ara baliozian Posted October 15, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2004 about cathedrals: the first christians prayed in catacombs. i suspect you will be the last man on earth who will suggest that their prayers were not heard because they did not enjoy the cover of a cathedral. most muslims pray in the middle of a desert. i am sure allah does not view desert-prayers are second-class. / ara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 15, 2004 Report Share Posted October 15, 2004 (edited) about cathedrals: the first christians prayed in catacombs. i suspect you will be the last man on earth who will suggest that their prayers were not heard because they did not enjoy the cover of a cathedral. most muslims pray in the middle of a desert. i am sure allah does not view desert-prayers are second-class. / ara style_images/master/snapback.png No Ara, I do not go to cathedrals to pray, neither I advocated that everyone should go to cathedrals to pray. You fail to realize that people are different, and have different ways and practices of spirituality. Some would like to go to cathedrals, some would not. Why are you trying to impose your own preferencese upon others? A lot of people need to be religious, there is nothing wrong with that. There is not a single standard for spirituality. You keep saying over and over again how much you dislike religion. But it is just you, your standards are good for you only. You do not have the same eyes as others. Therefore your approach to religion is in principle not different from the approach of a religious fanatic who might claim that everyone ought to go to cathedrals. If you don't understand this simple principle of human variaty in spiritual needs and preferences then you are really a dogmatic person. Edited October 15, 2004 by Sasun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 15, 2004 Report Share Posted October 15, 2004 Sasun: you ask some very "innocent" questions. but i shall answer them one by one, if i have not already answered them. the incomprehensible is, by definition, incomprehensible. which is why it cannot be understood. Not so. Something maybe incomprehensible today but comprehensible tomorrow. Or, something maybe incomprehensible to me but comprehensible to you. There is no rigid standard. If you can't understand something it is very wrong to conclude that you yourself will never be able to understand, and equally wrong to conclude that nobody understands it. the same applies to the invisible. when we try to describe the invisible, we try to make it visible. I disagree here too. A blind man doesn't see anything, but he may have faith in others who are not blind and can see. We the common folk are blind men, but some people do have vision to see what is invisible to us. I am not talking symbolism. There are real worlds that are invisible to us, yet we all can potentially develop a vision to see those worlds. All the various spiritual traditions of the world point to that direction, albeit sometimes it maybe vague. You are one of many people who is blind and believes that everyone else is also blind. That is not true although it is a common dilusion. I never claim that what I can't see others also can't see. It would seem like an insanely irrational claim. Yet most so called intellectuals are on this line of thinking. The bottomline is, there are certain spiritual practices that will enable you to see the seemingly invisible. For that one needs to open his "third eye", or the inner vision. This is not a fairy tale as many so called intellectuals would claim. Try and you will see, if you are not going to try then why talk about something you are far far away from. I call that ignorance. which is why "man cannot create a single worm but he has created 10,000 gods." because the invisible can assume as many shapes as there are men. style_images/master/snapback.png Man does not create gods, this notion is a common ignorance of the so called intellectuals. By the way, I have asked you so many questions that you haven't answered. My questions are simple and logical. If you can't answer simple logical questions then your writings can't be truthful. And now you just picked a question that seemed easy to answer. You still haven't said how you can claim with such certituded that churches and mosques will become museums, that religion will be considered a subject of study as psycholigical disorder, etc... Anyone can make any sorts of prophetic claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted October 15, 2004 Report Share Posted October 15, 2004 Well, if you surrender your money they will not kill you. But you would be left to keep your faith. Sure, killing for money is also very degrading to the human nature of the killer. However, the same killer does not care about your faith, and does not try to force you to change. style_images/master/snapback.png True, but if both the killer adn the killed agree that killing for money is less unhuman than killing for faith, this agreement elevates the "killing for money" to a higher level of evil than "killing for faith". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ara baliozian Posted October 17, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 Saturday, October 16, 2004 ********************************** One way to have a balanced view of yourself is by trying to see yourself through the eyes of your enemy. If most people hate doing that it may be because they are too infatuated with their own positive image of themselves and they dread the prospect of seeing the negative. What if the enemy makes a good case? * To be infatuated with one’s own image is the surest symptom of being a dupe to propaganda. * A reader writes: “How do you know there will come a time when churches and mosques will become museums? Are you a prophet?” No, I am not because I base my assertion on the past, on history and what is commonly known and accepted as fact. After all, is not the future an extension of the past? Consider the fate of Greek and Roman temples. Consider the fate of the 1001 churches of Ani. As recently as last year, 42 churches were closed down in the Detroit area. What happened to the mosques in Spain? And what will happen to the mosques in America when a weapon of mass destruction claims 100,000, perhaps even 1,000,000 victims, and the terrorist responsible for this holocaust is discovered to have found safe harbor in a mosque? * If, on the other hand, you assert that our religion, being superior to all others, is destined to shatter all historic precedents, I ask: “Are you saying that because that’s what you were told as a child or is it because you really think so?” # Sunday, October 17, 2004 ********************************* On the radio this morning, an interview with Jimmy Breslin, a well-known Irish-Catholic writer and the author of THE CHURCH THAT HAS FORGOTTEN CHRIST. When asked what he thought about good Catholics who believe in the Pope and go to church every Sunday, he replied: “They are sheep.” Next question: “You mean they can’t think for themselves?” “That’s right!” * Since I am in the business of exposing prejudices and fallacies, I am sometimes accused of having my share of them. If I do, I hope they are not those of a good Armenian or a good Christian, but those of an honest human being. * A good Armenian: Can anyone define him? It is not at all unusual for a good Armenian to be a bad Armenian in the eyes of another self-appointed good Armenian. The same could be said of a good Christian, a good Muslim, a good Protestant or a good Sunni. * Religion generates infidels. Where there are orthodoxies there will be heretics. And every ideology will have its share of dissidents, and sometimes the dissidents will be right and the ideologues dead wrong. * Where there are top dogs there will be underdogs. As an underdog of underdogs, or a double underdog, I don’t feel the need to identify myself with them. I am one of them. * Could an Armenian be a top dog in the Ottoman Empire or the Soviet Union without betraying not only a fraction of his Armenianism (however you care to define that label) but also his humanity? * The problem with labels is that they tend to reduce or even dehumanize the other. For an Armenian, the label Turk comes with a heavy burden of history, and we are all creatures of the past. But to be creatures of the past does not necessarily mean being its slaves. * When I wrote recently that a man does not need a cathedral in which to pray, a reader wrote: “How do you know? Why do you project your own predilections on others?” This reader may not be aware of the fact that it was the construction of a cathedral in Rome that split the Church into Catholics and Protestants, and this split was the cause of many wars, one of which lasted a hundred years. * Sometimes I feel like a Muslim among Christians, and like a giaour among jihadist Muslims. Some readers think what I say is so eccentric and odd that I might as well be an enemy of the people. I have every reason to suspect that these readers confuse spin and propaganda with fact and reality. Or, as Jimmy Breslin says, they think not like men but like sheep. They view the past and present, that is to say, reality, through the eyes of bishops, imams, and politicians. And the world continues to be in an unholy mess because people don’t trust their own judgment and prefer to accept the judgment of spinners and propagandists. But ignoring our judgment is also ignoring that which separates us from animals. * Propaganda dehumanizes. Political and religious leaders don’t say that because if they did, they would expose themselves as dehumanizers and the real enemies of mankind, and more precisely, wolves in shepherd’s clothing. # Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ara baliozian Posted October 18, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2004 Monday, October 18, 2004 *********************************** The human brain is designed to think, but more often than not, thinking is the last thing it does. * You cannot argue with City Hall, they say; neither can you argue with a bishop, or, for that matter, with a dogmatist, a fanatic, a monomaniac, a partisan, and in general, anyone with an axe to grind or has more power than you do. * You cannot argue with Turks either. Not that I have ever argued with one. But I have argued with Armenians. As a matter of fact, I have had many arguments with Armenians and I have lost all of them. Not only have I lost the arguments but also quite a few friends, not to say a fraction of my dignity. * Sometimes I ask myself: Why do I go on? And the only answer I can come with is that I don’t know. I have no idea why I continue to argue with my fellow Armenians. It must be the Turk in me. * But I know something today that I didn’t know before. Our side of the story is not the whole story. To think that it is, is to make the same mistake that Turks make when they think their side of the story