Illness, Cure and the Therapist According to St. John of the Ladder

By Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and St. Vlassios

Today, there is a lot of talk about the cure of man, since we have realized that, by living an individualistic way of life, separated from community and reality, obliged to live in a tradition that has lost its communal character, where there is no communion and preservation of the person, man is sick. Naturally, when we talk of illness we do not mean its neurological and psychological aspect, but we mean illness as the loss of the true meaning of life. It is an illness that is first and foremost ontological (i.e. to do with our very being).

The Orthodox Church seeks to heal the sick personality of man and indeed this is the work of Orthodox theology. In the Patristic texts we see the truth that Orthodox theology is a therapeutic science and method: on the one hand, because theologians are those who have acquired personal knowledge of God, within the context of revelation, and thus all the powers of their soul have been already cured by the Grace of God; on the other hand because these theologians, who have found the meaning of life, the true meaning of their existence, go on to help others in their journey along this way, the way of theosis.

In attempting to study human problems we come to the realization that at their very depth these problems are theological, since man was created according to the Image and Likeness of God. This means that man was created by God to have and to maintain a relationship with God, a relationship with other people, and a relationship with the whole of creation. This relationship was successful for first-formed human beings, Adam and Eve, precisely because they possessed God's Grace. When, however, man's inner world became sick, when human beings lost their orientation towards God and consequently God's Grace, then this living and life-giving relationship ceased to exist. The result of this was that all his relationships with God, with his fellow man, with creation and with his own self were upset. All his internal and external strength was disorganized. He ceased to have God as his focus, and instead he replaced him with his own self. A self, however that was cut off from those other parameters became autonomous, resulting in him becoming sick in both essence and reality. Therefore, in all that follows health is understood as a real and true relationship, and illness, as the interruption of that relationship, when man falls away from his essential dialogue with God, his fellow men and creation, and sinks into a tragic monologue.

To use an example, we (could say that before the Fall man's center was God. His soul was nourished by God's Grace and his body by his grace-filled soul. This was something that had consequences for all creation, and in this sense man was the king of all creation. However, all this balance was disturbed by sin. The soul, having ceased to be nourished by God's Grace, now sucks at the body, and thus the passions of the soul come into being (egotism, pride, hate etc.). The body, having ceased to be nourished by the soul, now sucks at mate-rial creation; hence the bodily passions (gluttony, possessiveness, desires of the flesh etc.) are created. In this situation nature both suffers and is violated, since, instead of receiving God's Grace through the pure looking-glass that is man's nous, it is exposed to violence by man, because what man wants from it is to satisfy his passions. Hence, ecological problems are created. After the Fall, a complete reversal is noted in man's relationship with God, with other people, and with creation. This is and is called an illness, a serious sickness. The cure for this, as seen within the Orthodox Tradition, is the proper reorientation of those relationships, the rebuilding of human existence in a way that man's center is God once again and that man's soul is again nourished by God. When this happens the Divine Grace is transmitted to the body and from there it is conveyed to the whole of irrational creation.

In light of this, man's problems are not simply psychological, social and ecological, but problems of relationships and universal responsibility. They are ontological problems, i.e. problems pertaining to man's being and existence. It is within this framework that we have spoken about the illness and cure of man in the Orthodox Church and about theology as therapeutic science. The Orthodox Church does not reject medical science. On the contrary she accepts and uses medicine in many instances. At the same time she looks at the ontological dimension of man's problems and tries to bring man back to his right perspective and to his original ontological orientation. Hence, we can talk of spiritual psychotherapy and of essential psychosynthesis but not of psychoanalysis. From this standpoint, even someone who is healthy from a psychiatric point of view can be sick from a theological one.

The saints of the Church also worked within this framework. Amongst them is St. John of Sinai, the author of the well-known book The Ladder, which has this title because it has to do with the ladder of man's ascent to God. This ascent is in reality a reorientation of man's true relationships with God, with his fellow man, with creation and, naturally, with his very self. All that follows must be placed within this essential framework.

 

Thanks to John Sanidopoulos

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/

 

Does God change His Mind?

First of all, I am no theologian with a small t or big T, professor of philosophy or anything special for that matter. I’m a laymen…

Does God change His Mind?

