Cyprus-Forum.com

[maewing]

Dear cypezokyli,

Thank you for your response. Please understand that I agree you have every right to believe what you want to believe, but as a baptized Orthodox (I assume you meant baptized Orthodox) you have made a promise concerning what you believe very explicitly. If you later change those beliefs, you forsake that baptism--by definition.

Regarding the Armenian Church, I have no idea in God's name why they believe they were the first Christian nation. Perhaps because, out of ignorance, they are attempting to predate the Byzantine date. That would only go to add credence to their heretical nature since they ignore the conversion of Cyprus in the Bible. The reason why that comes up on google is undoubtedly because an Armenian has written a book by that title and the site has received many hits. Let's use our brains. Was Armenian mentioned in the Bible?

Nonetheless, I will try to find a more definitive source for you. Trust me, I have a PhD from Princeton, historians make mistakes and lie, even from the best of places or in the most popular books. ("Guns, Germs and Steel" is an example of this.)

I have been hard on you I admit and I apologize. However, I guess I am shocked by the number of young Cypriots that I have met that seem to take such a Western view of their Church. I disagree wholeheartedly that the "only element of your history that competes with the West is before Christianity". That is not so! Christianity is from the East and without the East, there would be no Catholic Church or Protestant Church or any development thereof. If I compare the Greek Orthodox world with that of the Russian, I see such a stark difference in the zeal and belief of the younger generation. Few believers there (and there are 150 million of them) would disagree at all with what I have said.

Apart from this however, I want to convince you that it is not reverence for its age that makes your history great--though this is part of it in terms of spiritual tradition. My point was that the only reason Cyprus continues to exist as a free and Christian nation is because of the faith of enough Cypriots in God. Of course, you have the right not to believe that, but please provide an alternative explanation.

I attack the West because, being from the heart of it, I know the influences that detract from understanding the truth and from a Christian life that is free of contradiction. The West tells us that we need to accept all human behavior as "natural" and that we should do what we feel and not judge someone on that basis of their expression. If we then select whether we like Christianity (or the Church) based upon how closely it resembles this view, we will always see it as contradictory. That is because such a view (that all behavior is natural and therefore okay) is the antithesis of Christianity.

I could go on but I am not here to change your views through my argument but for us to discuss them. I would like to recommend something for you though. First, there is a book by a Cypriot "Mountain of Silence" that discusses the spiritual tradition of Cyprus from the point of view of a Cypriot educated and living in the West. Second, there is a book called "Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future" which discusses the danger of the "natural" view of humanity and beliefs as well as the view that all religion and beliefs are equal. Finally, if you send me an email address, I can sen you an article by a new martyr from Russia on why there is no such thing as Christianity (or religion for that matter) without the Church.

[cypezokyli]

dear maewing

thanks for the change of tone.

for first lets drop, the armenian subject. its not the point here.

but as a baptized Orthodox (I assume you meant baptized Orthodox) you have made a promise concerning what you believe very explicitly. If you later change those beliefs, you forsake that baptism--by definition.

for the baptised orthodox - I am, but as far as i am concerned , I didnot promise sth. bc you see i got baptised when i was 3-4 months old, and for that i am not sure. too young too remember. so you see i was in no position to make promises
so, if you agree with me, we could change that, and let people get baptised and give promises, only when they are mature enough to choose a religion. but that causes terror , in the ranks of the church doesnt ? i mean no religion influence on small kids, till they are old enough to decide for themselves.

on the other hand if you view it like me,as part of our tradition , then i wouldnt have any problem baptising my children. see - i am not "anti-christian". i dont mind continuing some customs, as i told you before.

However, I guess I am shocked by the number of young Cypriots that I have met that seem to take such a Western view of their Church. I disagree wholeheartedly that the "only element of your history that competes with the West is before Christianity". That is not so! Christianity is from the East and without the East, there would be no Catholic Church or Protestant Church or any development thereof. If I compare the Greek Orthodox world with that of the Russian, I see such a stark difference in the zeal and belief of the younger generation. Few believers there (and there are 150 million of them) would disagree at all with what I have said.

well, i am not shocked at all. and believe me, thats due to the fact that people get educated and begin to ask questions, and from the actions of the church itself.
i dont disagree that christianity, is the continuation of the jewish tradition / religion / mythology (you can choose)
what i am trying to say, is that we learn to be proud of our greek-orthodox history. and as far as i am concerned , the greek and the orthodox cannot be put together in the same word. they are fundamentally different.
that is why the greek-orthodox church, was against the performance of aristophanes (the "father of comedy") comedy : Pluto. and think about it, that when aristophanes wrote that play, christianity or the christian-church didnot exist not even as an idea. yet the "greek"-orthodox church, was against sth greek. why were they so afraid of aristophanes ?
could it be, that aristophanes had described the church - any church , and we dont want people getting such "western ideas" do we ?
this happened btw, not in some middle ages catholic country , but in greece in the year of the lord 2004!!!

