Re: Warning: ad hominem re V. K. below
- Dear George,
I welcome your remarks and pray God to bless you. Criticism helps us
in our fight against pride. I am indeed a sinner and a poor writer. I
will try to improve myself, but do not expect too quick results: I
have a long way to go.
Let me kindly suggest however that even if I am not orthodox and
suffer from hypergraphism, if a person who can reply positively to
all items of your checklist, believes nevertheless that sergianism or
ecumenism is right, that person is not orthodox, because both
sergianism and ecumenism contradict orthodoxy, are heresies and
causes of schism.
Personal piety is capital, but is another matter. Many Latino-
catholics are very pious but not orthodox. Many of those who rightly
call themselves sinners not out of false humility but because they
are recurrent sinners are orthodox.
Dear Rebecca, please forgive for offending you.
This being said, thank you again for your message. I will try to
remember Vl Averky's words and try to avoid false zeal:
"And there is likewise a false, lying zeal, behind the mask of which
is concealed the foaming of ordinary human passionsmost frequently
pride, love of power and honor, and the interests of a party politics
like that which plays the leading role in political struggles, and
for which there can be no place in spiritual life, in public church
life, but which unfortunately is often to be encountered in our time
and is a chief instigator of every imaginable quarrel and disturbance
in the Church, the managers and instigators of which often hide
themselves behind some kind of supposed idealism but in reality
pursue only their own personal aims, striving to please not God but
their own self-concern, and being zealous not for God's glory but for
their own glory and the glory of the colleagues and partisans of
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "cantor71" <gskok@r...> wrote:
> I cannot contain myself after the way you insulted Rebecca. Despite
> the falsely polite tone of your posts, your true, haughty attitude
> is there to be seen, so I warn you: this is purely ad hominem.
> Being Orthodox is not only what you do or don't say, but also what
> you do. If you are physically able, do you do what is essential to
> Do you try to attend every Vigil and Liturgy available to you in
> your city (and not just in ROCiE)?
> Do you try to receive communion as frequently as possible?
> Do you try to say your morning and evening prayers daily?
> Do you give alms, as a mimimum, every time the opportunity presents
> Do you tithe?
> Do you visit the needy and the imprisoned?
> Do you spend as much time doing these things as you spend writing
> the internet?
> If you do, and I am wrong, forgive me.
> But if there are more than a few "nos" here, then, based solely on
> your own judgmental attitude, how can you call yourself Orthodox?
> Also, let me address your writing style. It is hard to imagine how
> you are able to write academic papers. Once you have put your
> signature down, the only text that follows should be references or
> footnotes. If it's important enough for a sufferer of hypergraphia
> such as yourself to include, put it in the body of the letter.
> Whatever is below your signature is just extra fluff - and most of
> your posts use such a structure. I don't know what the rest of the
> people here do when reading your posts, but I just move on
> I've made it that far).
> George Skok
> Definition of Hypergraphia
> Hypergraphia: The driving compulsion to write; the overwhelming
> to write. Hypergraphia may compel someone to keep a voluminous
> journal, to jot off frequent letters to the editor, to write on
> toilet paper if nothing else is available, and perhaps even to
> compile a dictionary. Hypergraphia is the opposite of writer's
> Temporal lobe epilepsy is associated with hypergraphia. This
> association has been known at least as early as 1974 (Waxman SG,
> Geschwind N. Hypergraphia in temporal lobe epilepsy. Neurology.
> 1974;24:629-36). A number of prolific writer may have had temporal
> lobe epilepsy, including Byron, Dante, Dostoevsky, Molière,
> Petrarch, Poe, and Tennyson.
> Hypergraphia has also been called the midnight disease.
> --- In email@example.com, "vkozyreff"
> <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
> > Dear Rebecca,
> > Thank you for your message.
> > Your argument is an "ad hominem tu quoque fallacy" (see below).
> > Being orthodox is not only what you say (confess the Creed,
> > the divine services in full accordance with tradition, preach the
> > Gospel), but is also in what you did not say ( etc. etc. ).
> > According to you, an ecumenist in the sense of the definition of
> > ecumenism that I gave is orthodox. In fact, neither the ecumensit
> > the sergianist is orthodox, because their mistakes or
> > by what they imply, are fundamentally opposed to orthodoxy.
> > As far a sergianism, for instance, the concept of "necessary
> > sin", "sacrificing one's own purity", the idea that confessing
> > of comsic dimensions is not necessary, and getting away with it,
> > saving the truth by lying, etc.
> > As far as ecumenism, scrificing faith for love, uniting with
> > unrepenting and stubborn sergianists out of "love", considered as
> > more important than rectitude of faith, etc.
> > There is nothing strange in the above, this is just consistency,
> > which is essential to orthodoxy.
> > In Christ,
> > Vladimir Kozyreff
> > Ad hominem tu quoque (literally, "at the person, you too") could
> > called the "hypocrisy" argument. It occurs when a person's claim
> > dismissed or concluded as false either because the claim is about
> > actions the claimant or another individual has engaged in too, or
> > because the claim is inconsistent with other claims that the
> > has made.
> > The tu quoque fallacy mimics the legitimate use of the principle
> > ethical symmetry. The error is that while expressing "fair play"
> > sentiments, what the argument is actually advocating is "equal
> > for foul play." In "fair play", if one reasoner is not entitled
> > use a particular appeal, then no other reasoner may use it
> > does not entitle reasoners to use illegitimate appeals because
> > reasoners have used, possibly without challenge, similar
> > appeals. That the illegitimate appeal has been used before does
> > make it legitimate.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Rebecca M"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In email@example.com, "vkozyreff"
> > > <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > . Stating that a person who professes a heresy is not a
> > > > heretic would be like saying that a person who confesses
> > orthodoxy
> > > is
> > > > not orthodox.
> > >
> > > But it seems to me that you do the latter with considerable
> > > regularity -- the great majority of the Orthodox in the world
> > > are condemned as not Orthodox, in spite of the fact that they
> > confess
> > > the Creed, celebrate the divine services in full accordance
> > > tradition, preach the Gospel, etc. etc. And yet a few errors,
> > > personal misjudgments or differences of opinon about matters
> > outside
> > > the core of the faith poisson all in the view that you commonly
> > > espouse.
> > >
> > > Mighty strange,
> > > Rebecca Matovic
> > >