Arpa Posted January 26, 2004 Report Share Posted January 26, 2004 United Press International January 23, 2004 Friday 13:45 PM Eastern Time Many Turks become Christians ISTANBUL, Turkey (UPI) Some 35,000 Turks converted from Islam to Christianity last year,with most joining evangelical congregations the newspaper, "Milliet," reports. If true, this would amount to a mass movement, considering Christians make up only 0.2 percent of Turkey's 68 million population. "This is news to me," said the Rev. Holger Nollmann, the German Protestant pastor in Istanbul. However, Ihsan Ozbek, president of the Council of Independent Protestant congregations, said more and more Turks were turning toward Christianity. "However, given the Islamic environment in which we live, most Turks coming to our congregations do not wish to make waves." The German protestant news service Idea reported most converts are descendants of Orthodox Christians who ostensibly became Muslims to avoid being killed in Turkey's 1914-22 genocide of its Armenian minority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel4hope Posted January 26, 2004 Report Share Posted January 26, 2004 wow that is big news... ive heard many stories that most of the turks nowadays are of Armenian deceendt because during the genocide many were taken and converted into islam and made slaves or what not, and some were taken in and disguised to avoid death....I would not be surprised, because when you look back into history, you see that the turkish polulation was rather small and they never har a permanent residence or land....im not one hundred percent sure, but I was taught in Armenian school that Turks were of gypsy descendt, and they were nomadic tribes that grew and later began to conquer land in the middle east...i wonder how they gained their massive population? (compared to the fact that their populaion was smaller before the genocide). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpa Posted January 26, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2004 Dear angel, I was just signing on as you posted the above. The reason is to warn us to take these kind of news with a grain of salt. Alongside this item there is another more detailed one in which it all but alludes to that this may be a overly inflated Turkish propaganda yo show Europe how religiously tolerant they are. Otherwise I hope every closet Armenian comes out and make thesmelves heard. Be they Orthodox, Evangelical, Catholic or even Mormon. The other article also mentions that whereas at one time 20% were Christian (meaning Armenian), today it is only 0.2%. 20 % today would add up to about 15 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel4hope Posted January 26, 2004 Report Share Posted January 26, 2004 ahhh i understand now, sorry for the ignorance on my behalf...all is clear thanx arpa! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpa Posted January 26, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2004 (edited) ahhh i understand now, sorry for the ignorance on my behalf...all is clear thanx arpa! No apologies necessary. You're right. May so called Turks of today were Christian Aremnians a short time ago. Some may still be even today (what I meant by "closet Armenians"). I think many Turks are embarassed of their primitive Islamic religion and given the chance they would convert, if only to integrate with Christian Europe. Plus when they adopted Islam way back when it was because the humanistic and charitable message of Chrsitianity did not fit their warlike character. Islam did fit their warlike character while Christianity made us even more submissive and slavelike. It didn't have to, it did not make the French submissive and slavish, neither did it the Germans. However, it may be that we were submissive and slavish to begin with and Christianity acted as another excuse for us to not defend ourselves and our homeland. That may partially answer your question as to how a handful of "nomadic gypsies" could defeat us and take our lands and lives. Edited January 26, 2004 by Arpa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted January 26, 2004 Report Share Posted January 26, 2004 but I was taught in Armenian school that Turks were of gypsy descendt Ahem - may we have a word with your teachers? j/k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted January 26, 2004 Report Share Posted January 26, 2004 Ahem - may we have a word with your teachers? j/k However, it may be that we aere submissive and slavish to begin with and Christianity acted as another excuse for us to no defend ourselves and our homeland. That may partially answer your question as to how a handful of "nomadic gypsies" could defeat us and take our lands and lives. Arpa, I totally agree that turks are nomadic gypsies. What I disagree about is that, we have always been slavish and submissive. In our history there are numerous examples of Armenians being great worriers. The only difference is that they rarely fought for their own interests, or you may interpret it the other way around - they too often fought for their own personal interests successfully. Look at today Diaspora. No matter how the world perceives the Armenian community, our Diaspora as some kind of "body" sucks. On the other hand many Armenians made it, be it financially or otherwise. But lets go back to the original topic. I even don't think that Christianity made us weak. This is an interesting passage from a book that I strongly recomend "Between Heaven and Earth" by Giovanni Guaita - conversation with His Holiness Karekin I "In 451, the same year as the Council of Chalcedon, the King of Kings of the Masdean Persian convened a meeting of the Armenian princes. At that time, they were allies in all of the battles that they fought against the barbarians from the northern Caucasus; Prince Vartan had even saved the king's life. So the King said to the Armenians, "How can you, so valiant and courageous, follow Jesus, who was so weak that He could not even defend Himself and get away from a few Jews?" The Armenians were stunned; "How do you know that story?" He answered, "I have ordered my Mazdean priests, the magi, to read your Scriptures to me". Then the youngest of the Armenian princes who, among others was named Karekin, retorted, "Your Majesty, why did you not ask your magi to continue reading? You would have seen that Jesus, who was crucified, came back to life!