Christmas Presents

2»

Comments

  • I want to publicly apologize to Father Peter; It wasn't right for me to open my mouth and question a priest--under any circumstance.

    Forgive me, Father. It won't happen again.
  • There is no need to apologise, but I don't fully understand what you are saying.

    It is also a fact that Britain, with our ancient Christian heritage, is a different place to the US. We have a Christian culture that is deserving of every effort at preservation and restoration, and which the enemy is always seeking to subvert.
  • [quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12727.msg149565#msg149565 date=1325012467]
    It is also a fact that Britain, with our ancient Christian heritage, is a different place to the US. We have a Christian culture that is deserving of every effort at preservation and restoration, and which the enemy is always seeking to subvert.

    Fr Peter, at what point does conserving or restoring a Christian culture become an offense? I know we must strive to preach the Christian message and restore the Christian heritage of lands, like Britain. And I know the enemy will do everything in his power to stop the message of Truth.

    However, there is a social and cultural component that must be differentiated between the religious component. In the past, you yourself said that you wanted to be Orthodox and British and not Orthodox and Coptic/Egyptian. I'm sure there will be people in Britain who want to be British and not Christian. And then there will be people who want a middle point. They want to be British, stay true to the Christian/Orthodox experience, yet share in social and cultural festivities.

    Where do you draw the line? If you draw the line at a Christian revival of British pre-commercialism festivities, you run the risk of offending the non-Orthodox Christians of Britain and those who like to celebrate the holiday season in the current traditional manner. I'm not saying we must be politically correct, or hide the Gospel in fear of offending others. But at some point, would you not be projecting your own British Orthodox Christian culture on those who do not share the same cultural views?

    I know Britain is different in the US. While there is obviously a movement to attack Christianity, there is also a near absolute belief in separation of Church and State. I don't thinks separation is part of the British culture because of the monarchy. Regardless, at what point do we draw the line of separation of Church vs state; culture vs religion; foreign preference vs patriotism?
  • Now I know where Santa Claus does come from: he was a saint who was giving presents to poor children. See the fourth post, from Fr. Peter: http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php/topic,7555.0.html
    Didn't realize that. Just thought it was a funny fact to share (if there were some ppl who didn't know the origin of santa claus).
  • yes, we commemorate him on kiakh 10th:
    http://www.copticchurch.net/synaxarium/4_10.html#2

    a good way to learn about the saints is to go to this lovely website every day,
    click on 'our faith', go down to 'daily readings' and read the Bible readings and synaxarium every day.
    :)
  • There is no separation of Christianity and society in Britain. Those who try to subvert the relationship between Christianity and our British culture and anti-Christ and are slowly being resisted by the wider society.

    71% of the British population consider themselves Christian rather than anything else. We are a Christian country in every sense - except for the most important sense of most people being truly Christian. But by far the majority will and do insist, "We are a Christian country".

    The British population is waiting for Orthodoxy, for true Christianity, to be presented to them in a manner they can understand.

    British culture is Christian. We have been Christian since at least 300 AD. We are not a Muslim country, we are not an Atheist country. Almost every civil function begins with Christian prayer. Anglican bishops are members of the House of Lords. Every village and community has been rooted in a Christian landscape for over 1000 years. We are surrounded by the shrines and relics of the saints, and by a continuous Christian tradition and heritage.

    Of course there are those who reject Christianity for themselves, and there are others who wish to destroy Christianity. The first group are to be dealt with in pity and longsuffering, the latter group are to be resisted with every possible and appropriate method.

    Our National Anthem is a hymn. It is a great blessing to be at an International football match at our National Stadium and see and hear 70,000 English people sing our National hymn both according to tradition at the beginning of the match, and spontaneously throughout the match.

    When His Holiness Pope Benedict came to England this year the streets were absolutely packed with hundreds of thousands and even millions of happy, cheering British people. Only those enemies of Christianity tried to dismiss the visit. But the sheer fact of such a warm national welcome meant that the atheist press and atheist 'celebrities' were shown to be out of touch with the national mood.

    To be British is to be Christian in some sense. Even our democracy is rooted in our Christian heritage. Our attitudes towards one another are rooted in our Christian heritage. Our education system is rooted in our Christian heritage. All that is good about our national culture is Christian. Not in the sense of a personal faith of course, though it should not be doubted that actually a great many British people wish to be agnostic, that is lacking knowledge of God, rather than atheist, that is denying God. They would be Christian if there were those who would share the fulness of the Orthodox Gospel with them.

    There is a need to give space to people, but no reason to allow our culture to be destroyed just because some have a loathing for all that Britain and especially England stands for. Christianity is already at home in Britain because to a great extent Christianity has formed British culture and society. It is not a matter of asking whether it is right to be Christian in the public space, but of asking why a minority should be allowed to destroy what has been formed and preserved over 2000 years. This is not what most British people want - Christian or non-Christian.

    As for patriotism, this means having a love of the national family we have been made part of. It is not the same as a narrow nationalism. It means that I love my English family and wish to do all that is necessary for the health and wellbeing of this national family. This must include mission and earnest prayer. It does not mean that I dislike other national families or wish ill to others. Again, at the International matches at Wembley there is a great patriotism and a pleasure at being surrounded by other members of the national family, but there is no illwill towards the supporters of the other team, indeed there is a pleasure in seeing that they are also glad to be members of their own national family.