Apart from this however, I want to convince you that it is not reverence for its age that makes your history great--though this is part of it in terms of spiritual tradition. My point was that the only reason Cyprus continues to exist as a free and Christian nation is because of the faith of enough Cypriots in God. Of course, you have the right not to believe that, but please provide an alternative explanation.

as far as i know the cypriot history, we were never "free".
the 14 years that we were "free", we had a priest ruling us, and well... lets put it that way: if he followed the rule "love each other", or the "good samarite" parable, with our tc brothers, perhaps we would have saved some more lives, and have a whole island and not a devided one.

moreover you forgot to mention that during the ottoman rule the church was ALLOWED to function. and it received a tax-free status. i dont disagree that the church did a lot to preserve the greek language during the ottoman rule...but let us not forget , that they enjoyed a privilaged status

I attack the West because, being from the heart of it, I know the influences that detract from understanding the truth and from a Christian life that is free of contradiction. The West tells us that we need to accept all human behavior as "natural" and that we should do what we feel and not judge someone on that basis of their expression. If we then select whether we like Christianity (or the Church) based upon how closely it resembles this view, we will always see it as contradictory. That is because such a view (that all behavior is natural and therefore okay) is the antithesis of Christianity.

perhaps we will misunderstand each other again...
so, i dont think that ALL human behavior is considered natural, simply bc the west has a legal system. therefore some human behavior is accepted ans some other is punished.
if you refer to things like the sexual human life, then i do support, the western ideas - and believe me, it doesnt matter that greeks still go to church, on that matter we all get more and more western

I could go on but I am not here to change your views through my argument but for us to discuss them. I would like to recommend something for you though. First, there is a book by a Cypriot "Mountain of Silence" that discusses the spiritual tradition of Cyprus from the point of view of a Cypriot educated and living in the West. Second, there is a book called "Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future" which discusses the danger of the "natural" view of humanity and beliefs as well as the view that all religion and beliefs are equal. Finally, if you send me an email address, I can sen you an article by a new martyr from Russia on why there is no such thing as Christianity (or religion for that matter) without the Church.

i never said that there can be a religion without a church. for obvious reasons.but it shouldnt be that way should it ? couldnt it be sth spiritual and personal?
but allow me to ask, could christianity exist with churches with less gold inside them ? i mean i know that churches should appear big, rich and great in order to create fear in the souls of the people, but i dont understand why we need so much gold in our churches, especially when people around the world are starving. and thats not, one or two churches here and there. they are a lot!! and as far as i know from jesus - which i admire if i am allowed to say - he didnt say, take the money of the poor people to make churches out of gold.
you asked for a contradiction. i just offered you one.

[maewing]

You make some good points and you raise some very deep issues. Let me just make a few comments.

Please correct me if I am wrong but it seems like your primary difficulty with Greek Orthodoxy is the hypocrisy of some clergy and how, when those clergy have influence on political affairs, they perhaps use the Church for their own agenda or use politics for the Church's agenda. Is that correct?

If so, this is a common critique that people make, not only of Orthodoxy but especially of Western Churches since, from the Pope on down to the pulpit, clergy have done this very thing. However, I guess my next question is whether you believe someone should assess the institution of the Church itself on the basis of the actions of a few individuals? For example, would you want someone exploring Orthodoxy to accept or reject it based upon their observation of your behavior?

Let me give an example that I used elsewhere in this chatroom to illustrate how this is fallacious. I have fundamental disagreements with Islam--not because I simply see the violent and often insane actions of its adherents and disagree or judge the religion--but because I have studied its basis and found it lacking. In viewing that basis, nonetheless, it makes their violent actions completely consistent with what is happening and of no surprise to me. In other words, if someone were to ask my opinion as to whether violent Muslims blowing themselves up for their god are good Muslims, I would say "yes, in my understanding of their religion." And most of those involved in this violence still living, would agree obviously.

For Christianity (or any other belief system) the same rule of analysis can be applied but with the opposite answer, since the religion has the opposite basis. If I were to see the actions of a so-called Christian committing violence, stealing money from the Church or using it for personal gain, engaging in (self-serving) politics, lying to the laity and so forth, in answering a question about whether they are a good Christian, I would say "no, not in my understanding of the religion". Herein lies the difference. Hence, if I want to explore whether that religion is for me, I have to ask, "of what is its basis and does this basis agree with what is in my heart?"

Moreover, if I want to disprove the religion (suggesting it as false), I need to start with its tenets--not with the human element which is clearly fallible--and see whether those tenets disagree with the basis of human nature and history. In the example comparing Islam and Christianity above, Christianity has a great historical basis (as you said in your last note, relating to Judaism and so forth)--we know the events existed. This can be contrasted with Islam wherein the Q'uran quotes not one identifiable historical event (only a small few convoluted from the Scriptures).

Here is a quote from a respected scholar which summarizes my point and I would say it is a good rule of thumb in application to choosing your beliefs: "You cannot disprove a belief unless you disprove its content. If you believe that you can disprove it any other way, by describing its origins or by describing its consequences, then you do not believe in reason."---LEON WIESELTIER

Now, with that established, let's consider your interesting comments about Greek and Orthodox being fundamentally different. YOU ARE RIGHT: Christian ideas permeate ethnicity, making it completely irrelevant at best, and detracting at its worst. I wasn't going to say that, but this is what I believe has been the fundamental problem with Greek Orthodoxy throughout its history (relative to say, Russian Orthodoxy). Greece's long history is replete with paganism and the story of Christianity and its spread within Greece (and the Greek-speaking world, which was Roman territory at the time) is a story of the Truth battling fiction and fable embodied in Greek mythology.

