Cyprus-Forum.com

[The Cypriot]

You originally thought Greek Orthodox meant belonging to the Church of Greece. I can show you your previous post that clearly implies this.

I am fully aware that being "Greek Orthodox" doesn't mean belonging to the Church of Greece. But most people won't appreciate the distinction. Many people, many Cypriots, don't even realise the Cypriot Orthodox Church is autocephalous.

Once I pointed out that it doesn't, you then stated that 'Greek Orthodox' is a misnomer. However, the term would only cause confusion to someone who does not know what the term 'Greek Orthodox' refers to, i.e. the ignorant.

Most people in the world are ignorant and probably assume Greek Orthodox does refer to the Church of Greece.

Precisely, the Italians needed a language to bind itself together. There was no identity in being 'Roman' or speaking Latin. The important distinction you are missing is that Koine was the language of the Greeks and being Greek was a national identity.

I'm not at all certain there was such a perception in the ancient world. The "Greeks" were a loose grouping of city states which spoke similar dialects and shared certain religious beliefs. You only have to look at Spartan and Athenian society to see they had very little in common culturally. Only when exposed to an alien threat, eg. the Persians, did they come together in any meaningful way. Or when they were conquered by Alexander.

Otherwise they were mostly at loggerheads. This idea of national identity was grafted on well after the event. It's what modern nations do to bind their people together by creating a common mythology for them to identify with. It's a bit like standardising the language. It happened a lot in the 18th and 19th centuries and modern Greece was no exception.

I disagree. The Greeks have always maintained a distinct identity and language since time immemorial

No they didn't. They spoke different dialects and the city states were often at loggerheads. Only when they were exposed to a foreign threat did they come together.

and I don't think that would have changed, whether the Ottomans came or not. There is no evidence for this.

The evidence is the Persians; which is what united the city states of Athens, Sparta et al against a common enemy.

[Simon]

I am fully aware that being "Greek Orthodox" doesn't mean belonging to the Church of Greece. But most people won't appreciate the distinction. Many people, many Cypriots, don't even realise the Cypriot Orthodox Church is autocephalous.

So why, when Oracle wrote:

Whilst the Devil (aka Turkey) exists, the Greek Orthodox Church is there to exorcise it!

Did you reply with:

Please note, Archbishop Chrysostomos heads the Cypriot Orthodox Church

?????

Oracle mentioned the Greek Orthodox Church, which is correct. You attempted to correct her with "Cypriot Orthodox Church". Hence you were clearly confused by the terminology, it would at least appear.

Further, when I stated that the Cypriot Church is an ancient Greek Orthodox Church, you replied with:

So ancient that it predates the Greek orthodox church.

You were clearly confusing the Church of Greece and the Greek Orthodox Church. I'm glad that I have now cleared this confusion up for you.

I think you'll find that most people do not really care about the distinction of the Church of Cyprus, and if they do, then a little education to remove them from their ignorance wouldn't do them any harm. I don't think we should start a precedent of changing names because of people's ignorance.

Once I pointed out that it doesn't, you then stated that 'Greek Orthodox' is a misnomer. However, the term would only cause confusion to someone who does not know what the term 'Greek Orthodox' refers to, i.e. the ignorant.

Most people in the world are ignorant and probably assume Greek Orthodox does refer to the Church of Greece.

Like I said, most people probably don't care. Those that do, we can help educate them. We can tell them the Church of Cyprus was one of the first ancient Greek Orthodox Churches, well before the Church of Greece was established. Like I mentioned previously, Greece does not have the monopoly on the term "Greek". Many things regarded as Greek today did not come from today's Greece.

Precisely, the Italians needed a language to bind itself together. There was no identity in being 'Roman' or speaking Latin. The important distinction you are missing is that Koine was the language of the Greeks and being Greek was a national identity.

I'm not at all certain there was such a perception in the ancient world. The "Greeks" were a loose grouping of city states which spoke similar dialects and shared certain religious beliefs. You only have to look at Spartan and Athenian society to see they had very little in common culturally. Only when exposed to an alien threat, eg. the Persians, did they come together in any meaningful way. Or when they were conquered by Alexander.