32 Now when the people saw that Moses delayed coming down from the mountain, the people gathered together to Aaron, and said to him, “Come, make us gods that shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.” (Exodus 32 NKJV)…

^{… 7} And the Lord said to Moses, “Go, get down! For your people whom you brought out of the land of Egypt have corrupted themselves. ⁸ They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them. They have made themselves a molded calf, and worshiped it and sacrificed to it, and said, ‘This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!’” ⁹  And the Lord said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people! ¹⁰ Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.”

¹¹ Then Moses pleaded with the Lord his God, and said: “Lord, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? ¹² Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, ‘He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and relent from this harm to Your people. ¹³ Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’”^{[a] 14} So the Lord relented from the harm which He said He would do to His people. (Exodus 32:7-14 NKJV)



What changed here; God or Moses?

The theologian and existentialist made these quotes, saying the same thing twice:

Prayer does not change God, but it changes him who prays.
Soren Kierkegaard

The function of prayer is not to influence God, but rather to change the nature of the one who prays.
Soren Kierkegaard

In the Old Testament we find these verses:

“For I am the Lord, I do not change;
Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob. (Malachi 3:6 NKJV)

 ¹⁹ “God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? (Numbers 23:19 NKJV)

So what happened here? Let’s see the rest of the story of Exodus:

²⁵ Now when Moses saw that the people were unrestrained (for Aaron had not restrained them, to their shame among their enemies), ²⁶ then Moses stood in the entrance of the camp, and said, “Whoever is on the Lord’s side—come to me!” And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together to him. ²⁷ And he said to them, “Thus says the Lord God of Israel: ‘Let every man put his sword on his side, and go in and out from entrance to entrance throughout the camp, and let every man kill his brother, every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.’” ²⁸ So the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses. And about three thousand men of the people fell that day. ²⁹ Then Moses said, “Consecrate yourselves today to the Lord, that He may bestow on you a blessing this day, for every man has opposed his son and his brother.”

³⁰ Now it came to pass on the next day that Moses said to the people, “You have committed a great sin. So now I will go up to the Lord; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.” ³¹ Then Moses returned to the Lord and said, “Oh, these people have committed a great sin, and have made for themselves a god of gold! ³² Yet now, if You will forgive their sin—but if not, I pray, blot me out of Your book which You have written.”

³³ And the Lord said to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book. ³⁴ Now therefore, go, lead the people to the place of which I have spoken to you. Behold, My Angel shall go before you. Nevertheless, in the day when I visit for punishment, I will visit punishment upon them for their sin.”

³⁵ So the Lord plagued the people because of what they did with the calf which Aaron made. (32:25-35 NKJV)

If God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, then it follows that something changed in Moses. He goes up the mountain, but we do not know for how long. It must have been long enough for the followers to start to get frustrated and take action on their own. So Aaron did what they asked.

Moses interceded to God not to destroy the people. Did Moses go up to the mountain and get lost in God to the point that he forgot his duty to the people below? The prayer could not change God so the prayer must have changed Moses’ attitude or his leadership/actions to the point that we see in the next part of the story that Moses takes charge… he heads down the mountain and in his anger destroys the tablets, takes leadership, and commands action to the Levi to oppose their sons and brothers by the sword so that 3,000 men fell that day. Then, Moses intercedes again with God and asks that God blot him out of His book in sacrifice of himself for the people’s sin of idolatry. Moses is willing to sacrifice himself in the people’s place--- pretty noble and very humble. Was Moses not the leader he should have been until this set of prayers and actions took place? Was he responsible for the falling-out of the people below the mountain because he was lacking something in his leadership that would be necessary for the future of Israel and for the Son of God to come? This is a really fascinating riddle. Did God test Moses to see if he had the fortitude to correct the situation? If Moses had just prayed and then headed down the mountain and said… sorry, God is going to destroy you all for your sin… I prayed, but there was nothing more I could do; it was great working with everyone, but that is the breaks! What would have happened? Moses pleads with God not to kill the people and make the Egyptians ridicule Him for saving them only to kill them in the desert. Somewhere between the lines of scripture, a subtext, story within a story, is the answer. Or perhaps the riddle remains?

