly not. Think as you wish. Err as you wish too. Who am I to make statements? is that your point? well who are you to express a single opinion? Defending absolute relativism is no more acceptable than defending absolute truth. do you expect everyone to think exactly like you???? You should shut up right away. I will.

 

I can tell you this - all religions together are too small to be considered God. Any separate religion is even smaller. So if you think your particular religion is God then you are severely limiting the Infinite.

 

Well clearly you do not understand the spirit of christianism.

 

This is my last message on this board (some may breathe a sigh of relief). I feel like I am repeating the same stuff over and over again and always getting the same reactions. Not very encouraging to say the least.

 

ANS DO AS YOU PLEASE. YOU KNOW BETTER THAN ALL THE APOSTLES, THE PATRIARCHS, THE FATHERS, THE SAINTS, THE ASCETS, THE MARTYRS... AND GOD HIMSELF.

[Sasun]

Axel, I don't know the cause of your anger but you are the one who started this controversy. We are all sharing our views and disagree most of the time. There is always a nice way to express your disagreement.

[ara baliozian]

Tuesday, October 28, 2003

************************************

Ever since I stopped drinking the world has become a less friendly place. Now I know why substance abuse is so widespread. If it's not alcohol or drugs, it's religion, ideology, or self-serving illusions and prejudices …. People, it seems, need something to lean on because like cripples they have trouble standing up without the help of crutches. And they hate anyone who reminds them intoxicants come at a price which may range from bad health to war and massacre.

*

"Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted."

Comforted by God? Maybe.

By men? I am not so sure.

By fellow Armenians? Don't make me laugh!

*

You cannot pray to God if you worship Mammon.

*

Money not only talks but also sings like Pavarotti and plays the violin like Heifetz.

*

Execution differs from murder in that in murder, the murderer is judge, jury and executioner. In execution every step is handled by more or less disinterested and reluctant outsiders.

*

They tell me I criticize because I am a bitter and disappointed failure. But if all I wanted from life were success, I would get busy kissing asses and not kicking them.

*

The best arguments for Christianity are not to be found in the words of theologians but in the music of Bach.

*

My pen is my Stradivarius. I chose literature because I couldn't afford a Strad.

*

To be memorable, your words must have meaning as well as music, and with music even the commonplace becomes quotable.

*

On the radio today, several Canadian pundits were discussing the situation in Iraq. They all agreed that Bush was on the wrong path in thinking democracy can be transplanted on alien soil. Democracy, they agreed, must take root and grow on its own soil and evolve from its own culture; not foisted on people whose views on freedom, human rights, and moral values are different from ours. They went on in this vein for a while until a solitary voice who had been silent until then reminded them of Japan and Germany after World War II -- two countries successfully democratized by Americans.

It is cruel to the point of sadism to puncture with facts cherished theories by pundits with egos the size of the Twin Towers.

*

To discuss religion and to ignore the history of religions is like speculating in a dark room about a black hat that doesn't exist.

*

It is foolish to expect a simple but effective "Let's agree to disagree" from an Armenian. Nothing comes more naturally to victims of massacres than to engage in verbal overkill.

*

The worst kind of cowardice is to refuse knowing the other side of the story.

*

Sometimes originality also consists in bringing together two cliches that have not met before.

*

"I paint with my prick," Renoir once said. Perhaps the aim of all art is connection and penetration.

*

My goal: to outline a map of the Armenian consciousness so that every Armenian may be allowed to know where he stands.

*

Here are some useful rules for writers:

Speak to your reader. But if you want to write a letter, make it a telegram.

+

The best way to be original is being yourself. Originality cannot be willed. Originality that is willed is worse than plagiarism.

~

There is merit in consciously breaking rules. There is no merit in not knowing them.

^

Avoid descriptions. If you say "he fell in love with her," no need to say she was beautiful; because even if she is ugly, in his eyes, she is the most desirable being in the world.