is the whole story. I am a not implying truth is located somewhere in the middle. What I am trying to say is that, it is a mistake to think in any argument or conflict, one side is 100% right and the other 100% wrong. * You cannot have consensus without compromise, and consensus does not mean agreement but cooperation. This applies not only to Armeno-Turkish relations but also to Armeno-Armenian relations. * Our choice is between compromise and consensus on the one hand, and on the other, disagreement and feud to the end of time. * And now, let us pray: Our Father who art in heaven…. * And, if you are not big on prayer, let us reason together. Let us, for a change, use our brain for the purpose it was designed. # Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 You cannot argue with City Hall, they say; neither can you argue with a bishop, Actually you can argue with some bishops. And now, let us pray: Our Father who art in heaven…. * And, if you are not big on prayer, let us reason together. Let us, for a change, use our brain for the purpose it was designed. # style_images/master/snapback.png Are prayer and reasoning mutually exclusive? Can't you pray and also reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 (edited) A reader writes: “How do you know there will come a time when churches and mosques will become museums? Are you a prophet?” No, I am not because I base my assertion on the past, on history and what is commonly known and accepted as fact. After all, is not the future an extension of the past? Consider the fate of Greek and Roman temples. Consider the fate of the 1001 churches of Ani. As recently as last year, 42 churches were closed down in the Detroit area. What happened to the mosques in Spain? And what will happen to the mosques in America when a weapon of mass destruction claims 100,000, perhaps even 1,000,000 victims, and the terrorist responsible for this holocaust is discovered to have found safe harbor in a mosque? Greek and Roman temples have been replaced by churches. Churches in Ani do not exist for the simple reason that the city and its Christian population do not exist any more. The same could be said about mosques in Spain - there are not as many muslims there to be needing the mosques. I don't know about Detroit churches though - in this age of materialism people don't tend to attend churches as often. I have no comment on your last statement, no point about arguing a speculation about a supposed future event. History has been cyclical rather than monotonic, and often chaotic and disorderly. For that reason the past is not a good predictor of the future. Perhaps churches and mosques will be replaced by something else as temples have been replaced by churches. But man has always needed a spiritual practice, therefore religion, rites and rituals (hence churches) will likely remain in place although with different forms and names. But then I am not an expert in predicting the future If, on the other hand, you assert that our religion, being superior to all others, is destined to shatter all historic precedents, I ask: “Are you saying that because that’s what you were told as a child or is it because you really think so?” If this question is asked to the same reader, this reader is asking not to be confused with other readers. When I wrote recently that a man does not need a cathedral in which to pray, a reader wrote: “How do you know? Why do you project your own predilections on others?” This reader may not be aware of the fact that it was the construction of a cathedral in Rome that split the Church into Catholics and Protestants, and this split was the cause of many wars, one of which lasted a hundred years. What does it have to do with a man who has the spiritual need to go to a quiet cathedral and pray? Wars happened because of a certain cathedral in the past? So what? This man still needs a cathedral, and doesn't want any war. Am I missing something? Going forward, the same reader also asked you why you consider religiousness and theological belief as a psychological disorder. It was your prediction that time will come that these would be established as fields of psychological study. I believe you are not a psychologist, and you are saying you are not a prophet either. By the way, you said recently, to paraphrase you, that God cannot be known by man, but only approached to a certain extent. I hope you realize that this is a fine piece of theology, quite popular in several religious traditions. And if you persistently hold this view and deny other theologies then you would be a typical religious dogmatic. Am I right or not? But to be fair to you, you also say you don't know if God exists. That is one confused theology. Edited October 19, 2004 by Sasun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ara baliozian Posted October 19, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Tuesday, October 19, 2004 ********************************** Whenever I read a favorable comment on Turks by a Western observer, I think: “What the hell does he know?” But more and more frequently now, the question I ask next is: “What the hell do I know?” * Is there a single imperial nation on the face of the earth and in the history of mankind that can plead not guilty to the charge of massacre? * When we think in terms of right and wrong, good and evil, lies and truth, love and hate, we, in a way, assume to live in a black-and-white world. But what if the colors of reality are closer to