This is kind of fun to think about…

God is not on the timeline of our history or history, He does not wait for events. There is no before, now, soon to come for God… all of it is present and known to Him. He cannot err, because He knows in full detail the events that happened and will happen; it’s all one great motion picture that has finished with the end credits (just trying to swallow all this is really impossible for me). If the events had gone on as the people wished and the worship of the false god and frivolity had gone on, the effect of the cause (God's justice remembering that God is love) would have been destruction and a new order would have been put into being and that is the way the timeline would have gone. God's justice is always within the context of the ultimate love. Such a world that is devoid of good and the potential for good, always, could not exist because God is good. And it follows that without justice there can be no good or love either. So Moses intercedes with prayers and a change of himself to action and the timeline is back on course and moves forward as planned towards the good of all--- The Messiah, fully God and fully man!

“… the distinction between the past, the present, and the future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

--- Albert Einstein
1879-1955

Elder Paisios and the Alcoholic Monk

Elder Paisios and the Alcoholic Monk

Once on Mount Athos there was a monk who lived in Karyes. He drank and got drunk every day and was the cause of scandal to the pilgrims. Eventually he died and this relieved some of the faithful who went on to tell Elder Paisios that they were delighted that this huge problem was finally solved.

Father Paisios answered them that he knew about the death of the monk, after seeing the entire battalion of angels who came to collect his soul. The pilgrims were amazed and some protested and tried to explain to the Elder of whom they were talking about, thinking that the Elder did not understand.

Elder Paisios explained to them: "This particular monk was born in Asia Minor, shortly before the destruction by the Turks when they gathered all the boys. So as not to take him from their parents, they would take him with them to the reaping, and so he wouldn't cry, they just put raki* into his milk in order for him to sleep. Therefore he grew up as an alcoholic. There he found an elder and said to him that he was an alcoholic. The elder told him to do prostrations and prayers every night and beg the Panagia to help him to reduce by one the glasses he drank.

After a year he managed with struggle and repentance to make the 20 glasses he drank into 19 glasses. The struggle continued over the years and he reached 2-3 glasses, with which he would still get drunk."

The world for years saw an alcoholic monk who scandalized the pilgrims, but God saw a fighter who fought a long struggle to reduce his passion.

Without knowing what each one is trying to do what he wants to do, what right do we have to judge his effort?

* Raki is a Turkish unsweetened, anise-flavored hard alcoholic drink that is popular in Turkey, Greece, Albania, Serbia, and other Balkan countries as an apéritif.
Source: Translated by John Sanidopoulos

 

thanks to John Sanidopoulos

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com

 

 

 

 

Rejoicing In the Destruction of the Ungodly with post by Saint Cyril.

Rejoicing In the Destruction of the Ungodly

As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?” But Jesus turned and rebuked them. Then he and his disciples went to another village. - Luke 9:51-56

Like the Apostles James and John, the sons of thunder as they were known, sometimes we can get a bit ahead of ourselves. They received gifts of grace and power from God, but in their immaturity they were tempted to corrupt this pure gift with their passions to destroy the Samaritans because they did not receive Jesus. For this Jesus rebuked them and went on His way towards His Holy Passion without bringing judgment on the Samaritans, since He came to save sinners, not destroy them. Similarly we also can get a bit caught up with our passions, which is the way of the world, and forget to see matters through a perspective similar to that of the Lord, Who bore rejection with patience and love.

With the death of Osama Bin Laden announced yesterday, we saw how the world, especially those in America, rejoiced and celebrated the death of "the world's most hated man". Suddenly eveyone seemed to believe in Hell, since everyone seemed so sure Bin Laden was there, all the while thinking themselves good enough to escape it. Basically, people cannot stop talking about how happy they are now that Osama Bin Laden is dead.

But is this a Christian way to respond to the matter?

When I saw the happiness and the partying going on when Osama's death was announced, and heard Christians making similar comments, a passage from Scripture that came to mind for me was Luke 9:51-56. But even more than this Scripture passage, what came to my mind was St. Cyril of Alexandria's commentary on this passage. The words of this Holy Father are what I believe should be the response by Christians when they put their passions ahead of themselves against the ungodly over whose destruction they may be tempted to rejoice over. Since Christians are by nature a persecuted bunch, we should keep in mind that we would not want this to be done to us, so why project it towards someone else's destruction and divine judgment?