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted January 26, 2004 Report Share Posted January 26, 2004 Any Hemshinli converting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted January 26, 2004 Report Share Posted January 26, 2004 Some contend christianism is an emasculating religion. While this may be true of christianism in its modern (I would say modernist) and degenerate forms (evangelism, mormonism...), it is not of Orthodoxy. Orthodox Christianism is virile in its essence, it is a religion of sacrifice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurgen Posted January 26, 2004 Report Share Posted January 26, 2004 Maybe we can get nasty to convert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpa Posted January 26, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2004 Some contend christianism is an emasculating religion. While this may be true of christianism in its modern (I would say modernist) and degenerate forms (evangelism, mormonism...), it is not of Orthodoxy. Orthodox Christianism is virile in its essence, it is a religion of sacrifice. Virile? Virile as in raping everyones' mothers? Axel, you shoot from the hip. In Jesus' words; "Forgive them for they know not what they do(say)". Please elaborate. Which Orthodox are you talking about? The Russians? The Greek? Look what a sorry state they are! Did the Orthodox Russians save us when we needed them most? A handful of so called nomadic Turks sent them back with their tails tucked between their legs. What kind of empire do the Greeks have? They can't even protect Cyprus! And then there is the Armenian Orthodox. Armenian what?? They can't even hold on to what little they have. Please elaborate and document what the Orthodox have done!! Axel, you have been defending Chrsitianity as long as I have known you. Is there a reason? Are you really that confident in your (un)chosen faith? Or are you trying to justify just because you are not so confident? You never see me try and justify our religion. I can make even fun of it just becasue I am confident in it. Have you ever seen a Moslem make fun of their religion? Why??? Remember Salman Rushdie? Why was he so persecuted? Is it because Islam is such a flimsy faith that even one joke, one criticism would destroy it, caue the bottom fall off? Also read what I have to say about "conversion of Nasty". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 By virile I do not mean imperial or agressive. I mean aristocratic in opposition to bourgeois, disdainful of earthly matters. Christianism is a liberation from the slavery of ego and matter. Such liberation requires great spiritual strength, heroism, I would say. A People that has developed such force through faith is infinitely superior to others. It is resilient to all changes, to all epochs, it stays aloft above the tide of history to find its way into Eternity. PS: Russians? they survived the tatar invasions, they repelled the teutonic knights, they defeated Napoleon and Hitler. true, they fell prey to bolshevism but among the reasons why is the fact a large portion of their intelligentsia had gone away from Orthodoxy and espoused western thought. if Russians take the path of Orthodoxy, they will they resurrect. Otherwise they will vanish in the globalized cattle both anarcho-capitalism and socialism are engineered to produce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 By virile I do not mean imperial or agressive. However, "imperialistic" and "aggressive" are the exact words to use to describe the Russian, Greek, Georgian and Armenian "national" churches. They are imperialistic in that they consider themselves to be the sole representatives of God within their national realms, and are aggressive in the way they seek to eliminate any other Christian religious groups who intrude into their realm. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 Plus, they actively proselytize in remote places such as Africa, Eastern Europe and Bahamas. They are so aggressive that they continue to build churches and teach their native languages. The constant display of disgrace is usage of their native languages in church services. They don't intermarry with others because they are imperial. They even surpass in their aggressiveness British Empire. Steve's friend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 Gamavor, you do not know the meaning of the word "imperialistic". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 (edited) You are right. I don't. But I know that it may be used in different contexts and the one (context) that you picked up is not the most appropriate one. They are imperialistic in that they consider themselves to be the sole representatives of God within their national realms, and are aggressive in the way they seek to eliminate any other Christian religious groups who intrude into their realm. Why should any other Christian religious group seek to intrude our realm. Do we intrude Protestant, Catholic or Anglican realms. No. We just love you as you are! Edited January 28, 2004 by gamavor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 "imperialistic" and "aggressive" sorry for the gallicisms ("aggressive" in french takes only one "g"), english is not my native tongue. I do agree with gamavor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 You are right. I don't. But I know that it may be used in different contexts and the one (context) that you picked up is not the most appropriate one. Why should any other Christian religious group seek to intrude our realm. Do we intrude Protestant, Catholic or Anglican realms. No. We just love you as you are! It is appropriate. The churches I mentioned have an ideology of imperialism. Imperialism has nothing directly to do with "empires", nor is it anything to do with intruding into other peoples "empires". It is to do with a person or (in this case) a Church considering itself to have sole authority and jurisdiction in a particular region. That church considers that no other authority in that region is above it, and no outside body or individual has authority over it. A Protestant Church cannot be imperialistic because it against the ideology of Protestantism. Nor can the Anglican church, since it is not its own master (the Queen of England is its head). The Roman Catholic Church is imperialistic in nature: the region that it considers itself to have sole authority over is the whole Christian world. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 sorry for the gallicisms ("aggressive" in french takes only one "g"), english is not my native tongue. I thought so. Only a Frenchie could say "the globalized cattle both anarcho-capitalism and socialism are engineered to produce" while keeping a straight face! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 (edited) You are twisting things up. When I mentionned imperialism or aggressiveness, I was refering to the expansionist character of certain nations and their attempt at subjugating others. I thought so. [smile.gif] Only a Frenchie could say "the globalized cattle both anarcho-capitalism and socialism are engineered to produce" while keeping a straight face! Please spare us your francophobia My ideas are not overly popular here in France btw. as for my mentality, it doesn't have much to do with that of froggies. Edited January 28, 2004 by axel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 It is to do with a person or (in this case) a Church considering itself to have sole authority and jurisdiction in a particular region. That church considers that no other authority in that region is above it, and no outside body or individual has authority over it. Yes, but you are missing something very important. They spread their authority over their flock. In the same time no Christian would have ever been denied a service on the grounds that he/she is not Baptized in the Armenian church. No Christian was ever denied a confession or sacrament because of his origin or beliefs. Protestant ideology is the most reactionist, and before saying anything just go to any Southern Baptist Moron's Church and hear how they are The New Zion and the children of Israel. In moments like this I'm tempted to ask them what happened with their Christianity when they were eliminating savegely the native Indians of America, or the slavery, or the Vietnam war and so-forth. Not to speak about the New-Borns, that have had all types of Sado-Mazo, tried all kinds of drugs, commited all kinds of evil and crimes and when they reach their 30's and started looking for husband or wife, then they become New Born.....hypocraths, to come clean in the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 Yes, but you are missing something very important. They spread their authority over their flock. In the same time no Christian would have ever been denied a service on the grounds that he/she is not Baptized in the Armenian church. No Christian was ever denied a confession or sacrament because of his origin or beliefs. Protestant ideology is the most reactionist, and before saying anything just go to any Southern Baptist Moron's Church and hear how they are The New Zion and the children of Israel. But you are missing my point. That the Armenian Church (and their Russian, Georgian, and Greek counterparts) spreads its authority over its flock is obvious. But it does more than that - it claims a jealous authority over everyone in Armenia, whether Christian or not, whether Armenian Apostolic Christian or not. Church (same for the Russian, Georgian, and Greek churches) This is because of its imperialist ideology. Even the Catholic Church is not that avaricious. Protestant Churches are the exact opposite - they only claim authority over their own congregation. And, since the congregation IS the church hierarchy, this can lead to an inevitable fracturing into smaller Churches when theological disagreements occur. Though I doubt that your "Southern Baptist Moron's Church" would be counted as being a Protestant Church by most Protestants! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 Protestant Churches are the exact opposite - they only claim authority over their own congregation. ...hoping that their "own" congregation will grow by brainwashig new recruits through prosilityzing and stealing and recruitment from other congregations. But you are missing my point. That the Armenian Church (and their Russian, Georgian, and Greek counterparts) spreads its authority over its flock is obvious. But it does more than that - it claims a jealous authority over everyone in Armenia, whether Christian or not, whether Armenian Apostolic Christian or not. Church (same for the Russian, Georgian, and Greek churches) This is because of its imperialist ideology. Even the Catholic Church is not that avaricious. Have you heard of an Yezidy or Molokan in Armenia being forced to go to Armenian church, or have you heard of an instance where Armenian orthodox will surpress an Armenian from other confession (Catholic or Protestant). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted January 29, 2004 Report Share Posted January 29, 2004 ...hoping that their "own" congregation will grow by brainwashig new recruits through prosilityzing and stealing and recruitment from other congregations. Have you heard of an Yezidy or Molokan in Armenia being forced to go to Armenian church, or have you heard of an instance where Armenian orthodox will surpress an Armenian from other confession (Catholic or Protestant). Uhm, Gamavor, you just don't get it. For your first point, you are misidentifying a proper Protestant Church with an "Evangelical Church". Nor is any Protestant Church based on ethnicity (regardless of its name), hence the fact of Australian or Americans belonging to the Church of England, or Africans belonging to the Church of Scotland. For your second - I think that you will find that in the last 10 years the Molokan and Doukhoborsky population in Armenia has dropped to a fraction of its former figure. Yezidi don't count because they are non-Christian / non-Armenian. It is not about "forcing" people to go to church, it is about the Armenian National Church seeing itself as the jealous and covetous master / guardian / controller of all Christian religious (and to some extent non religious) activities in Armenia. Same for the other "National" Churches I mentioned, eg.: in Georgia, the importation or printing of any religious tract must be pre-approved by the Georgian Church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted January 29, 2004 Report Share Posted January 29, 2004 One has to make a distinction between the invisible Church and the visible one (which happens to be a national institution). Belonging to Orthodoxy is belonging to the former, not to the latter. Your attack with regard to the human institution is therefore irrelevant in the context of this discussion. Maybe the following text will help you see things from a non-secular viewpoint: http://www.westernorthodox.com/khomiakov (I don't endorse the site btw, I haven't looked at it) That said, what is the need for other so-called "christian" religious groups to operate in Armenia? Their very presence on our soil indicates that they do not consider the Armenian Church as truly christian or do they? If they do, what is their purpose then, sowing the seeds of further divisions? If they don't and are true christians themselves, why don't they say so and speak the truth as true followers of Christ instead of behaving hypocritically as they do? The truth is their attitude does not stem from truly christian considerations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.