Otherwise they were mostly at loggerheads. This idea of national identity was grafted on well after the event. It's what modern nations do to bind their people together by creating a common mythology for them to identify with. It's a bit like standardising the language. It happened a lot in the 18th and 19th centuries and modern Greece was no exception.

Of course there was a Greek identity. There is much evidence for it, and many references to it. The ancient Olympics is a perfect example. I'm not going to start posting from various sources proving a Greek identity, I'll leave that for you to research. Yes, ancient Greece was a group of rival city-states vying for power, but they all still identified as Greeks. If you are denying this then I suggest you take it up with the world's historians.

I disagree. The Greeks have always maintained a distinct identity and language since time immemorial

No they didn't. They spoke different dialects and the city states were often at loggerheads. Only when they were exposed to a foreign threat did they come together.

Yes they did. Different dialects does not mean a different language. They all spoke Greek dialects. The city states were at loggerheads because they wanted hegemony over the other Greeks, but that does not mean they never identified as Greeks. When faced with an external threat, the Greeks united. Remember, you can't judge what a nation is supposed to look like today, with what one may have looked like back then. You're talking about a completely different time.

and I don't think that would have changed, whether the Ottomans came or not. There is no evidence for this.

The evidence is the Persians; which is what united the city states of Athens, Sparta et al against a common enemy.

No, the Persians are not evidence. The Greeks have always been Greeks and speculating on what they may have become without external threats is just that, speculation. You could probably do the same with every nation on earth.

[EPSILON]

As one who has no beliefs in the supernatural , I nevertheless fully support any action by any group of Cypriots who are demanding their properties be returned and their places of worship respected .
The T/Cs have the same rights to their properties and their Mosques in the RoC .

Miltiades.can you explain to the forum the Greek word " Tourkosporos" I feel that you are the only one here to tranlate it in Turkish!!!!

[The Cypriot]

I am fully aware that being "Greek Orthodox" doesn't mean belonging to the Church of Greece. But most people won't appreciate the distinction. Many people, many Cypriots, don't even realise the Cypriot Orthodox Church is autocephalous.

So why, when Oracle wrote:

Whilst the Devil (aka Turkey) exists, the Greek Orthodox Church is there to exorcise it!

Did you reply with:

Please note, Archbishop Chrysostomos heads the Cypriot Orthodox Church

?????

Oracle mentioned the Greek Orthodox Church, which is correct. You attempted to correct her with "Cypriot Orthodox Church". Hence you were clearly confused by the terminology, it would at least appear.

Further, when I stated that the Cypriot Church is an ancient Greek Orthodox Church, you replied with:

So ancient that it predates the Greek orthodox church.

You're coming across as a dull, two-bit lawyer, eagerly trying to prove some largely irrelevant point of order. Any judge would take a dim view.

You were clearly confusing the Church of Greece and the Greek Orthodox Church. I'm glad that I have now cleared this confusion up for you.

And the jury would now think you're an annoying clever dick. (Actually, I suspect the jury is no longer paying attention to our exchange).

I think you'll find that most people do not really care about the distinction of the Church of Cyprus, and if they do, then a little education to remove them from their ignorance wouldn't do them any harm.

That's what I always do.

I don't think we should start a precedent of changing names because of people's ignorance.
Like I said, most people probably don't care. Those that do, we can help educate them. We can tell them the Church of Cyprus was one of the first ancient Greek Orthodox Churches, well before the Church of Greece was established. Like I mentioned previously, Greece does not have the monopoly on the term "Greek". Many things regarded as Greek today did not come from today's Greece.

That's a problem that causes confusion to the wider world and extends beyond just religion.

Of course there was a Greek identity. There is much evidence for it, and many references to it. The ancient Olympics is a perfect example. I'm not going to start posting from various sources proving a Greek identity, I'll leave that for you to research. Yes, ancient Greece was a group of rival city-states vying for power, but they all still identified as Greeks. If you are denying this then I suggest you take it up with the world's historians.