Below are the words of St. Cyril:

What, then, was the purpose of this occurrence? He was going up to Jerusalem, as the time of His passion was already drawing near. He was about to endure the contumelies of the Jews; He was about to be set at nought by the scribes and Pharisees; and to suffer those things which they inflicted upon Him when they proceeded to the accomplishment of all violence and wicked audacity. In order, therefore, that they [the disciples] might not be offended when they saw Him suffering, as understanding that He would have them also to be patient, and not to murmur greatly, even though men treat them with contumely, He, so to speak, made the contempt they met with from the Samaritans a preparatory exercise in the matter. They had not received the messengers. It was the duty of the disciples, treading in the footsteps of their Lord, to bear it patiently as becometh saints, and not to say anything of them wrathfully. But they were not yet so disposed; but being seized with too hot indignation, they would have called down fire upon them from heaven, as far as their will went. But Christ rebuked them for so speaking.

See here, I pray, how great is the difference between us and God: for the distance is immeasurable. For He is slow to anger, and long-suffering, and of incomparable gentleness and love to mankind: but we children of earth are quick unto anger, hasty unto impatience, and refuse with indignation to be judged by others when we are found out in committing any wrong act; while we are most ready to find fault with others. And therefore God the Lord of all affirms, saying; "For My thoughts are not as your thoughts, nor your ways as My ways; but as the heaven is far from the earth, so are My ways from your ways, and My thoughts from your thoughts." Such, then, is He Who is Lord of all: but we, as I said, being readily vexed, and easily led into anger, take sometimes severe and intolerable vengeance upon those who have occasioned us some trifling annoyance: and though commanded to live according to the Gospel, we fall short of the practice commanded by the law. For the law indeed said, "Eye for eye; tooth for tooth; hand for hand:" and commanded that an equal retribution should suffice: but we, as I said, though perhaps we have suffered but a trifling wrong, would retaliate very harshly, not remembering Christ, who said: "The disciple is not greater than his teacher, nor the slave than his master;" Who also, "when He was reviled, reviled not again; when suffering, threatened not; but committed His cause to Him Who judgeth righteously." As treading this path much-enduring Job also is justly admired: for it is written of him, "What man is like Job, who drinketh wrongs like a draught?" For their benefit, therefore, He rebuked the disciples, gently restraining the sharpness of their wrath, and not permitting them to murmur violently against those who sinned, but persuading them rather to be longsuffering, and to cherish a mind immovable by ought of this.

It benefited them also in another way: they were to be the instructors of the whole world, and to travel through the cities and villages, proclaiming everywhere the good tidings of salvation. Of necessity, therefore, while seeking to fulfil their mission, they must fall in with wicked men, who would reject the divine tidings, and, so to speak, not receive Jesus to lodge with them. Had Christ, therefore, praised them for wishing that fire should come down upon the Samaritans, and that so painful a torment should be inflicted upon them, they would have been similarly disposed in many other instances, and when men disregarded the sacred message, would have pronounced their condemnation, and called down fire upon them from above. And what would have been the result of such conduct? The sufferers would have been innumerable, and no longer would the disciples have been so much physicians of the sick, as torturers rather, and intolerable to men everywhere. For their own good, therefore, they were rebuked, when thus enraged beyond measure at the contumely of the Samaritans: in order that they might learn that as ministers of the divine tidings, they must rather be full of longsuffering and gentleness; not revengeful; not given to wrath, nor savagely attacking those who offend them.

And that the ministers of God's message were longsuffering, Paul teaches us, saying, "For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were, condemned to death; for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. Being reviled, we bless; being defamed, we persuade: we have become the offscouring of the world; the refuse of all men up to this day." He wrote also to others, or rather to all who had not yet received Christ in them, but, so to speak, were still afflicted with the pride of the Samaritans: "We pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."

Great, therefore, is the benefit of the gospel lessons to those who are truly perfect in mind; and may we also, taking them unto ourselves, benefit our souls, ever praising Christ the Saviour of all: by Whom and with Whom to God the Father be praise and dominion, with the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever, Amen.