This is not to say that the Orthodox believe Greek "gods" did not exist--we believe demons do exist and can harm us--but rather that Orthodox believe they Greek gods are false gods and that Christ was the True God incarnate. This is motivation behind St Paul's letters to many of the churches in Greece (Thessaloniki, Ephesus, Corinth, etc.): that they should be steadfast and not revert to their historically pagan ways. This is different from Russia and the Slavic countries, which had very little ancient history prior to their king and queen choosing to have them converted to Orthodoxy in the 9th century. That is, the Russians started with a relatively clean slate--albeit also pagan--and had little previous convention to fight against. Hence, the Greek-Orthodoxy Church clergy were right to disagree with Aristophanes (I am not aware of the event) and that seems consistent with your point of view.

Finally, considering your first point on baptism, infant baptism has existed since the beginning of the Church. However, it is not right to view it as an endoctrination. Firstly, whole families were baptized in the Church tradition and, since Orthodoxy is the only church that preserves the Christian tradition intact, it makes sense for the Church to insist upon it. Secondly (and more importantly), baptism is there for your protection. You would not deny your child innoculations for measles or mumps, why would you deny them protection against the unseen evil of this world? Whether one believes in evil or not (though you can see it plainly enough in the actions of Islam) it does exist.

Lastly (and most importantly), if you do not feel baptism is a promise, it is probably because somewhere in the process, you were not asked to re-affirm the baptismal commitments. If that is the case, it is precisely because of the relaxed and Western attitude that many Greek Orthodox churches have taken (and not them alone). In other words, when you were 7 (or older) you were supposed to have your first confession and, at that time, you were asked whether you re-affirm the promises made for you (by your godparents and parents under baptism. Hence, if this process was not conducted, it was a departure from the tradition--not a result of baptism being an institution of endoctrination or for the sake of imposing the beliefs of others on you.

[cypezokyli]

dear maewing

some good points are indeed raised.

Please correct me if I am wrong but it seems like your primary difficulty with Greek Orthodoxy is the hypocrisy of some clergy and how, when those clergy have influence on political affairs, they perhaps use the Church for their own agenda or use politics for the Church's agenda. Is that correct?

If so, this is a common critique that people make, not only of Orthodoxy but especially of Western Churches since, from the Pope on down to the pulpit, clergy have done this very thing. However, I guess my next question is whether you believe someone should assess the institution of the Church itself on the basis of the actions of a few individuals? For example, would you want someone exploring Orthodoxy to accept or reject it based upon their observation of your behavior?

Let me give an example that I used elsewhere in this chatroom to illustrate how this is fallacious. I have fundamental disagreements with Islam--not because I simply see the violent and often insane actions of its adherents and disagree or judge the religion--but because I have studied its basis and found it lacking. In viewing that basis, nonetheless, it makes their violent actions completely consistent with what is happening and of no surprise to me. In other words, if someone were to ask my opinion as to whether violent Muslims blowing themselves up for their god are good Muslims, I would say "yes, in my understanding of their religion." And most of those involved in this violence still living, would agree obviously.

For Christianity (or any other belief system) the same rule of analysis can be applied but with the opposite answer, since the religion has the opposite basis. If I were to see the actions of a so-called Christian committing violence, stealing money from the Church or using it for personal gain, engaging in (self-serving) politics, lying to the laity and so forth, in answering a question about whether they are a good Christian, I would say "no, not in my understanding of the religion". Herein lies the difference. Hence, if I want to explore whether that religion is for me, I have to ask, "of what is its basis and does this basis agree with what is in my heart?"

Moreover, if I want to disprove the religion (suggesting it as false), I need to start with its tenets--not with the human element which is clearly fallible--and see whether those tenets disagree with the basis of human nature and history. In the example comparing Islam and Christianity above, Christianity has a great historical basis (as you said in your last note, relating to Judaism and so forth)--we know the events existed. This can be contrasted with Islam wherein the Q'uran quotes not one identifiable historical event (only a small few convoluted from the Scriptures).

Here is a quote from a respected scholar which summarizes my point and I would say it is a good rule of thumb in application to choosing your beliefs: "You cannot disprove a belief unless you disprove its content. If you believe that you can disprove it any other way, by describing its origins or by describing its consequences, then you do not believe in reason."---LEON WIESELTIER

i ve said that, my problem is with the church
and usually, its the head of the church - i am not referring to a priest here and there.
i havent read islam, but allow me to have my reservations that islam is a religion that sais to people : rap yourselfs with bombs and go blow up yourselfs. imho, this is just tuisted by some clergy who can use heavy indocrination , exploit faith and as a concequence take the rational thinking away from people. another good example why churches can be dangerous .
its more or less like the crusades. where the christian religion was tuisted, to make people believe that they were fighting for a "noble" cause, but the realities have showed us otherwise.
as for the comment of not judging the concsequences of sth.
as i said, i dont have a problem with people around me being christians or muslims. what i mind is when their actions have a consequence on me. so then i reserve my right to judge, the concequences.
for example. in theory marxism was a very noble theory. not to mention , if utopically apllied, quite christian -if i am allowed to say. but it is in practise that people suffered. i cannot sit around and say: well its content is good, why critisize it ? a newspaper in the US, even proposed that "the capital" should be burned!!
but it is good that u admit that the clergy, can make mistakes, and as a concequence i am allowed to critisize.

