Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: MP nachala sud! Bozos in the woodwork!

Expand Messages
  • gene703
    Dear Vladimir, Would you kindly point out a place in the Bible where a requirement for hereditary orthodox Tzar ( Ceasar ) is articulated. The best I recall
    Message 1 of 19 , Oct 26, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Vladimir,

      Would you kindly point out a place in the Bible where a requirement for hereditary orthodox Tzar ( Ceasar ) is articulated. The best I recall my high scholl history Ceasars were ellected or alternatively came to power through violence. Bible just advises to give into Ceasars what is due ... .

      You are not seriously advocating a full blown ceasaropapism where our respected Synod of Bishops will assume legislative, judicial and executive duties over the russian folks once we take over ? I say we bring back the serfdom and stop teaching reading while we are at it.

      Yours trully
      Gene T

      vkozyreff <vladimir.kozyreff@...> wrote:


      Dear Vova,

      Your argument that tsars are acceptable for illiterate nations and
      have no place in literate nations is not orthodox thinking. Your
      view is humanistic, not faith oriented.

      According to the orthodox thinking, we are on earth to work for our
      salvation. Giving the power to the literate majority rather than to
      an anointed tsar is assuming that literacy (intellectual knowledge)
      is what saves, not faith and rectitude.

      The enlightenment considers that faith is darkness and intellectual
      science is light. This is free mason thinking.

      We, orthodox, consider that faith, not science is what leads us to
      God. God is not to be found in humanism, in scientific or
      philosophic research but in prayer and faith. For us, faith is light
      and science, unless inspired by faith is darkness (nuclear weapons,
      human cloning, abortion,�). That is the meaning of the original sin,
      of the three of knowledge of good and evil, of man wanting to be God
      by his own force.

      The majority rule among knowledgeable people endlessly fighting one
      another in political debates has nothing to do with our salvation.
      It makes sense for an orthodox to have a government that is in
      symphony with the Church.. Of course, we understand that the enemies
      of Russia and of Christ had and have another agenda.

      In God,

      Vladimir Kozyreff


      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, antiquariu@a... wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > In a message dated 10/22/2004 6:47:04 AM Eastern Standard Time,
      > ourlittlecity@a... writes:
      >
      > Please submit your evidience that Monarchies possess Divine Right.
      > Please submit your evidence that Monarchial Rule is inherently
      santified
      > over
      > other types of government?
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Dear in-Christ List!
      >
      > The questions above were addressed to Vladimir Kozyreff, not to
      me. Due to
      > strange cuttign and pasting, I somehow received credit for the
      leading quote.
      > For the record, I do not believe in monarchial divine right,
      and do not
      > accept the notion of "God-anointed sovereigns" of any ilk, nor do
      I feel that
      > marchies are inherently sanctified, or, for that matter, even
      desirable.
      >
      > As I said before, they served a valid role for largely illiterate
      and
      > gullible populations. In my opinion, they cannot and should not
      have a role today.
      >
      > Vova Hindrichs
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








      Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod




      Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


      ---------------------------------
      Yahoo! Groups Links

      To visit your group on the web, go to:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-synod/

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      orthodox-synod-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



      ---------------------------------
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • goossir
      Dear Vova, You write: the more absolute their power, the more corrupt they tend to be. Give me an exception, even one!!!! From Constantine down to Nicholas
      Message 2 of 19 , Oct 27, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Vova,

        You write: "the more absolute their power, the more corrupt they
        tend to be. Give me an exception, even one!!!! From Constantine down
        to Nicholas II, they all hedged their bets, and even Constantine
        covered all options by remaining a pagan."

        I give you three exceptional tsars: Nicholas I (the most noble, my
        favourite – if he was in power no bloody revolution would have taken
        place), Alexander III (the most honest Tsar, as declared by many of
        his contemporaries and French Ambassador of that time (in his
        biography by H. Troyat) and the last but not least, the Holy Martyr
        Tsar Nicolas II (crowned in Heaven and on earth).