    I must say that I do struggle to understand what seems a US experience of not being so comfortable projecting the Christian message in the public space. I think it is a feature of our different histories. Here in the UK there is no history of atheism, indeed it is not easily possible to be British and atheist, or British and Muslim, because Britain is so fundamentally a Christian country, and will only find stability in becoming a more Christian country again, because to become more Christian is to become more British.

    The first church in the world was built in Britain by our Lord Himself who visited England with his uncle, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a merchant in tin. He built a Church of wattle in his visit when he was a youth, and in the years when Britain became Christian it was known as the Vetusta Ecclesia and was honoured as the first Church in the islands. We have a most ancient association with the Christian Faith. There has never been a separation of Christianity and society, and it could only be possible by destroying our British culture. That is not to say it has not been attempted over the last 50 years, but it seems to me that the attempt has failed and God is granting a renewal of Faith in this nation.

    I want to be a part of that, as God wills, and long for the sight of hundreds and thousands of British Orthodox Christians in London.
  • [quote author=mabsoota link=topic=12727.msg149571#msg149571 date=1325019293]
    yes, we commemorate him on kiakh 10th:
    http://www.copticchurch.net/synaxarium/4_10.html#2

    a good way to learn about the saints is to go to this lovely website every day,
    click on 'our faith', go down to 'daily readings' and read the Bible readings and synaxarium every day.
    :)


    That's indeed an awesome way  ;D
    So today we rememeber:
    1. The Commemoration of the Relocation of the Relics of St. Titus to Constantinople?

  • This is delicous man: http://www.copticchurch.net/classes/getLectionary.php
    Great website, I say it every day again  ;)
  • Fr. Peter, thank you for your response. Please indulge me in a few follow up questions and comments. Please do not take my questions or comments as an interrogation of your mission in London or missionary work in general. I am only trying to find at what point does culture separate from religion, if such a thing exists or should exist.

    If I may, I would like to parallel your comments about religion and culture in Britain with Egypt. In the mind of the Muslim, especially the fundamental Islamist, there is no separation of Islam and society in Egypt and the Middle East. To be Egyptian is to be Muslim. In their minds, Christians who attempt to subvert this relationship are un-patriotic.  Christians are often tried in court for treason.

    Although this is not exactly comparing apples to apples, there is a great amount of parallel idealism between a Christian-based society with their Christian-based patriotism like Britain or America and Islamic-based societies. I would like to know what your opinion of the similarity is.

    Additionally, you stated a 71% statistical support for the British population wanting a Christian society. There is a 85-90% statistical support that Egypt is a Muslim country. The remaining 10-15% are Christians legitimately claim that to be Egyptian is to be Christian. Could it not be similarly acceptable that the remaining 29% of the British population who doesn't want Christianity (or who want to separate religion from culture) have a legitimate claim? Statistics need to be viewed carefully. The statistical majority only substantiates popularity, not necessarily factual or cultural truth.

    I agree with you that all that is Christian, makes the British culture good, as well as the American, European and any other culture. But this position is only acceptable to religious Christians. All other religions, and liberal Christians, will most likely not agree. To impose a Christian society on them states that the Christianity is the only appropriate form of society for a specific country, society or social environment. How can we answer non-Christians who believe Britain or the USA should become a Muslim or Atheist society? Answering this philosophical, social and anthropological question with religion, in the practical form of "Because Christianity brings goodness to Britain and all other religions are destroying Britain", does not seem adequate. Answers like this seem to border on racism and bigotry.

    Finally, I have never heard Jesus Christ or Joseph of Arimathea went to the British Island at any point of their lives. There are many different legends about Joseph of Arimathea. The one you described Fr Peter is first researched by a C.C. Dobson in 1934. As far as I can tell, very few people maintain that Joseph of Arimathea, a former tin merchant, was the Virgin Mary's uncle or that a tin merchant became a counselor and member of the Sanhedrin.  This actually reinforces my point that many have claims to Britain's Christianity. 

    I agree with you that we still need to give all religions their own space, stretch a missionary hand to them, and let God deal with it according to his will. But how much space is the question at hand.
  • [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12727.msg149606#msg149606 date=1325099508]
    Fr. Peter, thank you for your response. Please indulge me in a few follow up questions and comments. Please do not take my questions or comments as an interrogation of your mission in London or missionary work in general. I am only trying to find at what point does culture separate from religion, if such a thing exists or should exist.

    If I may, I would like to parallel your comments about religion and culture in Britain with Egypt. In the mind of the Muslim, especially the fundamental Islamist, there is no separation of Islam and society in Egypt and the Middle East. To be Egyptian is to be Muslim. In their minds, Christians who attempt to subvert this relationship are un-patriotic.  Christians are often tried in court for treason.

    Although this is not exactly comparing apples to apples, there is a great amount of parallel idealism between a Christian-based society with their Christian-based patriotism like Britain or America and Islamic-based societies. I would like to know what your opinion of the similarity is.

    Additionally, you stated a 71% statistical support for the British population wanting a Christian society. There is a 85-90% statistical support that Egypt is a Muslim country. The remaining 10-15% are Christians legitimately claim that to be Egyptian is to be Christian. Could it not be similarly acceptable that the remaining 29% of the British population who doesn't want Christianity (or who want to separate religion from culture) have a legitimate claim? Statistics need to be viewed carefully. The statistical majority only substantiates popularity, not necessarily factual or cultural truth.

