So, I guess this statement was inevitable as they attempt to create the glory of previous achievements. No mention of settlements? Only of a mosque on a hill in Cuba? No mention of finding Bigfoot too?
I am sure that's terrific news for the one-fourth of the population that are out of work!
Without a doubt they must've been Turkish sailors looking for... Malta.
Confused about which gift to send to your loved ones? We can share an easiest and most successful method of winning Hearts. Just pay a pleasurable visit to any online France Florist and Send Flowers to France to your special one. Low Cost Flowers Delivery in France on same date has become easier nowadays.
Ranieri is still experimenting four games into the Euro 2016 campaign. He acts like a part-timer who is handling our national team as a side-job.
He clearly has little knowledge of the players. He has not built a team. He has failed to even maintain that which he inherited.
His hiring was a mistake but I cannot see compensating him 1 eurocent when he clearly put no solid effort into the job.
EPO have to find a way to squeeze him out - and I wish them all the luck in the world.
I just assumed that these monks may have been declared schismatic due to differing views on the faith. But I imagine that if they condemn the Patriarch and defame his decisions, that he would be upset with them. Not sure of the background of their relations. I suppose that if they declare themselves separate because they oppose the patriarch's stance on uniting the churches, they would then automatically be considered schismatic by definition of the term and so would not be permitted to use property of the Orthodox Church or assume that they represent the church any longer? You are dealing with the church as a hierarchical organisation and not with Christ himself, who would be showing compassion as a person. I guess they would have an official meet with all Orthodox representatives in the matter before a decision was officially made. I guess it's a matter for the church (as an organisation) and a separate matter for the soul (on an individual level)?
Christ respected the traditions of the Hebrew monotheistic faith and Socrates respected the traditions of the Pantheon faith. However, they both ruffled the feathers of those in power. Both spoke to the masses, neither ever wrote anything, both had disciples (so to speak). Both came from working class families. Philosophically, they had quite a few things in common. One from a Hellenic environment, the other not. I just chose to compare the two for Tieyetos' entertainment and to make the point that even those living with the Hellenic Pantheon faith, were not all believing in it.
I was not intending to write a thesis. Not sure what was meant by Hellenism, so I included a mesh of ideas. Socrates was mentioned because he was from ancient Athens and despite respecting traditions, he was not so 100% on the pantheon system. I drew comparison of his murder to that of Christ's just to show similarities between the two reflect on the injustice faced by both at different eras (Ancient Greece vs Roman empire). I don't believe that you can simply cut from traditions and build a new faith that will withstand the test of times. We continue elements of our culture and adapt these to reflect on current historical, ecological and social changes (look at the definition of culture). Since I don't have the time nor you have the patience to read an essay from me, I simply through everything in the mix - as though I were thinking aloud. Pardon my ramblings. What I should have written: Greece has produced many saints and there are many miracles performed in the name of Jesus Christ even today. I don't think that they will part with the Orthodox Christian Church anytime soon. It's also very hard to revive a faith that may have naturally died out despite Christianity. With Christianity, we know the rules are unchanging (unlike those outlined by the Ancient Gods under command of bed-hopping Zeus) and we have a chance as mere mortals to go to heaven. It's harder to sell the Hellenic Pantheon faith.
The existence of the Roman (not Hellenic) Empire and the use of Greek as the lingua franca of that era did help in the spreading of Christianity but the rest of your posting is lost to me!
How is the atoning death of Jesus related to Socrates' execution?
Who showed respect for the traditions of that time? And how can we say Christianity was adopted by Greece when the movement was rather small in the 1st century?
I don't believe any doctrinal issues are involved: these monks are against the Patriarch's rapprochement with the Catholic Church.
Once again the Orthodox Church met dissent with any and all means the world affords: court orders, police, etc.
Hardly Christ-like, wouldn't you agree?
From what my experience is in Greece, the church has no influence on re-selling of the plots, this may be organised by the family of the deceased. Usually, the plots are prepared for other family members. I don't know why they would dig up the deceased after 3 years. Maybe email a Greek church to explain the traditions to you.
That Christianity as we know it was influenced by the era and events of the time. The Jews don't want it and the Orthodox Greek Church was born from the traditions of Hellenism cross with Jesus' teachings and the teachings of the early church fathers. Socrates didn't believe in the pantheon system either, he promoted the concept of that there could only be one God, like Jesus he was murdered for "corrupting" the youth. Both went against the status quo. It's not a coincidence that Christianity became popular during the Roman empire, even though they both showed respect for the traditions of their time. There were a lot of movements that people could have adopted. Think about why the New Testament was first written in Greek and also what the affects of Alexander's Hellenic Empire had on the spreading of Christianity. That will give you an idea about why Christianity was adopted by Greece. Hellenism did not exist in a vacuum either.
send them back were they came from ,and bring back HELLENISM.
You can believe whatever you like, but you can't claim to be of the Orthodox Greek Church and not abide by the doctrine. You may not promote ideas that are in contrast to the faith, because then you are misrepresenting the faith. That is, the monks are likely to misguide those that may think whatever these monks might be up to (legal or not) is approved by the governing body of the church. Imagine, someone posing as a catholic priest meshing concepts from Scientology and then promoting it as part of the doctrine of the Catholic Church. If you decide to promote your own ideas, you can not then claim to be part of the Orthodox Church any longer - since you don't really represent them anymore. I think that is why the church head reacted.
We say that we focus on progress, yet ignore those who are an integral part of the future.
We need to promote an environmentally friendly way to sustain all life on the planet.
I believe the property in question belongs to the monastery and not the rebel monks, hence the court order to evacuate and the police action.
As for freedom of belief and conscience, I agree there is very little to be found in the Greek Orthodox Church.
This is plainly obvious. The problem is that the major political parties in both Greece and Cyprus act as though they want this to happen! Makes you wonder about their motives. Look at Greece as an example. PASOK & ND have taken poor positions on this for years. Syriza practically want to raise Turkish and Skopjian flags in Greece, while the party formerly known as Golden Dawn proved to be a group of thugs. Where's the leadership? The last great Hellenic leader was Papadopoulos (Cypriot president)
Can someone please explain why the police are involved in this? Are these monks not free to believe something different?
In other words: you can't have Orthodoxy a la carte.
That's fair enough but as for "disrespecting the human body", why can't the same Orthodox church end the barbarous practice of digging up the dead just a short three years after they have been buried?
On the surface it seems the common denominator is money (funeral rituals and re-selling burial plots).
Is there anyone who thinks otherwise?
Uncontrolled immigration, which is what the EU promotes, does not benefit any nation. There is a destructive social and economic effect. We're seeing it in Greece, the UK, France, etc. It's not just the UK that should threaten to leave this undemocratic organisation
But what I think he really means is "Normality has returned for the bankers and politicians who more or less created this disaster.
The return to "normality" has begun.
Now, how about a return to reality?
Stop calling the economy "healthy" when we have more than 25% unemployment.
Stop aiming for surpluses when so many are in need.
Stop saying we took the right course when so many people lost their jobs, - some going so far as to commit suicide - others have had their standard of living slashed, and the nation, as a whole, is in the hands of the very few, very rich bankers who caused this mess to begin with.
I think both sides would be much better off if the UK left the EU.
On one hand:
The UK will be able to limit immigration.
The UK will never have to give up the pound.
The UK will be able keep its special relationship with the US with no conflict of interest with the rest of Europe.
On the other hand:
The EU will be able to guarantee the borders of the smaller states (no UK veto).
The EU will be able to integrate much easier without the UK.
So, why wait for 2015 and a referendum?
This is really a no-brainer as Turkey should never become an EU member as far as Greece and Cyprus are concerned.
Should Turkey ever enter the EU, their citizens will have right of abode and voting in any other EU state. This will mean that Cyprus and western Thrace can, at any time, be flooded by Turkish migrants who will make the Greeks, in both areas, a miniscule minority.
This model has already been successfully established in Imvros and Tenedos. Let's not forget the lessons of history.
I agree with most of what you said but very much doubt that Turkey is financing this effort.
We are talking about tens of thousands of troops, on the ground, with modern weaponry that has put to flight the regular army of Iraq.
I don't think Turkey could accomplish that. Their support is mainly logistical (transportation of supplies, weaponry and volunteers). The money has to be coming from an oil-producing Sunni country with Qatar and Saudi Arabia being prime suspects.
Now, if someone else is behind them, that's a different story...