Now, with that established, let's consider your interesting comments about Greek and Orthodox being fundamentally different. YOU ARE RIGHT: Christian ideas permeate ethnicity, making it completely irrelevant at best, and detracting at its worst. I wasn't going to say that, but this is what I believe has been the fundamental problem with Greek Orthodoxy throughout its history (relative to say, Russian Orthodoxy). Greece's long history is replete with paganism and the story of Christianity and its spread within Greece (and the Greek-speaking world, which was Roman territory at the time) is a story of the Truth battling fiction and fable embodied in Greek mythology.

This is not to say that the Orthodox believe Greek "gods" did not exist--we believe demons do exist and can harm us--but rather that Orthodox believe they Greek gods are false gods and that Christ was the True God incarnate. This is motivation behind St Paul's letters to many of the churches in Greece (Thessaloniki, Ephesus, Corinth, etc.): that they should be steadfast and not revert to their historically pagan ways. This is different from Russia and the Slavic countries, which had very little ancient history prior to their king and queen choosing to have them converted to Orthodoxy in the 9th century. That is, the Russians started with a relatively clean slate--albeit also pagan--and had little previous convention to fight against. Hence, the Greek-Orthodoxy Church clergy were right to disagree with Aristophanes (I am not aware of the event) and that seems consistent with your point of view.

finally!!!!!
obviously u didnot receive a greek education maewing
its really great that u admit that. you cannot imagine how many hours i spend arguing for these things.
having that said, i would go for the greeks and not the christian beliefs. and by that i dont mean the 12 gods - who i really like btw , but the way the ancient greeks viewed life. perhaps thats why i have these western ideas stuck into my head

Finally, considering your first point on baptism, infant baptism has existed since the beginning of the Church. However, it is not right to view it as an endoctrination. Firstly, whole families were baptized in the Church tradition and, since Orthodoxy is the only church that preserves the Christian tradition intact, it makes sense for the Church to insist upon it. Secondly (and more importantly), baptism is there for your protection. You would not deny your child innoculations for measles or mumps, why would you deny them protection against the unseen evil of this world? Whether one believes in evil or not (though you can see it plainly enough in the actions of Islam) it does exist.

just like your historical arguments, you have every right to believe in them, but once again as far as i am concerned this is not a medical argument. i am sorry.
if you can get me a study that shows that those who got the "real" baptism are more "protected" from those who didnt then i ll believe you. its the ancient question of thomas i guess- but not only that. its how the egyptians, the chinese the inkas the greeks and the romans progressed. observation. trial and error - leads to discoveries. so thomas was no original in his question

Lastly (and most importantly), if you do not feel baptism is a promise, it is probably because somewhere in the process, you were not asked to re-affirm the baptismal commitments. If that is the case, it is precisely because of the relaxed and Western attitude that many Greek Orthodox churches have taken (and not them alone). In other words, when you were 7 (or older) you were supposed to have your first confession and, at that time, you were asked whether you re-affirm the promises made for you (by your godparents and parents under baptism. Hence, if this process was not conducted, it was a departure from the tradition--not a result of baptism being an institution of endoctrination or for the sake of imposing the beliefs of others on you.

i dont know for which church you are talking about , but in cyprus nobody reaffirms his belief. i dont even know if my grandparents did that! i could ask. but, i think that the ones who do things like that are the catholics. but i wouldnt put my hand in the fire for that.
moreover, as i said before - 7 years old is not old enough to reaffirm the "promises".
i ask you once again, would you accept no religious education till a person is mature enough to decide for himself - i.e. 18 years old.
i mean by law, we dont allow people to drink, drive, or have sex before they are 18 - things which are obviously not as important as god, so why dont we give the people the freedom of choise ?
it could very well be that orthodoxy is - as its name suggests - the "right" one...BUT i was no never given the posibility to choose between religions. and since i didnot have that choise - and i only learned one religion, then, this is by definition indocrination.
as for confession, i never did that - i think someone asked me when i was 14 or sth and i refused. completely disagree with the idea. i believe that if i really want to confess i can do it with god alone, i dont need a priest to mediate - not to mention forgive me!!!

[cypezokyli]

maewing i just read what you wrote in another thread, so let me short repost it :
http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.p ... 1&start=40

maewing wrote:

If Christianity were this way (differing so widely in dogma versus practice) I would not be a Christian.

see, thats what i am also saying

but that kind of contradicts your respected scholars argument.

You cannot disprove a belief unless you disprove its content. If you believe that you can disprove it any other way, by describing its origins or by describing its consequences, then you do not believe in reason."---LEON WIESELTIER

[maewing]

Dear cypezokyli,

You are right that this boils down fundamentally to beliefs. As I mentioned before, there is no way to convince you of anything if your mind and heart are not open to it and, anyway, I am not trying to.

I am not sure what problems you have the with head of the Church. What head are you talking about? In Orthodoxy the head of teh Church is Christ. I assme you are talking about the earthly head then. Are you talking about the earthly headConstantinople, Jerusalem, Moscow...? If so, again these are men. I submit that their actions as a collective in administering the sacraments and the direction of the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and, as a collective, without flaw. I believe it is you who would have to furnish proof otherwise.

Regarding the proof of true baptism versus false baptism... Well, I was not arguing that your baptism was illegitimate by any means! Indeed, if it took place in the canonical Church it is. I said that the process by which you might have first approached the sacraments of Eucharist and Confession might have been flawed if it did not include your being asked by the confessor whether you were prepared to take part in the Mysteries (implicitly reaffirming baptisma; promises) "Confirmation" is the wrong term and indeed it is Catholic. What I said was that you would need to reaffirm the commitment (not "confirm" the commitment) made for you. As I said, if that has fallen away from the Greek Church (along with women covering their hair) it is not doomsday, it is just a shame because it is an important part of the tradition.