    I agree with you that all that is Christian, makes the British culture good, as well as the American, European and any other culture. But this position is only acceptable to religious Christians. All other religions, and liberal Christians, will most likely not agree. To impose a Christian society on them states that the Christianity is the only appropriate form of society for a specific country, society or social environment. How can we answer non-Christians who believe Britain or the USA should become a Muslim or Atheist society? Answering this philosophical, social and anthropological question with religion, in the practical form of "Because Christianity brings goodness to Britain and all other religions are destroying Britain", does not seem adequate. Answers like this seem to border on racism and bigotry.

    Finally, I have never heard Jesus Christ or Joseph of Arimathea went to the British Island at any point of their lives. There are many different legends about Joseph of Arimathea. The one you described Fr Peter is first researched by a C.C. Dobson in 1934. As far as I can tell, very few people maintain that Joseph of Arimathea, a former tin merchant, was the Virgin Mary's uncle or that a tin merchant became a counselor and member of the Sanhedrin.  This actually reinforces my point that many have claims to Britain's Christianity. 

    I agree with you that we still need to give all religions their own space, stretch a missionary hand to them, and let God deal with it according to his will. But how much space is the question at hand.


    Dear Reminkimi,

    I know that your question is for Fr. Peter. But I would like to follow with the discussion.

    I am at a loss of what your question is. Can you please, summarize your question in just few sentences?

    Thanks.
  • Most British people believe that our Lord came to England with his uncle St Jospeh of Arimathea. The legends go back many years. The first documentary material dates back to the 9th century.


    Certainly Christians were present in Britain in the earliest times.

    I think that Britain is very different to Egypt. The Copts are the indigenous Christian inhabitants of Egypt. The fact that Muslims make up a great percentage is due to invasion and oppression. There has been a great interruption in the Christian society of Egypt such that it has become a minority.

    Britain is not the same. It finds itself at the same point as Egypt in the 7th century. Will we open the doors to an alien and damaging ideology? I hope not. There are very few people in Britain who count themselves as atheists. Most of the 29% of non-Christians are Muslims and Hindus. Over 500,000 immigrants are being allowed into Britain each year over the last 13 years. In 1920 there were about 10,000 Muslims in Britain, now there are about 2.4 million. This is all due to immigration and the birth of children to Muslim immigrants. Hindus make up 700 thousand.

    The great influence of Christianity in Britain is not the same at all as the influence of Islam or Atheism in other countries. Where Islam or Atheism gain power they seek to eliminate all competing systems. Christianity, on the other hand, is the foundation of democracy and true human rights. To eliminate Christianity from British culture would be to destroy British culture and society. This is clearly the aim of many Islamists and Atheists. The influence of Christianity is not the same as creating a Theocracy.

    Personally I don't think that the US is very much like the UK at all. I think that the US has its own issues. It has, for instance, a very small Muslim population and therefore many Americans seem unaware of what it is like to live in a society which is under threat from Islam, as Britain is. The most popular name for baby boys in London is now Mohammed. There are areas where Muslims are in a majority and have already begun to act as they do in majority Islamic countries.

    The majority of non-religious people in Britain, who are not militant atheists, agree that it is the Christian heritage of British society which makes it what it is. There is nothing about our culture which is not rooted in our Christian heritage. This seems to me to be an obvious fact which even the thinking non-religious person accepts. If a society and culture has an integrity then it can be defended and those who wish to destroy it can be resisted. There is a societal evil. There is no need for a society to give space to all opinions especially if some opinions wish to actively destroy the society which allows them freedom for such opinions.

    The US has often criticised the UK for becoming a haven for terrorists, and this is a clear statement of fact which most British people deplore. Our Governments have allowed terrorists to come to the UK and claim asylum because they will be (rightly) persecuted in their own countries. We then provide housing and financial support for these terrorists and will not allow them to be deported to other countries whose people they have harmed because of their 'human rights'. Yet these people wish to destroy our way of life which is rooted in Christianity and replace it with one plunged into the darkness of Islam. There comes a point when a society must defend itself, and this point is now being reached in the UK.

    An Islamic society wishes to repress all those communities which will not submit to their vision of the world. A Christian one wishes to allow the expression of all views that do not lead to actual harm being caused to others. This is a world of difference. I think you misunderstand what I mean by a Christian society because I do not believe that the US is a Christian society in the same way. To be a member of a Christian society does not mean that a person must be a Christian, or attend Church. But it does mean that the foundation of our historic society of 2000 years extent is the Christian Faith.

    It means, for instance, that British people generally believe in 'fair play'. It means we tend to support the underdog. It means that we do not accept that the elderly or disabled should be euthanased. It means that generally we believe people should show respect to one another. It means that we queue quietly until it is our turn. It means that we pull together when things get tough. It means that we understand the cohesive power of ritual and tradition. It means that though we can be sat on for a while we will assert our true feelings in the end. It also means that we all understand the role that Christianity plays in our society. The wedding of Prince William, for instance, could not have been a more truly Christian and British event. The visit of His Holiness the Pope could not have been more Christian and British.

    There can be no British society without religion. Such a society is the dismal world of the atheist, and in Britain the Islamists have taken every advantage of the vacuum created by the anti-Christian activities of some political atheists to take over areas of the public sphere. It is the case that there are many atheist politicians who will do all they can to destroy the influence of Christianity, but are afraid to speak out against Islam for fear of being considered racists. And so Islam gains power.

    But I sense things are changing. Ordinary people have now had enough. Muslims in the UK are organising the vast majority of child prostitution, of vulnerable British girls of course. They are forcing girls to marry people from Muslim countries who speak no English and do not believe in any rights for women. They are still committing widespread acts of the mutilation of young girls. They are committing great numbers of acts of violence and murder in the name of honour. They wish to insist that women wear a black sack over their heads. All of these are entirely alien to British culture and are becoming the subject of increasing objections by British people.

    Clearly there is no separation of Islam and society in Egypt, and the Copts have to try to make some space for themselves. But this is because Islam has gained control of Egypt by force. I do not believe this will be allowed to happen in Britain, as God wills. In Britain the issue is not whether there is space to be an atheist or agnostic in a society that is rooted in Christianity, of course there is such a space. The question is increasingly whether it is possible for committed Muslims to become part of British society. It is not entirely clear that it is possible. Almost all terrorism in the UK is committed by Muslims born in the UK. The Islamic concept of lying for the sake of Islam means that it is difficult to trust what a Muslim spokesperson might say. The idea of a Muslim Police Officers Association, or the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain, all seem rather antithetical to British society.

    This is not because a person must be personally Christian to engage in British society, but because it is not obvious that Muslims, especially strict Muslims, wish to be part of British society, and if they do not want to be part of British society then they are seeking to subvert and destroy British society. Should they be allowed to? I don't think so. Should a militant atheist be allowed to? I don't think so. Should this mean that it is impossible to have atheist or Islamic views in Britain, I don't think so.

    To some extent I suppose that Egypt IS Islamic and all those minorities which exist are seeking to subvert an Islamic dominance. But the issue is surely that when Islam dominates it is a destructive force. This is not the same as Britain. In Britain there is room for all manner of private views, and the public space is only restricted to the extent that democracy allows. The Saudis want to build a very large Mosque in central London. Many do not wish this to be allowed, not least because NO Churches at all are allowed in Saudi Arabia, but also because it is intended to be a dominating statement. There are no restrictions on ordinary mosques, or Hindu and Sikh temples. There are restrictions on Muslim blasting out with loud speakers. There are fewer restrictions on Churches and their bells. Why so? Because this is a Christian country and bells have been rung for 1000 years.

    This is all a bit rambly because I have very strong feelings I am seeking to control. My personal view is that Islam should be restricted in the UK. There should be a freedom of religion but a complete supression of the Imams and mosques who teach and preach violence. 35% of Muslim students in the UK believe that violence in support of Islam is justified. That is a worrying statistic. A religion which preaches violence and the violent overthrow of a society which has welcomed millions of its adherents should not be given space in the public domain. Islam is an ideology that is incompatible with British society therefore British society, in my opinion, should be alert to limit the actions in support of such an ideology. No open and democratic society should allow itself to be subverted through the processes of that open and democratic society.

    As for those with no religious views, many of whom are presently Eastern European ex-communist society immigrants, I do not see that there is any difficulty caused by the Christian nature of British society. Some atheists will invent offences to try to subvert society. For instance, there is no need for a non-believer to attend the short prayers which open most governmental sessions at various levels of government. But this does not mean that the non-believer should be able to insist that no prayers take place. This is a Christian country. The royal weddings take place in a Christian context, but non-believing politicians are not excluded from such events which can be understood as simply being part of our heritage and tradition. The non-believing politician should not be able to insist that royal weddings no longer be religious. This is a Christian country. It is normal that a witness in a trial swears on the Holy Bible, but a non-believer is allowed to make an affirmation (which does not actually have the same weight at all). The non-believer should not be able to insist that no-one swear on the Holy Bible. This is a Christian country.

    If the athiests can convince the majority of their views then society will change to some extent. But they are a small minority. They are not forced to be Christians, but they are required, as all of us who are British are required, to participate in a society which has a Christian history and foundation. This is the society we share. Those who wish to destroy it are not only anti-Christian but anti-British and anti-English. It would take too long to explain who they are, and it is rather irrelevant here.

    The Copts are clearly not anti-Egyptian at all, not only because they wish all Egyptians well but because they were and are authentic Egyptians whose Christian culture was the culture of Egypt. This is different from Britian. There has never been either an atheist or Islamic culture here. To resist both is to seek to remain who we are and values our heritage which cannot easily be restored when it is lost, especially if Islam were to dominate.

    What does it mean to subvert Egyptian society? Surely speaking the truth about injustice? Seeking equal rights for women and minorities? These are all positive things which are wrongly penalised. In Britain the subversion of society lies in the introduction of an ideology which seeks to oppress non-believers, women, minorities and will use violence to do so. The cases are entirely different.

    It's a shame we can't have a coffee together and discuss these issues in detail as I have not explained myself well and would be interested in your own views. Let me insist though that Britain is neither Egypt nor the USA.
  • Fr Peter,
    Again, thank you for your comments. I would love to spend time discussing this over coffee but I hate coffee. I'd rather discuss it openly for all others who are learking around here to quietly benefit. Maybe one day we can meet and have dinner (without coffee) ;)

    Your discussion sparked a load of follow up questions. I will try to restrict myself to only one.

    Psychologists, sociologist, and historians agree that violence is defined by the victim, not the perpretrator. The victim sees violence as a violation of human rights, the perpretator justifies his actions and see no wrongdoing. In this conceptual framework, denying an Islamic imam the freedom to "preach" physical violence to his Muslim followers is in itself an act of civil violence. If you forbid or sanction Islamic imams for their ideology, Britain will now become the perpretrator "which seeks to oppress non-believers (non-Christians)...and use violence to do so." Not physical violence, but legal, political and civic violence. It would benefit all of us to define, conceptualize and qualify the difference in defending a traditional heritage and culture vs. committing civic and political violence against people who are different than us.

    I also agree with you that Britain is not the USA or Egypt. But in each society, the question and degree of separation of religions and culture is typically biased, defined on personal beliefs, rather than a system that is fair to traditionalists and modernists. I only used Britain as an example to illustrate this issue. And I would love to continue the discussion with you.
    George
  • Hi Remnkimi,

    Indeed Fr Peter's comments have been quite interesting to say the least! I would not have expected him to be so optimistic about the England's Christian identity. I keep on reading stories on how Christians in the UK are denied the right to live according to their religious convictions, whether its saying no to a gay couple renting their home, or wearing  crucifix chain at work.

    I do agree at least that the National Anthem is a prayer and a very lovely one at that!

    I do not want to distract you from your dialogue, but wanted to just post this : it appeared in the news today in France:

    http://www.lepoint.fr/insolite/turquie-un-imam-accuse-le-pere-noel-de-ne-pas-etre-honnete-28-12-2011-1413003_48.php

    A Turkish Imam accuses Santa Claus (pere Noel) of being dishonest for using the chimney. If he was an honest bloke, he'd have come in by the doors.

    At least the news paper (Le Point) has the knowledge to admit that Santa Claus is taken from the true story of Saint Nicolas - whose relics (a large portion of them) are now in France.


  • Remnkemi, I can't agree with you at all.

    Who are these 'Psychologists, sociologist, and historians'? No one I would give any credence to, nor would teh vast majority of British people.

    Those who seek to impose the ideas you describe are, in the UK and Europe, generally cultural Marxists with an agenda of destroying the Western Christian culture and society and rebuilding according to their own vision. After more than 10 years of being afraid to speak out the people of Britain are now starting to insist that the social experiment of the last decades is not one they support.

    The idea that offence is to be determined by the victim is an appalling idea. It is intended, and when put into practice it achieves, the subversion of the proper bonds of society. We are not to be subject to the rule of offence, but to the rule of law. The rule of offence is ONLY used to support the supposed rights of those who wish harm to British society. As Zoxasi describes, it is never used to defend the rights of Christians and British people against offence.

    What you seem to be suggesting, though I am sure you do not hold the view, is that it is not permissible to deny an Imam the right to preach hatred and violence because such a denial is itself violence. This is not a view British people accept. Indeed it is socially insane. In which society does any person have the right to incite and organise violence against others - not the pretend violence of the rule of law, but the real violence of dead British bodies on the streets murdered by the followers of these Imams. Any society has the right and responsibility to defend itself against such ideologies.

    I think that the isolation of the US from the European experience and history leads to such views as you describe. But they are truly dangerous. I reject them, and most British people reject them.

    In a democratic society all people have the right to persuade by peaceful means. No one at all has the right to use violence. It is rather a matter of concern that you seem to think that it is not permissible to act against violence and those who organise violence.

    Zoxasi, I think that England is rapidly changing. After a decade of being afraid of saying anything - people have been arrested for preaching the Gospel for instance - people are now speaking very openly indeed about what they think is required to preserve our English culture and society. The difference now is that those who have been seeking to deny ordinary freedoms to Christians are being exposed and resisted, not only by small groups of Christians, but generally and by non-religious and non-Christian Britons as well. People are no longer unwilling to state in public that there are aspects of the Islamic ideology which are incompatible with British society. There is a long way to go, but for instance, after the riots and looting this year a huge majority of people wanted the social benefits of those involved in the rioting to be stopped. It has been suggested by senior political figures that those engaged in rioting in the future and who endanger the lives of others, such as setting fire to a building in which people are living, should be liable to being stopped by live ammunition used by the police. A growing majority of people want immigration stopped. I am not saying where I stand on any of these points, but the British population is clearly wishing to make its views known, and these are not at all in favour of giving Islam a free rein to destroy our society.

    Britain is not the US. Europe is not North America. There have already been two attempts to conquer Europe by Islam. This is a third, but by a different means.
  • Civil liberties preserved by the US constitution are a great way of preserving freedom. However, they are twisted by fundamentalists, be it Muslim, atheists, .. to achieve a certain outcome. When resisted, we get into discussions of political correctness, tolerance of others, ...

    Preserving freedom does not mean that I should give imams the freedom to preach hatred. It does not mean that atheists and anti Christian professors use their pulpit to attack Christianity. It does not mean that public place is a place dedicated to only mankind and therein God is not allowed.

    In the US we understand freedom to mean tolerance of any ideology so long it does not pose immediate threat to either life or property. In no way freedom, as understood in the US, is examined against culture, religion, norms, .... which led to its hijacking by the minority to impose its views on the majority; all in the name of freedom.

    Freedom in God's view is a freedom from sin and following Him. Any other concept of freedom is contrary to His ways.

    Freedom as understood nowadays in the US is against God's view of freedom. Throughout the Old Testament prophets were sent to warn people of their straying from God, attacking even the authorities for allowing such straying.

    Throughout the Christian we find similar warnings.

    I strongly believe that the US is on the wrong track of taking the Christian God out of the public place in the name of freedom and replacing Him with other false gods.
  • Fr Peter, please do not be upset at me. I do not believe in a poorly definable ideology. I am trying to apply an argument have I heard against Christianity so that we may have a proper answer when it is used against us.

    [quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12727.msg149626#msg149626 date=1325161335]
    Who are these 'Psychologists, sociologist, and historians'? No one I would give any credence to, nor would teh vast majority of British people.
    The bulk of the argument comes from this book There is no crime for those who have Christ. It is a historical analysis of violence in the Church councils. I can find more references but I think this will suffice. The title of the book is a quote from St. Shenoute the Archimandrite, as I will describe below.

    The idea that offence is to be determined by the victim is an appalling idea. It is intended, and when put into practice it achieves, the subversion of the proper bonds of society. We are not to be subject to the rule of offence, but to the rule of law. The rule of offence is ONLY used to support the supposed rights of those who wish harm to British society. As Zoxasi describes, it is never used to defend the rights of Christians and British people against offence.

    All of this is true. What happens when the Rule of Law is the offense? Typically, the law is meant to protect the victim and it gives more weight to the victim than the criminal or the circumstances of the crime. For example, special laws are made for child protection and crimes against mentally handicapped victims. No one disagrees that crimes against certain members of society are especially offensive. But then there are other laws that intentionally lend a blind eye to the victim. For example, GLBT civil rights. There was the example of the Bed and Breakfast hotel owners in Britain, which you brought to our attention earlier this year, who were found guilty of discrimination against a homosexual couple for refusing to give them lodging. Are these Christians  trying to subverse the proper bonds of British society? Or is it the homosexual couple that is trying to subverse the proper bonds of British society? As Christians, we know that it is the homosexual agenda that is trying to subverse the Christian British heritage. However, the law is intentionally blindly applied to victim and perpretrator alike.

    What you seem to be suggesting, though I am sure you do not hold the view, is that it is not permissible to deny an Imam the right to preach hatred and violence because such a denial is itself violence. This is not a view British people accept. Indeed it is socially insane. In which society does any person have the right to incite and organise violence against others

    Fr Peter, it is known that St Shenoute not only preached violence against the pagans in the surrounding cities in Akhmim, Sohag and their vicinity, but he also personally confronted a pagan priest name Gesios to confiscate his idols around 400 AD. When Gesios called him a lestos (criminal), St Shenoute responded, "There is no crime for those who have Christ." Additionally, St Shenoute himself appeared in court to aid Christians who were accused of destroying a temple. By today's standards, St Shenoute is no different than the Islamic imams. And as you stated Britain has a right to defend itself from such ideologies. In like manner, 5th century Atripe, Egypt had the same right to defend itself against Christian violence. It's not so black and white to deny Islamic imams the freedom to preach violence, while praising and canonizing Christians who used their Christian freedom to preach violence. How do we reconcile this?

    I think that the isolation of the US from the European experience and history leads to such views as you describe. But they are truly dangerous. I reject them, and most British people reject them.

    It is not only the US or European experience. Such views are described in nearly every culture. I'll explain below.

    In a democratic society all people have the right to persuade by peaceful means. No one at all has the right to use violence. It is rather a matter of concern that you seem to think that it is not permissible to act against violence and those who organise violence.

    Historians are notorious for "skewing" fact based on their own bias of what "peaceable" and "violence" mean. Look at St Shenoute's confrontation with Nestorius at the council of Ephesus in 431AD. At the age of 82, St Shenoute violently attacks Nestorius for placing the Gospel on the floor so he can sit. Yet historians and Copts alike see this as a defense of the Gospel, not violence.

    Contrast this story with Pope Theophilus who, according to the Origenist Palladius in Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom, attacked the old bishop Ammonius, one of the Tall Brothers. Palladius describes Theophilus as "a dragon with bloodshot eyes with a temper beyond control." Theophilus "snatched the pallium from Ammonius and wrapped it around his neck, inflicting blows at his jaw, making his nose bleed with clenched fists and crying, 'Anathemize Origen, you heretic.' "

    In both stories, there is a violent act. The first account is told through the eyes of the perpretrator, the second through the eyes of the victim. Both accounts involve a single person physically attacking a bishop. In both accounts, the perpretrator justifies his attack as an act of God. Both accounts are told from the single point of view of the historian, which is clearly biased. Both accounts clearly show that defining the crime and the victim is culturally determined (at both a theoretical and a practical level)

    This does not mean society should not define crime and offense to the best of its capabilities, that society shouldn't defend itself against ideologies that attack its conception of crime, and the people can use a lack of definition of crime as a defense. All I am trying to say is that crime is defined culturally with biases. We can't argue that since the majority wants Islam out, then it is ethically justifiable to eradicate Muslims.  Sometimes the culture or society does not legally define crime in an ethical way, as in the example of the Bed and Breakfast hotel. We can't always rely on Society's laws to defend against injustice either.  We should at least examine a third possible defense against those who wish to subverse or abuse a society's belief in the separation of religion and culture (even if the perpretrator is Christian). At least, we should figure out if there should be a separation of Church and State. Whatever, this third defense is, it will definitely be different in the USA than it would be in Britain or in Egypt.

    Does this make sense? I hope I am explaining myself better.
  • please give your sources.
  • The gifts were a symbol of the three gifts given to Christ. The traditions that we have today, the tree and presents under them, comes from St Boniface. When he was in modern day Germany, he saw that the pagans sacraficed infants to Thor and placed them under an oak tree. When the pagans began converting, he changed the tree to an evergreen, as a symbol of Christ because its color never changes. And instead of dead babies, he placed three gifts under it. Capitalism has taken hold of this and commercialized it in order to make money, that doesnt mean that we have to.
  • [quote author=Ioannes link=topic=12727.msg149737#msg149737 date=1325358624]
    The gifts were a symbol of the three gifts given to Christ. The traditions that we have today, the tree and presents under them, comes from St Boniface. When he was in modern day Germany, he saw that the pagans sacraficed infants to Thor and placed them under an oak tree. When the pagans began converting, he changed the tree to an evergreen, as a symbol of Christ because its color never changes. And instead of dead babies, he placed three gifts under it. Capitalism has taken hold of this and commercialized it in order to make money, that doesnt mean that we have to.


    Can you all just imagine the setting or one second :

    Each year you are invited to celebrate Christmas with a family that are super nice, so kind yet they never talk about God. They are all baptized and no one practices, yet at Christmas time, they get each other presents.

    Indeed it is lovely of them to buy presents for each other. I'm always touched by what I have been offered. However , knowing the reason for the tradition behind Christmas presents allows one to enter into a dialog with them and talk to them about God's love.

    Thank you SO MUCH Ioannes!!

    Your explanation is perfect.

    It's very hard to talk about God with certain people, yet they are quite intelligent, very academic, and would like to know the meaning themselves behind this tradition.

    It's exactly what I was looking for.


    Merry christmas bud.
  • No problem Zoxasi!

    It is a terrible tragedy what has happened to Christian celebrations. Easter has become paganized, Christmas has become about materialism, its just awful. As Orthodox Christians we should know our traditions well and stand firmly against the fake ones.
  • [quote author=mabsoota link=topic=12727.msg149733#msg149733 date=1325355025]
    please give your sources.

    Mabsoota, was this directed at me? If it was, I assume you are inquiring about my last message. The information is in the book I posted a link to "There is no crime for those who have Christ."
  • [quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12727.msg149573#msg149573 date=1325019402]
    There is no separation of Christianity and society in Britain. Those who try to subvert the relationship between Christianity and our British culture and anti-Christ and are slowly being resisted by the wider society.

    71% of the British population consider themselves Christian rather than anything else. We are a Christian country in every sense - except for the most important sense of most people being truly Christian. But by far the majority will and do insist, "We are a Christian country".

    The British population is waiting for Orthodoxy, for true Christianity, to be presented to them in a manner they can understand.

    British culture is Christian. We have been Christian since at least 300 AD. We are not a Muslim country, we are not an Atheist country. Almost every civil function begins with Christian prayer. Anglican bishops are members of the House of Lords. Every village and community has been rooted in a Christian landscape for over 1000 years. We are surrounded by the shrines and relics of the saints, and by a continuous Christian tradition and heritage.

    Of course there are those who reject Christianity for themselves, and there are others who wish to destroy Christianity. The first group are to be dealt with in pity and longsuffering, the latter group are to be resisted with every possible and appropriate method.

    Our National Anthem is a hymn. It is a great blessing to be at an International football match at our National Stadium and see and hear 70,000 English people sing our National hymn both according to tradition at the beginning of the match, and spontaneously throughout the match.

    When His Holiness Pope Benedict came to England this year the streets were absolutely packed with hundreds of thousands and even millions of happy, cheering British people. Only those enemies of Christianity tried to dismiss the visit. But the sheer fact of such a warm national welcome meant that the atheist press and atheist 'celebrities' were shown to be out of touch with the national mood.

    To be British is to be Christian in some sense. Even our democracy is rooted in our Christian heritage. Our attitudes towards one another are rooted in our Christian heritage. Our education system is rooted in our Christian heritage. All that is good about our national culture is Christian. Not in the sense of a personal faith of course, though it should not be doubted that actually a great many British people wish to be agnostic, that is lacking knowledge of God, rather than atheist, that is denying God. They would be Christian if there were those who would share the fulness of the Orthodox Gospel with them.

    There is a need to give space to people, but no reason to allow our culture to be destroyed just because some have a loathing for all that Britain and especially England stands for. Christianity is already at home in Britain because to a great extent Christianity has formed British culture and society. It is not a matter of asking whether it is right to be Christian in the public space, but of asking why a minority should be allowed to destroy what has been formed and preserved over 2000 years. This is not what most British people want - Christian or non-Christian.

    As for patriotism, this means having a love of the national family we have been made part of. It is not the same as a narrow nationalism. It means that I love my English family and wish to do all that is necessary for the health and wellbeing of this national family. This must include mission and earnest prayer. It does not mean that I dislike other national families or wish ill to others. Again, at the International matches at Wembley there is a great patriotism and a pleasure at being surrounded by other members of the national family, but there is no illwill towards the supporters of the other team, indeed there is a pleasure in seeing that they are also glad to be members of their own national family.

    I must say that I do struggle to understand what seems a US experience of not being so comfortable projecting the Christian message in the public space. I think it is a feature of our different histories. Here in the UK there is no history of atheism, indeed it is not easily possible to be British and atheist, or British and Muslim, because Britain is so fundamentally a Christian country, and will only find stability in becoming a more Christian country again, because to become more Christian is to become more British.

    The first church in the world was built in Britain by our Lord Himself who visited England with his uncle, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a merchant in tin. He built a Church of wattle in his visit when he was a youth, and in the years when Britain became Christian it was known as the Vetusta Ecclesia and was honoured as the first Church in the islands. We have a most ancient association with the Christian Faith. There has never been a separation of Christianity and society, and it could only be possible by destroying our British culture. That is not to say it has not been attempted over the last 50 years, but it seems to me that the attempt has failed and God is granting a renewal of Faith in this nation.

    I want to be a part of that, as God wills, and long for the sight of hundreds and thousands of British Orthodox Christians in London.


    Just pointing out that all these arguments start from a Christian viewpoint... euthanasia is bad... etc
    This would be impossible to justify to someone who doesn't identify with Christianity (eg a point that Christianity took over Britain by force in the 1st century, and in fact, can someone counter this argument?)
    This is why I agree with the fact that if Britons identify with Christian values, this defence of society should be pursued immediately
    In Australia (you mentioned education, here evolution is taught as fact in Christian schools), this has probably already slipped away, and so it may not be long before ppl stop differentiating Christianity from Islam
    This is especially the case with young ppl, the overwhelming majority of which support gay marriage (again this is an example, in their eyes, of Christianity oppressing ppl, just like Islam, if you are saying that ppl should not be forced into Christian ideologies, then should gay marriage be legalised?)
    In conclusion though, I agree with Rem that there are great diffficulties in constructing an argument of protection of society from Islam, when looking through a neutrally religious viewpoint (I know there's no such thing, "whoever does not gather with Me scatters", but this argument doesn't work, as Islam has an identical wholehearted support for itself alone). You can't publicly argue for separation of Islam and state while arguing against separation of Church and State, which is not what the Coptic Pope said to the emperor who convened the council of Chalcedon, nor is it what Pope Shenouda advocates in Egypt (both argued for separation of church and state). It seems a bit hypocritical that Christians in the West support right-wing conservative parties, while in Egypt they support left-wing, liberal parties. (I'm just being devil's advocate here)

    And Father Peter,
    Do you really believe that a revival in Britain, or any other country is possible. Because the "word on the street" is that "It's the last days, the devil is taking over, Islam also is taking over, ppl have unstoppably turned off Christianity" - this is especially prevalent when ppl see a non-Christian practice, it's suddenly "so interesting"
    I hope you are able to revive, but I think it will be difficult as the Muslim population will be whole heartedly opposed, and the 71%, on average, will be lukewarm at best.
  • qawe,
    interesting points. but i don't think that britain is going to have such a terrible end.
    what i do think is that all countries will suffer in the times to come and it will be clearer who truly believes and who goes to church just for show. in the coming times it will be easier to suffer for following Jesus, so the people in the churches will be those who are prepared to suffer, as in may countries already today. also many from outside will see the love of God and realise it is the true answer to economic problems and all the problems of life.

    remnkemi,
    you have posted some wonderful things in the past, but i disagree with you using the work of michael gaddis and quoting him as if he was not a controversial writer. in the book he co authored with richard price on the council of chalcedon (which i have read parts of online), he comes across as very negative to our coptic orthodox fathers.
    he seems to me to be writing from a critical non Christian perspective, so it must be remembered that his works will be subject to this bias.

    in ancient historical documents there is also a strong likelihood of bias. for example i have seen that documents written by opponents of saint dioscorus and documents written by his supporters are so vastly different that they seem to be talking about 2 completely different people.
    so i would suggest a degree of healthy skepticism with his work.

    i wish u all a happy new year; may God guide us and may we glorify Him in all we do.
  • Mabsoota, thank you for your comments. Whether or not Michael Gaddis is a controversial author on a whole or just on the co-authored book on Chalcedon will need to be more scrutinized. I don't know since I haven't read his book on Chalcedon. The book I referenced, however, seems to have a good amount of supporting references with a logical framework. That is not to say he isn't anti-Christian. But in order to counter the bias writing techniques of Christian historians of the past (as you accurately portrayed in the historical writings of Pope Dioscorus), modern historiagraphy requires one to portray both pro and anti-Coptic views. I agree that we have to a healthy degree of skepticism on all historians. But it does not seem Gaddis deviated from standard historical and analytical techniques.

    Regardless of who wrote the material, the argument that was presented was coherent. In the 3rd to 5th centuries, there was no separation of Church and state, which led to overt acts of violence against all opposing Christian parties, whether Alexandrian, Roman, Nestorian, Origen, anti-Origenism, monophysite, dyophysite, etc. Each party claiming the other incited mob violence from bishops and monks, violence from imperial soldiers, political violence and so on. The basic argument comes down to what is violence, what is an adequate separation of Church and state and what happens if such principles are violated. I think the problem still exists today, whether an Islamic theocracy or Christian politics. It's imperiative that we examine and have an answer ready "for all who ask us for the hope that is in us through Christ Jesus."
  • [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12727.msg149795#msg149795 date=1325469737]
    Mabsoota, thank you for your comments. Whether or not Michael Gaddis is a controversial author on a whole or just on the co-authored book on Chalcedon will need to be more scrutinized. I don't know since I haven't read his book on Chalcedon. The book I referenced, however, seems to have a good amount of supporting references with a logical framework. That is not to say he isn't anti-Christian. But in order to counter the bias writing techniques of Christian historians of the past (as you accurately portrayed in the historical writings of Pope Dioscorus), modern historiagraphy requires one to portray both pro and anti-Coptic views. I agree that we have to a healthy degree of skepticism on all historians. But it does not seem Gaddis deviated from standard historical and analytical techniques.

    Regardless of who wrote the material, the argument that was presented was coherent. In the 3rd to 5th centuries, there was no separation of Church and state, which led to overt acts of violence against all opposing Christian parties, whether Alexandrian, Roman, Nestorian, Origen, anti-Origenism, monophysite, dyophysite, etc. Each party claiming the other incited mob violence from bishops and monks, violence from imperial soldiers, political violence and so on. The basic argument comes down to what is violence, what is an adequate separation of Church and state and what happens if such principles are violated. I think the problem still exists today, whether an Islamic theocracy or Christian politics. It's imperiative that we examine and have an answer ready "for all who ask us for the hope that is in us through Christ Jesus."


    Yes. Father Peter, do you have an opinion on this, as I am finding this a very difficult issue to answer myself.
Sign In or Register to comment.