        I do not know about Constantine – I will read his biography, but if
        he was sanctified, I probably will not share your point of view.

        You seem to have a strong dislike of monarchy of divine right and of
        monarchs in general. Do you know that the gist of this Divine Right
        was that those anointed tsars were responsible before God for their
        entire nation? They were invested with an enormous responsibility
        and had to answer for it to God. – Those three Tsars that I mentioned
        (they are those that I know best, through various biographies that I
        have read) were very conscious of this and never dishonoured God, and
        Russia by the same token. It is also very telling that they never
        wanted to become tsars.
        Being Tsars was their Cross, and they carried it with dignity and
        honour.

        Also, being an autocrat comes from Greek: avto-kratos, which means
        self ruler, independent. This means they were not obedient to any
        other influence than their own; any lobbies, sects, etc. Probably
        one of the many reasons why they were evicted is this independency.
        This was very unpleasant to hidden powers – the ones that are now
        ruling the planet.

        The actual commonly accepted sub-culture, so much enforced by those
        ideologies which combated strongly the old regime, is just repeating
        the lies and deceits that are taught now. Was it not Lenin, or
        Goebbels who said: "Lie, lie, there will always be something left".
        Reading you, I can just see how those deceits have taken root.

        You write: "…frankly, US presidents tend to have a lot more altruism
        than any emperor of the Romans or the Russians ever demonstrated, and
        that includes the worst of the lot."

        Well, give me one US president whose standards were as high as those
        of the Tsars?
        The Bush(es) (who bombed Irak, wrecked completely the country)?,
        Clinton (who bombed Serbia and gave away Kosovo to the Albanese
        mafia)?, Kennedy?, Nixon? (both of them were starving for power),
        F.D. Roosevelt? (who came to terms with "Little father Jo"?), Lincoln
        (the destructive Secession War), etc, etc.

        I see no altruism in any of the US Presidents – none of them. Their
        only drive is power, and history (especially the contemporary ones)
        has shown to what extend they were ready to go – not very attractive!

        In God,

        Irina Pahlen
      • ourlittlecity@aol.com
        In a message dated 10/27/2004 8:34:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, irene.goossens@cec.eu.int writes: I see no altruism in any of the US Presidents – none of
        Message 3 of 19 , Oct 27, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 10/27/2004 8:34:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
          irene.goossens@... writes:
          I see no altruism in any of the US Presidents – none of them.
          Have you been read " A Dangerous Form of Altruism by Pat Buchanan?

          rdr. john dunn


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • ourlittlecity@aol.com
          In a message dated 10/27/2004 8:34:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, irene.goossens@cec.eu.int writes: Do you know that the gist of this Divine Right was that those
          Message 4 of 19 , Oct 27, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 10/27/2004 8:34:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
            irene.goossens@... writes:
            Do you know that the gist of this Divine Right
            was that those anointed tsars were responsible before God for their
            entire nation?
            ++++++++++++++

            I seem to recall learning that the primary principle of the Divine Right of
            Monarchies was the idea that the monarch is ultimately the sole ruler of the
            country and is accountable only to God and, was it not Catherine the Great who
            advanced this philosophy within Russia and established a bureaucratic nobility?
            Also, did not the philosophy of the Divine Rights of Monarchies have as its
            primary intellectual advocate the French RC Bishop Jacques Bossuet [whom
            Catherine must have read]?

            rdr. john dunn


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • goossir
            Dear John, I answered earlier to this post, but it was not published - probably lost. No I have not read this book. Does it say the same things as I do? Irina
            Message 5 of 19 , Nov 1, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear John,

              I answered earlier to this post, but it was not published - probably
              lost.
              No I have not read this book. Does it say the same things as I do?

              Irina P.

              -- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, ourlittlecity@a... wrote:
              > In a message dated 10/27/2004 8:34:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
              > irene.goossens@c... writes:
              > I see no altruism in any of the US Presidents â€" none of them.
              > Have you been read " A Dangerous Form of Altruism by Pat Buchanan?
              >
              > rdr. john dunn
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.