[ara baliozian]

I don't think your view of organized religions is nearly close to reality. I mean, let's consider some of the calamities that we know from the history:

 

WWI - millions perished (no religion involved)

WWII - millions perished (no religion involved)

Hundreds of big and small wars in Europe and elsewhere over a piece of this and that (no religion involved)

Armenian Genocide - 1.5 million perished (no religion involved)

Jewish Holocaust - 6 million perished (no religion involved)

Other genocides of the 20th century - millions died (no religion involved)

Internal victims of Stalin's dictatorship - millions died (no religion involved)

Numerous revolutions in the world - many died (no religion involved)

Ordinary murders that happen on a daily basis (no religion involved)

etc etc etc...

We don't need to go into further details, I think you get my point.

 

For every person that died because of religious fanaticism or some kind of religious judgement there are thousands who died for no religious reason at all. Certainly many crimes happened in the name of God, and religious hatred and fanaticism are taking their toll as we speak. However, I challenge you to make a list of religious crimes and match my list above.

Sasun:

if we define a religion as a closed system of thought, what you say is not accurate. Bolshevism, Nazism, pan-Turkism....were all closed systems of thought....some of our massacres were even organized by mullahs in the name of allah...

[ara baliozian]

Well to the follower, this is a tautology. One does not think in terms of "religion" or "organized religion". That is a secular view.

to the believer (in a closed system of thought)

everything has an answer

and the answer is always infallible.

including the murder of innocent civilians in the name of God....

[ara baliozian]

Furthermore, as Dostoevsky rightfully states, I paraphrase, "even if one could prove me Christ is outside of the truth, I would prefer to stay with Him than follow this truth he is not part of". of catholicism or protestantism.

Marx once said "I am not a Marxist."

Christ never said i am not a christian,

but was he?

as an atheist i am more than willing to worship Christ

but not the paraphernalia of doctrines that masquerades as christianity.....

[sev-mard]

What is called christian now is a far cry from the doctrines of the said christ. I imagine Jesus was a man with divine trappings preaching to the people. What 'religion' has become today is probably not as he would have seen it.

[Sasun]

if we define a religion as a closed system of thought, what you say is not accurate. Bolshevism, Nazism, pan-Turkism....were all closed systems of thought....some of our massacres were even organized by mullahs in the name of allah...

Ara, why do you have to define religion as something that it is not? Religion is religion, nothing more and nothing less. Only from you I have heard that Bolshevism, Nazism, pan-Turkism could be defined as religion. Please, give religions some credit, after all they all teach the message of peace. You are speaking against all close systems of thought. Well, religion is not necessarily a closed system of thought, and a crazy ideology is a totally different thing than religion. It also depends on what religion you have in mind.

[sev-mard]

*

The worst kind of cowardice is to refuse knowing the other side of the story.

 

I like this one here...

[Sasun]

On the radio today, several Canadian pundits were discussing the situation in Iraq. They all agreed that Bush was on the wrong path in thinking democracy can be transplanted on alien soil. Democracy, they agreed, must take root and grow on its own soil and evolve from its own culture; not foisted on people whose views on freedom, human rights, and moral values are different from ours. They went on in this vein for a while until a solitary voice who had been silent until then reminded them of Japan and Germany after World War II -- two countries successfully democratized by Americans.

It is cruel to the point of sadism to puncture with facts cherished theories by pundits with egos the size of the Twin Towers.

 

I think there is an important difference here: domocratization of Germany and Japan has been largely carried by themselves, sure America has been helpful (let's not forget that culturally rooted undemocratic phenomena such as high profile bribery are still present in Japan). Germany has mostly followed the path of other European countries. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not exactly examples of American democratization.

 

As far as Iraq is concerned, it is nothing like pre-war Germany and Japan. And the American role in Iraq vs. WWII is quite different. Isn't it clear that the US is being the aggressor, not the benevolent champion of democracy? One can debate endlessly about this but the majority of Iraqis have become increasingly disillusioned of American promises of establishment of normalcy and democratization. Democracy (whatever is offered to Iraq) cannot be forced upon.

Edited October 28, 2003 by Sasun

[sev-mard]

The best arguments for Christianity are not to be found in the words of theologians but in the music of Bach.

Would you care to share some insight on this statement for me? Enlighten a brother...

 

 

Thanks

[Arpa]

ANS DO AS YOU PLEASE. YOU KNOW BETTER THAN ALL THE APOSTLES, THE PATRIARCHS, THE FATHERS, THE SAINTS, THE ASCETS, THE MARTYRS... AND GOD HIMSELF.

As much as I hate to participate in this debate particularly under this subject topic and religion, I must ask you.

Axel, must you always be so insulting, I mean insult one's intelligence?

Perhaps you could tell us what kind of electric power all those above personages used to run their computers.

You mean they knew more than you and I?

You mean they knew how big the universe was, how big the Earth was, that they knnew that Earth revolved around the sun and not visa versa, that they knew that the moon was not made of blue cheese. If that were the case than the price of blue cheese would have plummetted, whether you know it or not we went to the moon in 1969 to be exact. You mean those above could fly to the moon rather than howl at it every time it was full and beat on drums to repel the beast that was causing the eclipse.

 

Get real will you!

Let me ask you again. What is your agenda and purpose preaching religion to us? Why do you care whether we believe or not, or what we believe?

You have not made one contribution in culture, literature, history etc. Why are you so obssessed and blinded by religion?

[ara baliozian]

Wednesday, October 29, 2003

*******************************

I don't trust people who ask simple questions whose answers they pretend not to know - questions like:

What do you mean by common sense? Or human rights? Or anti-Semitisim? More often than not such people are driven by perverse agendas that justify criminal conduct.

(See below.)

*

To be Christian does not mean to be a doormat, a reader reminds me. Yes, of course. But neither does it mean to be a muddy boot.

*

The first and most important requirement of a great Armenian writer is that he be dead in his thirties - preferably murdered by a tyrannical regime.

*

You can invest 30 pieces of silver, but you can only wear a crown of thorns.

*

The membership of our political parties has dwindled to such a degree that any day now they will be representing only the lunatic fringe.

*

A man of faith, when he speaks in the name of his belief system, cannot be wrong even when he is mean, nasty, narrow, dogmatic, authoritarian, cruel, sadistic and bloodthirsty.

*

Where Jews are there will also be anti-Semites.

Anti-Semitisim exist because Jews exist.

Anti-Semitism is a creation of the Jews.

And now let us consider the following parallel propositions.

Where there are victims, there will be rapists and murderers.

Rape and murder exist because victims exist.

Rapists and murderers are creations of victims.

Eliminate victims and you will no longer have rape and murder.

It follows, eliminate Jews and we will have no more anti-Semitism.

Or, in the words of our Red Sultan:

"The only way to solve the Armenian Question

is to get rid of the Armenians."

*

The criminal mind is predictable because it is primitive.

Or, you don't have to study the law to know the law of the jungle.

[ara baliozian]

Ara, why do you have to define religion as something that it is not? Religion is religion, nothing more and nothing less.

Sasun:

again, you seem to think i am changing the rules of our exchange by introducing outlandish definitions. religions and ideologies are closed systems of thought. which means they don't recognize dialogue as a legitimate tool of inquiry. The scriptures or Marx, or Lenin's works provide all the answers and anyone who disagrees is a deviationist and a reactionary.

sorry, i did not initiate this kind of talk.

It's been in the intellectual market place for decades.

it is one reason why our political parties cannot engage in dialogue: they are closed systems of thoughts, breeding ground for dogmatism, intolerance, and ultimately paralysis.

[ara baliozian]

Would you care to share some insight on this statement for me? Enlighten a brother...

 

 

Thanks

dear brother:

the best insight is to be gained by checking into a church and listening to an organist play Bach's Choral Preludes or buying a CD of the B-minor Mass....