A modern nation's history is written in no small measure to help bind its people together, and give its citizens a sense of pride and self. Naturally Greek historians are likely to emphasise, and where necessary even forge a distinct ancient "Greek" identity for this purpose. Moreover, the western world's historians have had their own specific reasons to help propagate such an identity, they being interested in expounding a particularly euro-centric view of civilisation; again to give their public a sense of pride and self.

However, it's counter intuitive to believe that the citizens of city states, habitually fighting each other over many decades and rivals for centuries, thought they belonged to some homogeneous 'nation', thousands of years before the concept of nationhood was even constructed.

Yes they did. Different dialects does not mean a different language. They all spoke Greek dialects. The city states were at loggerheads because they wanted hegemony over the other Greeks, but that does not mean they never identified as Greeks. When faced with an external threat, the Greeks united. Remember, you can't judge what a nation is supposed to look like today, with what one may have looked like back then. You're talking about a completely different time.

Absolutely. Now you're making sense. There was no concept of nationhood in ancient times. There were cities and there were empires.

The Greeks have always been Greeks

You really have bought in to the whole mythology haven't you?

and speculating on what they may have become without external threats is just that, speculation. You could probably do the same with every nation on earth.

Of course you could. People are people and, given certain circumstances, will behave in certain ways. And external threats are what helps bind people (in modern times read 'nations') together.

Anyway, I'm bored of this.

You win, Simon. I plead guilty of having a different world view to yours.

[EPSILON]

I am fully aware that being "Greek Orthodox" doesn't mean belonging to the Church of Greece. But most people won't appreciate the distinction. Many people, many Cypriots, don't even realise the Cypriot Orthodox Church is autocephalous.

So why, when Oracle wrote:

Whilst the Devil (aka Turkey) exists, the Greek Orthodox Church is there to exorcise it!

Did you reply with:

Please note, Archbishop Chrysostomos heads the Cypriot Orthodox Church

?????

Oracle mentioned the Greek Orthodox Church, which is correct. You attempted to correct her with "Cypriot Orthodox Church". Hence you were clearly confused by the terminology, it would at least appear.

Further, when I stated that the Cypriot Church is an ancient Greek Orthodox Church, you replied with:

So ancient that it predates the Greek orthodox church.

You're coming across as a dull, two-bit lawyer, eagerly trying to prove some largely irrelevant point of order. Any judge would take a dim view.

You were clearly confusing the Church of Greece and the Greek Orthodox Church. I'm glad that I have now cleared this confusion up for you.

And the jury would now think you're an annoying clever dick. (Actually, I suspect the jury is no longer paying attention to our exchange).

I think you'll find that most people do not really care about the distinction of the Church of Cyprus, and if they do, then a little education to remove them from their ignorance wouldn't do them any harm.

That's what I always do.

I don't think we should start a precedent of changing names because of people's ignorance.
Like I said, most people probably don't care. Those that do, we can help educate them. We can tell them the Church of Cyprus was one of the first ancient Greek Orthodox Churches, well before the Church of Greece was established. Like I mentioned previously, Greece does not have the monopoly on the term "Greek". Many things regarded as Greek today did not come from today's Greece.

That's a problem that causes confusion to the wider world and extends beyond just religion.

Of course there was a Greek identity. There is much evidence for it, and many references to it. The ancient Olympics is a perfect example. I'm not going to start posting from various sources proving a Greek identity, I'll leave that for you to research. Yes, ancient Greece was a group of rival city-states vying for power, but they all still identified as Greeks. If you are denying this then I suggest you take it up with the world's historians.

A modern nation's history is written in no small measure to help bind its people together, and give its citizens a sense of pride and self. Naturally Greek historians are likely to emphasise, and where necessary even forge a distinct ancient "Greek" identity for this purpose. Moreover, the western world's historians have had their own specific reasons to help propagate such an identity, they being interested in expounding a particularly euro-centric view of civilisation; again to give their public a sense of pride and self.

However, its counter intuitive to believe that the citizens of city states, habitually fighting each other over many decades and rivals for centuries, thought they belonged to some homogeneous 'nation', thousands of years before the concept of nationhood was even constructed.