shades of gray? * So far we have concentrated our efforts on exposing Turkish crimes and Western lies to such an extent that we have ignored our own. Which is where I come in…. But what if I too have been so busy exposing our own prejudices and misconceptions that I have had no time to see my own? As a matter of fact, it is by observing my own prejudices that I began to see our collective lies. * Born and raised in a Tashnak neighborhood, educated in a chezok (Catholic) school, now living in a predominantly Protestant country among Ramgavar relatives, I have been exposed to a veritable supermarket of conflicting ideologies, religions, propaganda and lies. * We may agree on the number of our victims, but we agree on nothing else. What the hell do we know? That is our question. # Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ara baliozian Posted October 19, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Greek and Roman temples have been replaced by churches. Churches in Ani do not exist for the simple reason that the city and its Christian population do not exist any more. The same could be said about mosques in Spain - there are not as many muslims there to be needing the mosques. I don't know about Detroit churches though - in this age of materialism people don't tend to attend churches as often. I have no comment on your last statement, no point about arguing a speculation about a supposed future event. History has been cyclical rather than monotonic, and often chaotic and disorderly. For that reason the past is not a good predictor of the future. Perhaps churches and mosques will be replaced by something else as temples have been replaced by churches. But man has always needed a spiritual practice, therefore religion, rites and rituals (hence churches) will likely remain in place although with different forms and names. But then I am not an expert in predicting the future If this question is asked to the same reader, this reader is asking not to be confused with other readers. What does it have to do with a man who has the spiritual need to go to a quiet cathedral and pray? Wars happened because of a certain cathedral in the past? So what? This man still needs a cathedral, and doesn't want any war. Am I missing something? Going forward, the same reader also asked you why you consider religiousness and theological belief as a psychological disorder. It was your prediction that time will come that these would be established as fields of psychological study. I believe you are not a psychologist, and you are saying you are not a prophet either. By the way, you said recently, to paraphrase you, that God cannot be known by man, but only approached to a certain extent. I hope you realize that this is a fine piece of theology, quite popular in several religious traditions. And if you persistently hold this view and deny other theologies then you would be a typical religious dogmatic. Am I right or not? But to be fair to you, you also say you don't know if God exists. That is one confused theology. style_images/master/snapback.png Sasun, you are not reading me. you are reading yourself. i have at no time denied man's spiritual needs. on the contrary, i have said and repeated that since time immemorial, man has felt the presence of an invisible and mysterious power. what i oppose is not this quest but its phony verbal manifestations that create conflicts, contradictions, heresies, infidels, wars, and massacres. / ara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 (edited) Sasun, you are not reading me. you are reading yourself. i have at no time denied man's spiritual needs. Neither do fanatics, but they will only allow their own kind of spirituality. You are not a fanatic, but you have your own understanding of spirituality and are not accepting other ways. Ara, having a cathedral IS a form of spiritulity, and you are not accepting it as a valid form. Having a religion IS a form of spirituality, yet you are keen to call it a psychological disorder. on the contrary, i have said and repeated that since time immemorial, man has felt the presence of an invisible and mysterious power. what i oppose is not this quest but its phony verbal manifestations that create conflicts, contradictions, heresies, infidels, wars, and massacres. / ara style_images/master/snapback.png You see, you are doing exactly the same thing as a religious bigot would do. You are characterizing certain religious practices as "phony verbal manifestations" or in other negative colors. Edited October 19, 2004 by Sasun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 You see, you are doing exactly the same thing as a religious bigot would do. You are characterizing certain religious practices as "phony verbal manifestations" or in other negative colors. style_images/master/snapback.png Sasun I agree with Ara, there is nothing wrong and some truth in what Ara is stating, with that statement and I think you would agree to a certain degree, religious institutions were and is not immune to phonies and on the contrary thru out human kinds history over and over it has been known abuse by so called invented “religious manifestations” to rob, cheat, abuse, start wars and so on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Sasun I agree with Ara, there is nothing wrong and some truth in what Ara is stating, with that statement and I think you would agree to a certain degree, religious institutions were and is not immune to phonies and on the