Moreover, I believe we approach this from different directions. It appears that you feel the Church (or the leadership) must justify itself in the presence of you as an individual and in the presence of men in general. You have asked me to prove the differences in baptism or show that there is evil. Obviously you feel that you have the ability to discern things for yourself in such a way that you can determine what is true and false, unguided by any doctrine or process. But I must ask, does this not place you in the role of God Himself? How can part of the creation (you or me) ask the Creator to prove Himself?

Let us spin this around. Materially our only means of proof is scientific--apart from the Church, there is no definitive means of spiritual proof. I think we can agree at least on the first part of that statement. If this is the case, why not ask science to prove why science exists? No scientist can tell me why I am here, how I got here or even how my children came into being. They can furnish theories (riddled with wholes and changing every 20 years) but have never been able to furnish one ounce of proof. Moreover, why do I have emotions? Why do I get moody sometimes? They can only say whether it is "normal" or "abnormal" in light of the experience of others like me. This is bogus and weak and anything but proof.

Now ask the Church to prove to you why we exist, why all of these things I have mentioned are the way they are, and every element of our practice testifies consistently as to why. Moreover, the proof will be furnished in your heart if you open it. This is not endoctrination but merely a condition. For example, I have taught many people complex mathematics. It is impossible unless they open their mind and, to a certain extent, their hearts. The same is true with Christianity, which embodies both the physical and the spiritual.

Lastly, I don't see a contradiction with my other quote and my statements about Islam. Of course the Q'uran does not explicitly tell people to tape bombs to themselves; however, the Q'uran teaches followers to declare personal jihad against any and all that they believe threatens them or their religion. Hence, if a man is a Muslim and he is offended on the street (for any reason that he believes is religious) he can kill him and kill himself in the process and, in their beliefs, will go to heaven. There are conditions for this, of course, but the conditions are self-serving--relying not on a religious body but on the individual's judgment (which, of course, could be skewed).

It also tells them that if they do not like something or someone, they should first change it with their hands, then with their mouths and then with their hearts. In other words, it is revolutionary and aggressive. Finally, it tells them that Christianity and Judaism are corrupted and that they should do all they can to convert these misguided believers, by the sword if necessary. However, there is a passage in the Q'uran that speaks of the Virgin birth of Christ--so they believe in His immaculate conception but not in Him as God.

All of these points (and many more) explain very clearly how a few men could fashion in their minds a needful war against the West (or anyone not Muslim) and take up arms (or body bombs) against them. Certainly there is double-talk of peace and so forth in the Q'uran--and this is what most defenders refer to. However, are overturned by the first tenets (since peace is not part of the tenets) and point to an inconsistency in their doctrine that they falsely claim is perfect.

Finally, my coment about not being Christian if I saw wide divergence between dogma and practice is not inconsistent with anything I have said. While you have claimed that you disagree with the actions of the Orthodox leadership, I still fail to see in your writing (or in existence) even one instance in which the Church earthly leadership, as a collective, made a decision inconsistent with its dogma. The Church preaches love of (earthly) enemies and has the Church once taken an offensive action against its enemies? Contrary to this, we pray for our enemies (and ask forgiveness for having possibly offended them or brought them to sin) in every Liturgy and, if you pray daily, in your prayer rule.

(My point about Islam in the other stream was that supporters of a "peaceful Islam" depiction are supporting an image that greatly differs from its dogma.)

[cypezokyli]

dear maewing

firstly my problems are mainly with the greek and cypriot church. the russian one is not in my interests. i dont know if u can read greek, but heres a place were you can find what i am talking about

http://www.iospress.gr/issues/church.htm

these are four people who write only once a week in one of the biggest newspapers of greece - eleftherotypia. they carry this strange disease to fully document everything they write. this section i just provided concerns topics only having to do with the greek orthodox church. when u r done let me know

Regarding the proof of true baptism versus false baptism... Well, I was not arguing that your baptism was illegitimate by any means! Indeed, if it took place in the canonical Church it is. I said that the process by which you might have first approached the sacraments of Eucharist and Confession might have been flawed if it did not include your being asked by the confessor whether you were prepared to take part in the Mysteries (implicitly reaffirming baptisma; promises) "Confirmation" is the wrong term and indeed it is Catholic. What I said was that you would need to reaffirm the commitment (not "confirm" the commitment) made for you. As I said, if that has fallen away from the Greek Church (along with women covering their hair) it is not doomsday, it is just a shame because it is an important part of the tradition.

mawing i dont really care if you call it confirm or reafirm. this is sth between orthodox and catholics to argue. all i am saying is that a seven year old kid is not in a position to make such choises. its the third time i am asking you, if you beleive that kids should have a choise of religion and you are not giving me a straight answer.

as for covering their heads, they still do it in the villages...when they work in the fields and it gets hot! when they are done they take it of - thank god!!

Moreover, I believe we approach this from different directions. It appears that you feel the Church (or the leadership) must justify itself in the presence of you as an individual and in the presence of men in general. You have asked me to prove the differences in baptism or show that there is evil. Obviously you feel that you have the ability to discern things for yourself in such a way that you can determine what is true and false, unguided by any doctrine or process. But I must ask, does this not place you in the role of God Himself? How can part of the creation (you or me) ask the Creator to prove Himself?

if i ask WHY, does that make me a god ?
i surely hope not. i honestly believe that i donot qualify or have any godly powers.
but, when i ask the question why, i usually expect an answer.

Let us spin this around. Materially our only means of proof is scientific--apart from the Church, there is no definitive means of spiritual proof. I think we can agree at least on the first part of that statement. If this is the case, why not ask science to prove why science exists? No scientist can tell me why I am here, how I got here or even how my children came into being. They can furnish theories (riddled with wholes and changing every 20 years) but have never been able to furnish one ounce of proof. Moreover, why do I have emotions? Why do I get moody sometimes? They can only say whether it is "normal" or "abnormal" in light of the experience of others like me. This is bogus and weak and anything but proof.

you see that why science has theories and laws.
laws have been proven and exist only in natural sciences - not in social ones, for the simple reason that human behavior is unpredictable.
so, even the famous bing-bang is not a "law" since we cannot simulate such an experiment.
as for the emotions... thats something that i am still working on it. on one side there is the approach of social sciences - psycology and sociology. from the other we have the biologists connecting specific emotions to specific chemicals. i dont know if they will ever find the answer - i honestly hope that they dont.
why i am sometimes sad and sometimes happy accoring to the church btw?

as for the science telling you how your children came to being - ofcource it can!!! i am surprised that you dont know!! church and science can argue about how we first came hier, (and as far as i am concerned i am not convinced by either, but thats not my biggest worry to be honest) BUT, when it comes to explain you how a kid comes to life today - science can give a very detail information. step by step, no way to question that. there is a beggining...and then the sperm meets the egg - then the sperm fertilises the egg and.... nine months later :dataaaa!!!!
in greek we say : na sou zisoun - which means i wish your kids to live many years for you to be happy.
science has in fact progressed so far in understanding these things, that it can even put an egg and a sperm together artifiacially, and give a couple the joy of being parents.

Now ask the Church to prove to you why we exist, why all of these things I have mentioned are the way they are, and every element of our practice testifies consistently as to why. Moreover, the proof will be furnished in your heart if you open it. This is not endoctrination but merely a condition. For example, I have taught many people complex mathematics. It is impossible unless they open their mind and, to a certain extent, their hearts. The same is true with Christianity, which embodies both the physical and the spiritual.

ok, now u r going to make me get personal. so long i believed, from a very young age, i use to pray every night. i had designed my own little prayer and said it every night. sometimes, when i was too tired and didnot say it, i even thought that sth bad would happened to me bc i forgot praying the night before. (its amazing what powers belief has over observation!!! its also amazing that i had -like many people - this picture of a punisher-god!!!)
dont think i gave up on it so easily. i even tried to go to the churches organisations - catechism (might be wrong with the spelling here ) . i had questions, and they didnot give me answers. my heart was open back then, but unlike mathematics, the solution was not there.
when it comes to mathmatis you are right. one has really open his mind to understnd them


i will not discuss with you about islam as i do not know. when i study about it, i will do that.

Finally, my coment about not being Christian if I saw wide divergence between dogma and practice is not inconsistent with anything I have said. While you have claimed that you disagree with the actions of the Orthodox leadership, I still fail to see in your writing (or in existence) even one instance in which the Church earthly leadership, as a collective, made a decision inconsistent with its dogma. The Church preaches love of (earthly) enemies and has the Church once taken an offensive action against its enemies? Contrary to this, we pray for our enemies (and ask forgiveness for having possibly offended them or brought them to sin) in every Liturgy and, if you pray daily, in your prayer rule.

you cannot imagine how happy it would make me, if we - the christian cypriots would do that. pray for our enemies and preach love. if we only did that, cyppro wouldnt even exist. i would be even happy if only our bishops or priests would do that.
i am here and i am waiting. up to now the observation shows that , the clergy is not spreading love between gc and tcs. on the contrary i would say...

[maewing]

Dear cypezokyli,

Thanks for your note. Unfortunately I cannot read Greek though I will try to learn when I move to Cyprus. Russian, but not Greek. Please tell me what the link says as I will take your word for it.

I'm sorry, it did not register that you were asking whether I actually believe children should have a choice. No I don't. That is, your children, assuming they make it to adulthood, have will have the ability then to choose to forsake baptism or continue, but I do not believe they should have the choice before. My logic is simple. Your children do not choose to go to school. They do not choose to eat healthy food. They do not choose innoculations against serious diseases. If they do not have choice in all of these matters (which affect the flesh) why should they have a choice in spiritual matters (which will affect their soul)? Again, they can deny it later--Christianity gives free choice in this way.

I am not qualified to speak about the climate of the Church in Cyprus in regards to the Bishops and so forth. I know that there are holy people there whom I have met--people who are not hypocrites and people who truly believe. I imagine there are also nasty people who are even clergy but I have not yet met them (and hope I will not!) I do not deny this possibility, but as I said, that is not the dogma of the Church. The dogma is not, "if you are Christian you are sinless and better than others". The dogma is that if you strive to be a Christian you submit yourself as nothing before God, do His will in all things (as outlined by His Commandments) and pray (for yourself, for your enemies and for the world). That is my simpleton version of it, but that is essentially how I understand it.