Yes they did. Different dialects does not mean a different language. They all spoke Greek dialects. The city states were at loggerheads because they wanted hegemony over the other Greeks, but that does not mean they never identified as Greeks. When faced with an external threat, the Greeks united. Remember, you can't judge what a nation is supposed to look like today, with what one may have looked like back then. You're talking about a completely different time.

Absolutely. Now you're making sense. There was no concept of nationhood in ancient times. There were cities and there were empires.

The Greeks have always been Greeks

You really have bought in to the whole mythology haven't you?

and speculating on what they may have become without external threats is just that, speculation. You could probably do the same with every nation on earth.

Of course you could. People are people and, given certain circumstances, will behave in certain ways. And external threats are what helps bind people (in modern times read 'nations') together.

Anyway, I'm bored of this.

You win, Simon. I plead guilty of having a different world view to yours.

My friend- if you want your childs and grand childs to survive in Cyprus with your culture, your language, your religion, your hapits, just put off the Vraka and put a Foustanella.Turks do not understand otherwise and will not do so for the next 100 years

[The Cypriot]

My friend- if you want your childs and grand childs to survive in Cyprus with your culture, your language, your religion, your hapits, just put off the Vraka and put a Foustanella.Turks do not understand otherwise and will not do so for the next 100 years

You're advising me to deny my Cypriot heritage - because the evil Turks want to deny me my Cypriot heritage? How does that work?

Don't get me wrong, it's a horrible situation we Cypriots found ourselves in. But your strategy means our sense of self dies - even before we do.

[EPSILON]

My friend- if you want your childs and grand childs to survive in Cyprus with your culture, your language, your religion, your hapits, just put off the Vraka and put a Foustanella.Turks do not understand otherwise and will not do so for the next 100 years

You're advising me to deny my Cypriot heritage - because the evil Turks want to deny me my Cypriot heritage? How does that work?

Don't get me wrong, it's a horrible situation we Cypriots found ourselves in. But your strategy means our sense of self dies - even before we do.

You just can entering in something which surviving 3500years, instead to be something which just created 35 years ago-think!!!

[Byron]

Well after reading all that crap about Latin, Italian and Koine, perhaps we can revert back to the original thread. In my mind the Greek Orthodox Church of Cyprus has done well into taking legal action. Why on earth has it taken them 35 years to act ?

[miltiades]

As one who has no beliefs in the supernatural , I nevertheless fully support any action by any group of Cypriots who are demanding their properties be returned and their places of worship respected .
The T/Cs have the same rights to their properties and their Mosques in the RoC .

Miltiades.can you explain to the forum the Greek word " Tourkosporos" I feel that you are the only one here to tranlate it in Turkish!!!!

You are a bloody disgrace to the Cyprus cause. Your signature says enough about you . Now do me a favour Poushtokalamara tche pienne na gamithis kolopedo.
I hope I translated that to your full satsfaction malaka.

[Simon]

The Cypriot wrote:

You're coming across as a dull, two-bit lawyer, eagerly trying to prove some largely irrelevant point of order. Any judge would take a dim view.

And you're coming across as a bit of an idiot who can't even follow a debate. The point I made was the point of my original post, which corrected your false perception of the Greek Orthodox Church. So it is very relevant as it is the whole reason I entered the debate. It is you who has turned the debate from my original point, into an argument about ancient Greek identity, the Romans and the Irish, which is irrelevant. If you had not tried to deny the obvious, I would not have posted what you said. Any judge would take a dim view of your irrelevancy, jumping from one issue to the next and denying the obvious.

Simon wrote:

You were clearly confusing the Church of Greece and the Greek Orthodox Church. I'm glad that I have now cleared this confusion up for you.

The Cypriot wrote:

And the jury would now think you're an annoying clever dick. (Actually, I suspect the jury is no longer paying attention to our exchange).

I wasn't aware that I was supposed to be trying to impress a judge and jury. If an "annoying clever dick" means correcting you, then I guess I'm guilty.

Simon wrote:

I think you'll find that most people do not really care about the distinction of the Church of Cyprus, and if they do, then a little education to remove them from their ignorance wouldn't do them any harm.