contrary thru out human kinds history over and over it has been known abuse by so called invented “religious manifestations” to rob, cheat, abuse, start wars and so on style_images/master/snapback.png Are there phony religious people? Yes. Is religion itself phony? Absolutely no. That is my view point in a nutshell. Ara's viewpoint as far as I can understand is that, in a nutshell, religion is a mental sickness. Ed, do you agree with this? He said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Sasun jan, I think Ara means organized religion. I might be wrong though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Sasun jan, I think Ara means organized religion. I might be wrong though style_images/master/snapback.png Nairi jan, I never heard any kind word from Ara about religion, be it organized or not. He knows only one type of religion - that which creates massacres, one type of cathedral - that which splits religions and causes wars, one type of prayer - that which doesn't work, one type of faith - that which is blind, irrational, fanatical, etc... etc... etc... Organized religion is NOT a psychological disorder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ara baliozian Posted October 20, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 Wednesday, October 20, 2004 *********************************** In one of our weeklies I read today that an Orthodox Jew spat on an Armenian archbishop in Jerusalem, and the archbishop reacted by slapping the Jew. This minor incident epitomizes all the aberrations that at one time or another have been committed in the name of god or religion. * God may be good, but his role in the history of mankind has been ambiguous. If god were accountable to a separate set of superior gods, he would need a dream-team of lawyers. Either that or plead insanity. * Socrates was condemned to death because he was accused of not respecting the gods of Athens. Jesus was crucified because he claimed to be the Messiah. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake on religious grounds. Gandhi was assassinated by a fanatic Hindu. I could go on… * During the Soviet era, Ramgavars supported the regime in Yerevan and the Tashnaks opposed it. The regime is no longer with us but we continue to have two sets of churches, schools, community centers, weeklies, bosses and bishops where one would be more than enough. Our unspoken slogan: Bad blood first, solidarity last. * If our political bosses are ever impeached, they too will need a dream team. * Readers, who have programmed themselves to disagree with me, also program themselves to misunderstand everything I say, and when it comes to misunderstanding, the average Armenian can be as creative as a genius. * According to the boomerang school of Armenian criticism, if you are against something, you will be accused of that very same something. Because I have been critical of intolerance and dogmatism, I have been accused of both aberrations. * Religious faith is sometimes confused with religious insanity, which, unlike other forms of insanity, may raise an entire civilization against another. It is no exaggeration to say that religious insanity has claimed more victims than all other forms of insanity combined. * As for nationalism and idealism (two other forms of collective insanity): they too may lead to war and massacre, but only when they acquire religious fervor. Is not the fascist slogan "Mussolini ha sempre ragione" (Mussolini is always right) an echo of divine infallibility? # Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ara baliozian Posted October 20, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 (edited) Organized religion is NOT a psychological disorder. style_images/master/snapback.png that's exactly what organized religions are when they spit on others, torture, kill, massacre, and go to war.... faith is a wonderful gift and can be a source of great power and strength. one does not need a pope, a bishop, an imam to have faith, unless of course one is not a man but a sheep. faith existed long before any of these gentlemen [peopes, etc.] and will exist long after they have been consigned to the dustbin of history. i think Nairi understands my intent more than you do. from now on i will let her reply on my behalf. i think i have said all i need to say about readers who have programmed themselves to disagree in today's notes/comments. / ara Fixed quote - nairi Edited October 20, 2004 by nairi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 that's exactly what organized religions are when they spit on others, torture, kill, massacre, and go to war.... Are those things all that organized religions do? faith is a wonderful gift and can be a source of great power and strength. Faith can be different, your standard is not sufficient for others. one does not need a pope, a bishop, an imam to have faith, unless of course one is not a man but a sheep. This is the root of fanaticism. You call people who need a pope sheep. Others with your mindset may just slaughter such "sheep" because apparently they are not people in their eyes. Are you still failing to get my point? You can't tolerate popes and religious people who have faith in popes. Tolerance is not about tolerating only those who agree with you, or tolerating only those whose faith you understand or appreciate. Intolerance does not have to be expressed by the sword. If pen is your weapon then you have committed a verbal massacre by calling a large part of religious people sheep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 i think Nairi understands my intent more than you do. from now on i will let her reply on my behalf. i think i have said all i need to say about readers who have programmed themselves to disagree in today's notes/comments. / ara Fixed quote - nairi style_images/master/snapback.png What a convenient way to avoid uncomfortable questions! Why not honestly admit your limitations rather than call me "programmed to disagree". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 that's exactly what organized religions are when they spit on others, torture, kill, massacre, and go to war.... faith is a wonderful gift and can be a source of great power and strength. one does not need a pope, a bishop, an imam to have faith, unless of course one is not a man but a sheep. faith existed long before any of these gentlemen [peopes, etc.] and will exist long after they have been consigned to the dustbin of history. i think Nairi understands my intent more than you do. from now on i will let her reply on my behalf. i think i have said all i need to say about readers who have programmed themselves to disagree in today's notes/comments. / ara Fixed quote - nairi style_images/master/snapback.png Sometimes you do make worthy points, here an example. Unfortunitly most of your good points are concentrated in your treatment of religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 I'de like to add another thing. Sasun has been criticising Aras posts in a thread Ara titled "as I see it." This behavour is kind of contradictory with his decision of splitting a thread, because he claimed that the thread was about Chinmoy thoughts, so he created another thread where he dumped Chinmoys critics. Why is it OK to just do the exact same thing he condamed me of doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 I'de like to add another thing. Sasun has been criticising Aras posts in a thread Ara titled "as I see it." This behavour is kind of contradictory with his decision of splitting a thread, because he claimed that the thread was about Chinmoy thoughts, so he created another thread where he dumped Chinmoys critics. Why is it OK to just do the exact same thing he condamed me of doing? style_images/master/snapback.png I will have the displeasure to talk to you (as a moderator, not as a member) since you are again accusing me of something wrong. I am trying to have a discussion with Ara about the posts that are in this thread and nowhere else. How am I going to do it in a different thread? Your posts, on the other hand, where defamatory material about the person, copy pasting from another forum, not about the quotes I had been posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 i think Nairi understands my intent more than you do. from now on i will let her reply on my behalf. style_images/master/snapback.png Hey Nairi, would you mind answering all the questions that I have asked Ara in the last couple of months and he has not answered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 I will have the displeasure to talk to you (as a moderator, not as a member) since you are again accusing me of something wrong. I am trying to have a discussion with Ara about the posts that are in this thread and nowhere else. How am I going to do it in a different thread? Your posts, on the other hand, where defamatory material about the person, copy pasting from another forum, not about the quotes I had been posting. style_images/master/snapback.png The displeasure is shared. I hope you are not like this in real life really. For the interest of all the members here, Sasun has boycotted me since my exposition of his Guru and refuses to talk to me. If you want to be ignored by him, just expose the criminal Chinmoy, and you will be cursed. To my displeasure, I have to answer that what you claim is untrue. You titled the thread: "Sri Chinmoy criticism" which includes every possible criticism about the man, and my two posts for instance were clearly about what has been posted by you concerning the man, and yet they were dumbed in "Sri Chinmoy criticism." Both by the title of that thread and as well from the fact that my criticism over what he writes were as well dumped there, I have to conclude what your claim ins untrue. I have tried to shut, but I had to answer, because your religious fanatism is growing and growing more each day taking psychotic proportions, when it is at the point that I support Ara against a member, there must be something wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 I haven't read everything here, but the last reply: that's exactly what organized religions are when they spit on others, torture, kill, massacre, and go to war.... Notice "when". Which means that organized religions wouldn't be bad if they didn't promote that type of behavior. I think Ara's main point is that it's very hard to find organized religions that either don't engage in this type of behavior, or don't engage in brainwashing. I might be wrong. Ara merely said that he thinks that I understand his intent more than you do. Which doesn't mean that I do understand it as much as he would like me to Domino, please start a thread in Chit Chat about Sasun's moderating abilities if you want and we might respond. I've been accused of bias moderating and double-standards as well. I'm even willing to step out the team if there's a consensus... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts