Cypezokyli wrote: you are questioning my sources , when if you read them they are not only quite detailed, but also provide their sources as well.
and you are consider natty source - the church of cyprus website , as reliable.
would it surprise you if it told you , that if you read kissingers memoirs he considers himself as completely innocent!!
I simply saw one of them was "ndimou" and bacause I ‘ve read this guy in the past and found him extremely boring, did not bother.
To tell you the truth I stoped reading internet links in support of arguments a long time ago. Since you seem to be so confident I will make you the favor this time only, read them and come back. I doubt they are as reliable as you claim, but lets see.
I did not read Nattys links either I just read what she pasted.
wrote: 1. i read that
2. thats a novel written way later - its not a historical document
3. i never questioned that the priests had responsibilities. thats what i wrote in the first post you did not like. "they had privilages". . . . "the british could never understood why we let the priests rule us".
4. on the matter church - education relations , is extremely absurd to bring kazantzakis as an example!!!!
5. correct me if i am wrong (i dont have the book in front of me) but didnt the local priest in the novel (among other things) tried to convince the local pasha , to force the "newcomers" away ? i mean "o hristos xanastavronete" proves exactly what i am saying. the local priest in order not to loose his status he cooperated with the ottomans
1. I’m glad.
2. True but well studied to reflect the sociological aspect imho
3. priviledges and responsibilities are 2 different things. Especially when the punishmet is your head off
4. I did not mention that in my reply for education but in my reply for the millet system and how the priests were used in that system. Imo Kaz/is presents a very vivid view.
5. Not really, although you are right he started fearing he would lose his status.
wrote: bc, the ottomans gave them that power
may i ask, if the phenomenon of donating land continued during the british empire ?
Like I said the Church was always an anonymous institution belonging to the people themselves. The priest was just a servant. No priest benefited from that on personal basis. So when you say "they" who is "they"? And how did "they" transfered any power after their death to anyone of their personal environment? Don’t mix up the power of the church today with the power it had then. Today things are different…
It stopped during the British era, because the oppression and the losing of properties stopped. I suppose your if statement implies the people would become propertyless? ? If yes then the people themselves would take everything back as the church belongs to them…
wrote: the main part of my quotes , reffered to the myth of the kryfo sholio. the ottomans never prevented schools being build. that myth was intentionally created in order to make the greeks believe that the church was the "protector of the nation" - which is a big bull.
And I told you you have no proof it was a myth. The missing proof that it existed does not necessarily mean it did not exist. I gave you logical arguments to judge for yourself whether it could have existed or not. And if it existed then for which specific period. You are free to believe whatever you want and to be carried by the arbitrary conclussions of anyone. I also told you forget about this idea that stuck in your mind about "schools" and "buildings of schools". Those things did not exist then as we know them today.
Besides just think of what you said "the ottomans never prevented schools being build". Question1: did they build schools for the Rums themselves? Question2: Schools? ? From people who were practically starving totally depending on agriculture and wheather to have a piece of bread to keep alive and kicking? From people so heavily taxed who could even give away the only thing they had for living i. e their own land?
wrote: most of the schools inside the ottoman empire where build from greek traders and intellectuals and not from the church.
examples and counterexamples we will find a lot (i. e. good priests bad priests) . important is what the head of the church did. and as a rule, the greek education was not undertaken by the church.
So? Who said the church was the providor of high education and stuff. It is very well known what kind of education they were providing and they never boasted they were offering anything different. . Basic read & write some prayers and keeping the national concsiousness.
wrote: lets put it that way. the role of the church (as we learned it in school) is way overexagurated. and thats my main point. some priests here and there played ofcource a positive role , but the education of the greeks started especially after, the enlightment in europe , and was brought to greece - not by priests
That’s because Bananiot was not your teacher.
Seriously now, I assure you I personally never formed that view. On the contrary the opinion I got is the Greeks were concentrated around their priests and considered them their protectors. Our first President 200 years later was a priest for Christ sake, can’t you see how deep the roots to the Ottoman causes are?
wrote: thats why i asked. you seemed to be sure that they were killing one after the other
You actually asked for their number. You said "if you have any facts as to how many priests were executed (and if possible in comparison to the execution of the "villagers" ) "
The words "how many" for me means a number. For you? And yes my history books describe hundreds of cases they were killing one after another. In Nicosia alone they slaughtered about 130 in just one night together with Arch Kyprianos. I am surprised you don’t know such basic facts.