Regarding your wanting to ask questions of the Church... cypezokyli that is precisely the point! You SHOULD ask questions--many of them! This is the only way that you can be convinced in your heart that it is the Truth. Faith without any examination is empty. It would be like you saying you love someone without ever meeting him or her--it is empty and false. The only way to know God is to explore Him and this is done through reading the Scripture, writings of the Fathers and discussions with experienced Christians.

I am so sorry that I have misled you with my words. I never said you should not question. Your reference to St Thomas is right--you should question, exactly as the Apostle did. However, just like St Thomas, you should wait for that answer with an open heart and be prepared to believe when you are satisfied.

What I referred to as vanity for men wanting God to justify Himself is like this. Suppose one day as a child you got in your mind that you were adopted--perhaps kids at school told you this. You might approach your parents and ask them about where you are from. If they truly love you, they will tell you the truth--though they might decide the appropriate time to tell you (for example, when you reach a certain age or something). Upon hearing their answer you have two choices: to believe them and trust in them or not to believe and not trust in them. If you believe them, it is because you know they love you. But how did you know that?--you know it with your heart.

If you do not believe them, it is because you feel they do not love you. How did you know that?--you know it in your heart! In either case, you would not ask for proof of their love (or lack thereof). For if they have always sacrificed for you, always cared for you, never harmed you in any way, you would not ask them to buy you a toy or something just to make you believe. And if they'd always abused and mistreated you, you would not ask nor need to ask for a slap. God's love is like these parents' love, only infinitely stronger. However, asking Him to prove it after He has given you life, and breath and every good feeling, thought or element of your life, is like making yourself the god to whom He must prove His love--that is vanity.

How can the science of the Creation explain to me everything about the Creator? Can I view all of Da Vinci's work and know Da Vinci? Not really. I can know his talents to a limited degree but I can never truly know him--his emotions, his reactions to everything, his heart. Moreover, we can agree that no matter how great his creation is (Mona Lisa, the helicopter,) it will never be greater than Da Vinci himself. This is the problem with using science to explain God--it can only help us appreciate some of His greatness, but we cannot fully know Him by it.

What I said about science not explaining how children come into being, it is true it cannot. For example, science can explain to me that a necessary and sufficient condition for pregnancy is the union of sperm and egg, but it cannot explain why sperm seeks out egg or why sperm competes to fertilize the egg. They cannot explain how this union at a microscopic level grows into a fully complex human being, how the chemical reactions that take place, take place and do so in the same way for every human being. They can only tell me that it happens--but not why or precisely how and certainly why not when it fails to happen. What I am trying to say is that all science is a reaction to observed phenomena.

By its deduction and continual observation the scientist constructs a theory but the theory is a leap (of faith) in assumptions and most of those theories are most tenuous in regards to humanity.

Regarding your personal experience I will say this. First, return to prayer. Even if you are skeptical, even if you think it does no good, return to it. It will eventually bear fruit because you have made the effort. (This is Church teaching not my opinion.) Second, consider the content of your prayer and revise accordingly. I would suggest you get one of the prayer books since most of the prayers were written before even the Bible was fully compiled and come from Saints who were experienced in asking all of the questions you are asking now. However, it is enough to simply ask for guidance (from God). Finally, I am not sure where you live but if in Cyprus, I can recommend someone and even some books who and which will answer every question you can imagine.

In fact, I will say this. The very fact that you question yourself and the Church spiritually is evidence that your prayers were working. Not everyone does this. Many simply go to Church as custom and do not even believe. They think they do but they don't really care. Even if we ask God things in vanity (I am not saying you did, but even if), but we do it consistently He will answer and we will know that answer if we listen. If you consistently humbled yourself in prayer, He will consistently reward you with insight.

However, keep in mind that gold is tried by fire. If it were too easy and answers and enlightenment were had without struggle the prize would be worthless to you. Priests did not tell you to pray everyday "or else" (or they should not have). Praying is for your benefit and praying daily is to further your relationship with God--just as if you were getting to know someone whom you think you might be falling in love with. But it is also like taking medicine. You may not take it as you wish (and your doctor will not punish you) but if you do not take it you will not benefit either.

[cypezokyli]

jesus maewing, you started sounding like a priest!!! or a comunist
believe me, that will not work
are you one ?

with kids your example carries again the same thinking as your historical and medical. there is no disagreement among christian cypriots and muslim cypriots that kids should go to school. a japanese just like a swedish will agree that kids should not be eating too much canties. when it comes to religion though things change. then the "right" and the "wrong" are not so universal anymore. and precisely for that reason i would like my kid too learn about all basic religions that are out there and follow the one it decides for itself - when it is old enough to decide.

once again let me give you a personal example, bc i am really bad on theories. in school we learned, from our religoin teachers how to protect our selves from "jehoba martyrs" (thats a word by word translation since i dont know the correct one). we even had our bible and things underlined inside to give as answers to them. anyway the picture i had for these people was extremely bad. i got the picture of some people really evil whose purpose is to take us out of the "righteous path". you could argue that this influence came from the family - but i can assure you my parents never spoke me about religion or even worse, against one. so the picture i had was the one that i got from religious classes. moreover, when u come to cyprus you will realise that we all have outside our doors a sticker that sais : we are christian orthodox , we dont wish any visit from jehoba martyrs.
this is not just a priest here and there. this is an official church policy!!! this viewing to now from a western perpsective is firstly rasist, and second simply shows that the orthodox church is scared to death when its flock discusses religion. and when is one is afraid of dialogue...u can understand what i mean...
anyway, the story doesnot end there. bc i had such kids in my class. surprisingly enough, they hid their religion for 7 whole years , while we expected from them to use their "evil ways" to mislead us. now that i think about it , these people are most likely afraid to express their belief. moreover can you imagine, how they felt or how i felt when i invited these people in my hause and i had a sticker from the church on my door saying i dont want you to be hier ? ...you can imagine what i did to the sticker afterwards not to mention, that these people at times, even had problems in having their own church. in these things i really admire the west.

as for the link i provided it deals mainly with the greek church and refers to its connection with greek military dictatorhip , to economic scandals, to its attempt to get involved in the affairs of the state or the affair of education, its involvment in politics, its attempt to censor literature or carttonist (the similarities with the catholic church or islam are striking!!) to mention just a few.

i dont disagree that there also good priest that do help, and do follow the word of god. there are cases like that that i know also in cyprus. but not surprisingly they are usually low rank clergy.


thank you for giving me the possibility to guestion.

[maewing]

HI cypezokyli,

I am not a priest by any stretch. I came to Orthdoxy some time ago after having been raised from birth as a Protestant. In many ways you and I come from opposite backgrounds in the sense that many of the questions and issues you raise, I raised when I was a Protestant. However, I found that Orthodoxy provided the only real and satisfactory answers. I did explore Islam and Buddhism and Taoism and even Hinduism first, but none of these paths led anywhere--which is why I speak so emphatically against them. This is not simply a personal view--again, even their foundations are flawed. Moreover, I cannot explain to you that living an Orthodox life, following the Church (its feasts, its services, its fasts, the sacraments, etc.) actually has given me far more freedom than Protestantism could ever have done.

When I was baptized as a Protestant I willingly chose to do so and was of age to make the decision on my own, something you are for. Having this experience, I still maintain that infant baptism is better since I think I would have been led to the Orthodox experience that much earlier but also since I would have possibly avoided certain paths that I chose during my life. However, the most salient reason for my support of it is so that you are protected from evil--both by God's grace and your guardian angel.

You still, unfortunately, appear to see things through material and not spiritual eyes--with your mind instead of your heart--in thinking that innoculations against diseases, good food and so forth are more real and more objective means of protecting a child than baptism is against evil. When you start to see the world as it truly is, however--both material and spiritual--you will see that spiritual realities force us to make objective, spiritual choices: baptism being the choice for Christian parents.

There is little mention in Protestantism of demons, struggle, fasting or sacrifice for Christ. I found it very worldly in the sense that every church reinvents itself every season, sometimes taking a completely different approach towards God or attempting to innovate by beefing up the choir. I don't think you will find any organization that has man involved which does not have the issues you raised as problems. There is always corruption because man has corruption within him.

Once I accepted this and that we all sin, have the potential to become horribly disfigured spiritually by sin and so forth, comparing the religions above then became quite easy. Orthodoxy provided the only answer to how we can successful be healed from corruption. For example, when a prostitute becomes Protestant, or Catholic, she is still a harlot that has found God (in view of those churches and perhaps in her own eyes). When this person becomes Orthodox, however, she is no longer a harlot but a completely new person in God--with only a future but not a past that matters. This is because, unlike the religions mentioned above, Orthodoxy relies on God to do this healing (which is perfect) rather than on yourself or on demons.

I believe the people you mentioned in your last email are Jehovah's Witness in english. cypezokyli you have to understand that there is a reason for everything in Orthodoxy, even if it does not seem so to you or to others you know. You cannot be misled by casual thinking which often assumes that every rule or dictum that is out of line with common sense emanates from someone trying to manipulate you. It is "common sense" that manipulates us because it comes from the world and not from God.

Jehovah's witnesses (and Mormons who do the same thing) "terrorize" people all over the world by repeatedly making uninvited visits to people's home and trying to endoctrinate them into their religion. There are often parodies of them in movies and comedy shows in the States. However, there is an important, more serious concern which is probably why the Church advised people in Cyprus against them. The devil only comes into us and into our homes if we invite him--otherwise we only have the seeds of evil in us which will never grow. Once we open the door (both physically and spiritually) we damage ourselves and bring evil into our lives.

These people who peddle this religion are not evil of themselves (no human is evil of himself, he just becomes evil) but they bring evil into your home, your place of rest, your place of prayer. It is not like bringing a Muslim work colleague or someone home who, though not respecting your beliefs is not trying to convert you either. These people ALWAYS try to convert you and, in the event you do not let them in, ALWAYS try to leave something behind--a pamphlet, some sort of item or something. These things are evil and they can do you and your family harm.

At this point I don't expect you to believe much of this and it is probably fruitless to continue discussions of the Church if you do not believe. It is not possible to accept only part of the Church (that most of it is good, that God exists and so forth) and not all of it (that there is evil, that we must battle evil, that the Church helps us do this with its precepts, that people can be corrupted but again healed by God and objects can be evil, etc) since that is akin to accepting only part of Christ--the Church's Bridegroom.

It is also not possible to modernize or combine the teachings of the Church with the ways of the world--God and manna do not mix. I respect our differences of opinion, but I will pray that your heart will one day become open to these things nonetheless for a treasury of things is truly there just waiting for you. Just do yourself a favor and please do not stop praying.