The Cypriot wrote:

That's what I always do.

It's what I do too, hence I came into this debate; to prevent the ignorance from spreading.

Simon wrote:

I don't think we should start a precedent of changing names because of people's ignorance.

Like I said, most people probably don't care. Those that do, we can help educate them. We can tell them the Church of Cyprus was one of the first ancient Greek Orthodox Churches, well before the Church of Greece was established. Like I mentioned previously, Greece does not have the monopoly on the term "Greek". Many things regarded as Greek today did not come from today's Greece.

Simon wrote:

Of course there was a Greek identity. There is much evidence for it, and many references to it. The ancient Olympics is a perfect example. I'm not going to start posting from various sources proving a Greek identity, I'll leave that for you to research. Yes, ancient Greece was a group of rival city-states vying for power, but they all still identified as Greeks. If you are denying this then I suggest you take it up with the world's historians.

The Cypriot wrote:

A modern nation's history is written in no small measure to help bind its people together, and give its citizens a sense of pride and self. Naturally Greek historians are likely to emphasise, and where necessary even forge a distinct ancient "Greek" identity for this purpose. Moreover, the western world's historians have had their own specific reasons to help propagate such an identity, they being interested in expounding a particularly euro-centric view of civilisation; again to give their public a sense of pride and self.

However, it's counter intuitive to believe that the citizens of city states, habitually fighting each other over many decades and rivals for centuries, thought they belonged to some homogeneous 'nation', thousands of years before the concept of nationhood was even constructed.

What absolute rubbish. So you're saying that the world's historians engaged in a conspiracy to manipulate history in order to propagate a Greek identity and European pride? You just sound like Get Real now. The European historians were well aware of ancient Greek history well before Greek Independence, so they certainly did not "make it up" later to form a Greek identity. Why would the Europeans even want to create some ancient Greek identity? The ancient city states would still be European whether they all believed themselves to be Greek or not, so it doesn't even make sense. We have had many threads about this already which have provided mountains of evidence testifying to the ancient Greek civilisation and identity. But if you want to disregard the world's historians and forge some conspiracy story, then don't let me stop you, just mind all the evidence.

There are many quotes from ancient Greeks testifying to the Greek identity. There were the ancient Olympic games. There is evidence in every major Museum of the world. Oh I forgot, it's all made up isn't it?

Simon wrote:

Yes they did. Different dialects does not mean a different language. They all spoke Greek dialects. The city states were at loggerheads because they wanted hegemony over the other Greeks, but that does not mean they never identified as Greeks. When faced with an external threat, the Greeks united. Remember, you can't judge what a nation is supposed to look like today, with what one may have looked like back then. You're talking about a completely different time.

The Cypriot wrote:

Absolutely. Now you're making sense. There was no concept of nationhood in ancient times. There were cities and there were empires.

There was no concept of what you regard as a 'nation'. But you see 'nation' does not only mean a recognised legal state. 'Nation' can also mean a body of people who share a common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, who typically inhabit a particular area or region. This certainly applied to the ancient Greeks. In that sense, there was a Greek nation.

Simon wrote:

The Greeks have always been Greeks

The Cypriot wrote:

You really have bought in to the whole mythology haven't you?

I think it is you that believes mythology and conspiracies. Let me guess, Bush was behind 9/11 right?

Simon wrote:

and speculating on what they may have become without external threats is just that, speculation. You could probably do the same with every nation on earth.

The Cypriot wrote:

Of course you could. People are people and, given certain circumstances, will behave in certain ways. And external threats are what helps bind people (in modern times read 'nations') together.

So if you can speculate with every nation, what is your point? Of course external threats with bind people together, but it's a big leap from that to saying that without an external threat, that group of people would cease to exist. It is baseless speculation.

The Cypriot wrote:

Anyway, I'm bored of this.

Normally happens when you find you have no argument.

The Cypriot wrote:

You win, Simon.

I never doubted it.

The Cypriot wrote:

I plead guilty of having a different world view to yours.

Then you're pleading guilty to the wrong offence. What you should be pleading guilty to is taking my original post off topic, denying your obvious confusion, and being a conspiracist.