 

thanks to John Sanidopoulos

 

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/05/rejoicing-in-destruction-of-ungodly.html

 

Patriarch Kirill's Advice To Orthodox Bloggers

Patriarch Kirill's Advice To Orthodox Bloggers

March 26, 2012
Interfax

Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia advises Orthodox bloggers to direct their "enhanced energy" to real work.

"It's enough to follow the discussions in blogs of believers, both laity and clerics. After reading them, you often think: if only they could use this energy for good purposes!" the Patriarch said at a session of the Coordination Committee on Promoting Social, Educative, Cultural and other Initiatives under Auspices of the Russian Church.

He asked a question to the participants in these Internet discussions: "You speak very decisively - but what are your real works and your real deeds? What are your practical actions?"

"I don't underestimate the importance and need of deep, serious discussion among Orthodox believers, but I want to remind its every participant, that the Savior speaks directly to you: 'By their fruits you will know them.' By their fruit, not by their chats, jokes, desire to look strong, clever, convincing, biting and so on," the Primate stressed.

 

thanks to John Sanidopoulos

 

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com

 

The Absurdity of Conservatism and Liberalism

The Absurdity of Conservatism and Liberalism

Let us begin with some quotes that demonstrate the absurdity of conservatism and liberalism:

* The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. -- G. K. Chesterton

* Conservative: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others. -- Ambrose Bierce

* A liberal is a person who believes that water can be made to run uphill. A conservative is someone who believes everybody should pay for his water. I'm somewhere in between: I believe water should be free, but that water flows downhill. -- Theodore White

* A man who has both feet planted firmly in the air can be safely called a liberal as opposed to the conservative, who has both feet firmly planted in his mouth. -- Jacques Barzun

* By 'radical', I understand one who goes too far; by 'conservative', one who does not go far enough; by 'reactionary', one who won't go at all. -- Woodrow Wilson

* I think experience will teach you a combination of liberalism and conservatism. We have to be progressive and at the same time we have to retain values. We have to hold onto the past as we explore the future. -- Oliver Stone

* Let's trace the birth of an idea. It's born as rampant radicalism, then it becomes progressivism, then liberalism, then it becomes moderated conservative, outmoded, and gone. -- Powell Clayton

* There is danger in reckless change, but greater danger in blind conservatism. -- Henry George

* A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. -- Unknown

* The [Church] Fathers were neither liberals nor conservatives. -- Fr. John Romanides

Fr. John Romanides has written that the true history of Western civilization begins with the American and French Revolutions. It was during this late 18th century atmosphere of revolution that the use of the terms "conservative" and "liberal" were first used in a political context.

François-René de Chateaubriand in 1819 first used the word "conservative" this way following the French Revolution. The term, historically associated with right-wing politics, has since been used to describe a wide range of views. Conservatism developed in Restoration England from royalism. Royalists supported absolute monarchy, arguing that the sovereign governed by divine right. They opposed the theory that sovereignty derived from the people, the authority of parliament and freedom of religion.

The French Revolution is often seen as marking the "dawn of the modern era," and its convulsions are widely associated with "the triumph of liberalism". The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property. Napoleon wrote that "the peoples of Germany, as of France, Italy and Spain, want equality and liberal ideas," with some historians suggesting that he may have been the first person ever to use the word liberal in a political sense.

Ambrose Bierce defines politics in The Devil's Dictionary as "A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage." Though there is much truth to this, essentially both conservatism and liberalism contain certain virtues that ought to be considered. Neither conservatism nor liberalism are evil in themselves, but division is evil and opportunism is evil and selfishness is evil. Differences in self-interest are what form modern politics, setting aside the essential virtues behind the conservative and progressive spirit. The Christian ought to be above these secular ideas of modern politics and be firmly established in the Christian tradition, which is both traditional and progressive in a sense above those formed by secular politics.

I will end with excerpts written by Dinesh D'Souza in his "Letter To A Young Conservative" that helps isolate some of the differences between a modern conservative and liberal:

Neither conservatives nor liberals are the unqualified partisans of freedom. Both groups believe in a certain kind of freedom. What really distinguishes conservatives from liberals is not that one is for freedom and the other is against freedom; rather, what separates them that they have different substantive views of what constitutes the good life.

Let us make a list of the liberal virtues: equality, compassion, pluralism, diversity, social justice, opportunity, peace, autonomy, tolerance. Liberals become impassioned when they use these terms: they make up the moral priorities of the modern liberal worldview. By contrast, conservatives emphasize other virtues: merit, patriotism, prosperity, national unity, social order, morality, responsibility. Both sides are willing to place occasional restraints on freedom to achieve their substantive vision of the good society. Indeed some liberals attach very little importance to freedom....

There is some overlap in the moral vocabulary that liberals and conservatives use. Both speak of “equality,” although they mean different things by the term. Conservatives emphasize equality of rights, and they are quite willing to endure inequalities that are the product of differential capacity or merit. Liberals emphasize equality of outcomes, and they tend to attribute inequality to the unequal opportunities that have been provided by society. Another term that both liberals and conservatives use is “morality,” but conservatives tend to define morality personally, while liberals define it socially. Conservatives find it hard to believe that a sexual reprobate could be a good person, but many liberals who acknowledged Bill Clinton’s personal failings nevertheless considered him an admirable person because of his public positions in favor of the poor and women’s rights.

Since conservatives and liberals have different conceptions of the good society, their priorities are different, and this leads to contrasting policy positions. Conservatives emphasize economic growth, while liberals emphasize economic redistribution. Conservatives like to proclaim their love of country, while liberals like to proclaim their love of humanity. Conservatives insist that force is required to maintain world order, while liberals prefer the pursuit of peace through negotiation and dialog. Conservatives are eager to preserve moral standards; liberals cherish personal autonomy.

At root, conservatives and liberals have two different conceptions of human nature that cause them to see the world so differently. Liberals tend to believe in Rousseau’s proposition that human nature is intrinsically good. Therefore they believe that people who fail or do bad things are not acting out of laziness or wickedness; rather, society put them in this unfortunate position. Since people are innately good, liberals hold that the great conflicts in the world are not the result of good versus evil; rather they arise out of terrible misunderstandings that can be corrected through ongoing conversation and through the mediation of groups like the United Nations. Finally the liberal’s high opinion of human nature leads to the view that if you give people autonomy they will use their freedom well....

Conservatives recognize that there are two principles in human nature—good and evil—and these are in constant conflict. Given the warped timber of humanity, conservatives seek a social structure that helps to bring out the best in human nature and suppress man’s lower or base impulses. Conservatives support capitalism because it is a way of steering our natural pursuit of self-interest toward the material betterment of society at large. Conservatives insist that there are evil regimes and destructive forces in the world that cannot be talked out of their nefarious objectives; force is an indispensable element of international relations. Finally conservatives support autonomy when it is attached to personal responsibility—when people are held accountable for their actions—but they also believe in the indispensability of moral incubators (the family, the church, civic institutions) that are aimed at instructing people to choose virtue over vice.

 

thanks to John Sanidopoulos

www.johnsanidopoulos.com

 

Saudi Grand Mufti Calls for “Destruction of All Churches in Region

Friday, March 16, 2012

Saudi Grand Mufti Calls for “Destruction of All Churches in Region”

Raymond Ibrahim
March 15, 2012
The Algemeiner

According to several Arabic news sources, last Monday, Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, declared that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.”

The Grand Mufti made his assertion in response to a question posed by a delegation from Kuwait: a Kuwaiti parliament member recently called for the “removal” of churches (he later “clarified” by saying he merely meant that no churches should be built in Kuwait), and the delegation wanted to confirm Sharia’s position on churches.

Accordingly, the Grand Mufti “stressed that Kuwait was a part of the Arabian Peninsula, and therefore it is necessary to destroy all churches in it.”

As with many grand muftis before him, the Sheikh based his proclamation on the famous tradition, or hadith, wherein the prophet of Islam declared on his deathbed that “There are not to be two religions in the [Arabian] Peninsula,” which has always been interpreted to mean that only Islam can be practiced in the region.

While the facts of this account speak for themselves, consider further:

Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah is not just some random Muslim hating on churches. He is the Grand Mufti of the nation that brought Islam to the world. Moreover, he is the President of the Supreme Council of Ulema [Islamic scholars] and Chairman of the Standing Committee for Scientific Research and Issuing of Fatwas. Accordingly, when it comes to what Islam teaches, his words are immensely authoritative.

Considering the hysteria that besets the West whenever non-authoritative individuals offend Islam—for instance, a fringe, unknown pastor — imagine what would happen if a Christian counterpart to the Grand Mufti, say the Pope, were to declare that all mosques in Italy must be destroyed; imagine the nonstop Western media frenzy that would erupt, all the shrill screams of “intolerance” and “bigot,” demands for apologies if not resignation, nonstop handwringing by sensitive politicians, and worse.

Yet the Grand Mufti—the highest Islamic law authority of our “friend-and-ally” Saudi Arabia—gets a free pass when he incites Muslims to destroy churches, not that any extra incitement is needed (nary a month goes by without several churches being bombed and destroyed throughout the Islamic world). In fact, at the time of this writing, I have not seen this story, already some three days old, translated on any English news source, though “newsworthy” stories are often translated in mere hours.

Likewise, consider the significance of the Grand Mufti’s rationale for destroying churches: it is simply based on a hadith. But when non-Muslims evoke hadiths—this one or the countless others that incite violence and intolerance against the “infidel”—they are accused of being “Islamophobes,” of intentionally slandering and misrepresenting Islam, of being obstacles on the road to “dialogue,” and so forth.

Which leads to perhaps the most important point: Islam’s teachings are so easily ascertained; there is no mystery in determining what is “right” and “wrong” in Islam. The Grand Mufti based his fatwa on a canonical hadith, which Muslims and (informed) non-Muslims know is part of Islam’s sources of jurisprudence (or usul al-fiqh). And yet the West—with all its institutions of higher learning, including governmental agencies dealing with cultural and religious questions—is still thoroughly “confused” as to what Islam teaches.

All of this is nothing short of a scandal—a reminder of just how deep the mainstream media, academia, and most politicians have their collective heads thrust in the sand.

Meanwhile, here is the latest piece of evidence of just how bad churches have it in the Muslim world, for those who care to know.

 

Thanks to John Sanidopoulos--

www.johnsanidopoulos.com

 

Elder Porphyrios On Unhealthy Religiosity

Monday, March 19, 2012

Elder Porphyrios On Unhealthy Religiosity

By Elder Porphyrios

A Christian should avoid unhealthy religiosity: both the feeling of superiority due to virtue, and the feeling of inferiority due to sinfulness. One thing is it to have a complex and another humility; one thing depression and another repentance.

One day a secular psychiatrist visited me and accused Christianity because, as he said, it creates guilt and depression. I replied: I admit that some Christians, from their own errors or otherwise, are trapped in the illness of guilt, but even you must admit that secularists are trapped in a worse illness, pride. And while those with religious illnesses, when they come close to Christ, flee to confession and repentance, the pride of secularists, living away from Christ, does not leave.

Excerpt from the book "Anthology of Advice" (Gr.) translated by John Sanidopoulos.

at

www.johnsanidopoulos.com

Church and State

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Church and State Must Work Together

By Monk Moses the Athonite
March 4, 2012

The Church has power to unite, to inspire, to comfort, to give hope.

However often the dense strike against it and want to discredit it.

The Church is certainly not at all afraid of war. If we are warred against, we conquer, according to St. John Chrysostom. It is the Church of martyrs, of confessors, of the righteous, of the fighters.

The war has always existed, but today it has intensified. The Church is light and truth. It is not affected by the darkness and lies.

The Church, Mount Athos, clerics, monks and believers should not ever have a defensive position, a fear, a defeatism. The Church everywhere must confess the truth, to preach Christ crucified and risen to offer courage, hope and optimism.

Our words must have life experience. A life of purity and without hypocrisy in order to influence. To war we do not respond with war, nor to evil with evil.

Our struggles test us, we mature, it cultivates us, beautifies us. Never will the Church use worldly means to impose. Sometimes It teaches by example, discreet silence, calm reason, and actions and works, rather than thick and sonorous words.

Our pained country, the heroic Greece, has great need of substantial social and spiritual changes. Only this can prevent each failure that is so troubling.

The situation has reached tragic levels. People overtalk, have lost their sleep, children faint from hunger, youth commit suicide. It is not enough for the Church to share thousands of food dishes.

Unfortunately there is a serious lack of education from supposedly responsible people, who move without high goals and visions.

People in key positions are without inspiration, pride and passion; all those who could have stopped the impoverishment of our country and its beleaguered people.

As one contemporary Athonite Abbot aptly put it, "On the level of national and social cohesion, of sacrifice and giving, the Church would play a significant role if the state were not so shortsighted and hardhearted regarding the potential of the Church."

Indeed this caution of the state against the Church is very sad.

The crisis is primarily spiritual. So it will require the contribution of the Church.

Unfortunately, the reckless rejection of traditional moral values ​​has had serious consequences. Fascination with the foreign, mimicry of the alien, turning to the turbid, do not bring good.

We have been hurt by the unholy, the modern, the foreign. Traditional values ​​are strong bases, strong fundamentals, strong energy. The prevalence of happiness-seeking, the anesthesia of living well, the influence of secularism, the sharpening of new success, the rise of entertainment, the inflammation of wild pleasures have torpedoed the health of society. They placed it on a bed of pain and suffering.

The modern Greeks wanted to live without God. They thought they could live without a heart. Without God life is unpleasant, cloudy, dark, black. God generously gives peace, joy, blessing, balance, simplicity, temperance, humility and patience.

Only a true Christian can be happy in the little, the simple, the essential. It rejoices to respect, to honor, to help, to converse politely. The Church has a tradition of philanthropy, brotherly love and a love for children.

It respects and honors each person as unique, sacred and irreplaceable. Individualism, self interest, pride, selfishness and hypocrisy is impossible to belong to a faithful child of the Church.

Solidarity, collegiality, and unity is the sweet wine that offers "sober drunkenness" to the faithful.

The bitter tasting drink by far, the results of their arbitrary choices.

It is time for the state to see unreservedly the Church. Today, great is the need of mutual aid and cohesion to maintain core values.

Genuine trust, honesty and unity is necessary to both sides.

Little Greece can again thrive with reconciliation. The Church calls everyone to unity.

Let not the Church become parties with strange contradictions.

Church and state, especially today, can and should immediately work together, converge together and to agree.

Culture, faith and love will create a strong wall for growth and real progress.

Source: Translated by John Sanidopoulos

Thanks to John at www.johnsanidopoulos.com

Informal fallacy: Red Herring or Irrelevant Thesis

The Red Herring Fallacy occurs when an irrelevant topic is introduced to throw off the trail from the original issue. It is like when they train hunting dogs by dragging dead red herrings across the trail so the hounds would be thrown off the scent; only the best dogs will remain on course. The idea is to beat your opponent via an irrelevancy so as to lead them away from the attention of the argument.



Topic Z is under discussion

Topic X is introduced under the guise of being relevant to Z (Topic X has nothing to do with Z)

Topic Z is abandoned

This sort of argument is fallacious because changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim. The claim needs to be viewed on its own and not dodged or mislead due to potential collateral fears , historical issues, or other variables that may only “appear” related.

Examples:

You say that Tasters Choice tastes better Folgers. But are you forgetting that Nestle, the maker of Tasters Choice, is responsible for creating baby formula that caused thousands of infant deaths in Africa. Obviously you are mistaken. (adapted from Hurley).

What has the taste of Nestles’s coffee vs Folgers have to do with their baby formula. The past failures with the formula do not have anything to do with the current comparison between the two coffees. Regarding trusting the company, that is another issue to consider and should be looked at on its own ticket.

We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballet that the whole thing is getting obnoxious and stupid.

Regardless of the amount of issues on the ballet, each needs to be considered on its own merits and not washed away due to the amount of total bond issues currently.

Argument for making grad school requirements stricter:

“I think there is great merit in making the requirements tougher for graduate students. I recommend that you support it too. After all, we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our wages to be affected.”

Considering salary changes has nothing to do with the argument of why we should make graduate standards stricter. An argument should be posited for why tougher graduation standards should be enforced at this time and not on personal salary changes that may or may not occur. Personal salaries should be discussed as a separate topic.

Thanks to:

www.hewbrew4christians.com