Bach's faith is the kind that penetrates the very depths of one's soul. It lacerates the heart....

[ara baliozian]

I think there is an important difference here: domocratization of Germany and Japan has been largely carried by themselves, sure America has been helpful (let's not forget that culturally rooted undemocratic phenomena such as high profile bribery are still present in Japan). Germany has mostly followed the path of other European countries. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not exactly examples of American democratization.

 

As far as Iraq is concerned, it is nothing like pre-war Germany and Japan. And the American role in Iraq vs. WWII is quite different. Isn't it clear that the US is being the aggressor, not the benevolent champion of democracy? One can debate endlessly about this but the majority of Iraqis have become increasingly disillusioned of American promises of establishment of normalcy and democratization. Democracy (whatever is offered to Iraq) cannot be forced upon.

Sasus:

every case or instance in history is unique.

if we are to enhance our understanding, we must generalize

otherwise we end up with an accumulation of facts with no end in sight.

i reject your anti-americanism and pro-arabism.

but to go into any more details would mean sinking into a swamp of arguments with again no light at the end of the tunnel.

japan is corrupt because of bribes, etc.

this kind of statement implies that the Middle East is anti-bribe.

come, come. surely, you must know better than that.

the US as aggressor?

The entire arab world is anti-Jewish, anti-american, anti-infidel....

and pro-terrorism!

the only reason that have not exterminated the West is that they are technically challenged. and thank god for that...if god exists and has any use for our thanks....

[ara baliozian]

sorry, i don't know why i keep misspelling your name -- i write sasus instead of sasun. it is not intentionally done....

[Sip]

sorry, i don't know why i keep misspelling your name -- i write sasus instead of sasun. it is not intentionally done....

Sounded to me like you were subliminally telling him to shut up just kidding.

[Sasun]

Sasus:

every case or instance in history is unique.

if we are to enhance our understanding, we must generalize

otherwise we end up with an accumulation of facts with no end in sight.

i reject your anti-americanism and pro-arabism.

but to go into any more details would mean sinking into a swamp of arguments with again no light at the end of the tunnel.

japan is corrupt because of bribes, etc.

this kind of statement implies that the Middle East is anti-bribe.

come, come. surely, you must know better than that.

the US as aggressor?

The entire arab world is anti-Jewish, anti-american, anti-infidel....

and pro-terrorism!

the only reason that have not exterminated the West is that they are technically challenged. and thank god for that...if god exists and has any use for our thanks....

Ara, where did you get that I am anti-American or pro-Arab? Both are not true. I am simply stating the facts: did or did not America attack Iraq? If your answer is no, then you can say that the US is not the aggressor. If it is yes, then I don't see how it is not the aggressor. I think this is a very important distinction. And I don't buy the WMD argument.

I am not saying Arabs are not corrupt. But pre-war Japan and Germany were way too different than Iraq. They were ingaged in world domination, while Iraq was simply ingaged in small scale power projection and was blamed as a threat to the world which it was not. Yes it did aggress Quwait before and was kicked out, but nothing more than that.

 

I am trying to be objective. Sure, we all generalize or else it would be a cumbersome detailed endless discussion. But in my view your generalizations are too far from reality and contradict basic facts.

 

The entire arab world is anti-Jewish, anti-american, anti-infidel....

and pro-terrorism!

the only reason that have not exterminated the West is that they are technically challenged.

 

I doubt that they would want to exterminate the West, but sure they would want to dominate. That's the nature of politics. Methods may differ. Look at the US - it has the technical and financial capability to dominate the world (to a degree), and it does try and succed to do so. Of course, this is not done in a brutal way, methods have changed, now it is the economic dominance with less violence compared to the past.

Why has the US been defying UN? Because it is capable of doing it.

[Sasun]

sorry, i don't know why i keep misspelling your name -- i write sasus instead of sasun. it is not intentionally done....

No problem