I reject, I affirm: raising the Red Flag the age of the Holy Spirit - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be discussed here or in The Agora. However, this forum is intended specifically as an area for those with religious belief to discuss religion without threads being derailed by atheist arguments. Please respect that. Political topics regarding religion belong in the Religion forum in the Political Issues section.
#15262824
noemon wrote:Byzantine and Persian(Ahura Mazda) incantations in memory of the Battle of Nineveh, the final battle between Rome & Persia right before the Muslims appeared.



This one contains Muslim incantations as well as Byzantine, Pontic folk songs and Persian ones.



@noemon , and @Potemkin :

And the same thing is going on now: non Muslim powers locked in combat for supremacy and once mighty rulers unable to stop them once they started.

Heraclius was a hero of mine, reading of him in my youth, until I discovered his Monothelitism and marrying his niece to the horror of the whole empire.
#15262830
annatar1914 wrote:@noemon , and @Potemkin :

And the same thing is going on now: non Muslim powers locked in combat for supremacy and once mighty rulers unable to stop them once they started.

Heraclius was a hero of mine, reading of him in my youth, until I discovered his Monothelitism and marrying his niece to the horror of the whole empire.

Heresy and incest aside, he did save the Byzantine Empire from destruction at the hands of the Sasanian Empire. Khosrow II had conquered most of the Middle East in just a few years, including Syria, Anatolia and the Empire’s granary, Egypt. He was poised to tighten the noose around Constantinople with the help of the Avars and the Slavs to the West. He was about to pluck the Byzantine Empire like an over-ripe fruit. Things were so bad that Heraclius was seriously contemplating making the Byzantine Empire into a client state of the Sasanian Empire, and allowing Khosrow II to choose the next Emperor. Then the Battle of Nineveh happened, and within months Khosrow went from being a world-conquerer to starving in a dungeon before being slowly shot to death with arrows on the orders of one of his sons. Credit where credit is due - Heraclius was probably the greatest Roman general since Julius Caesar.
#15262864
Potemkin wrote:Heresy and incest aside, he did save the Byzantine Empire from destruction at the hands of the Sasanian Empire. Khosrow II had conquered most of the Middle East in just a few years, including Syria, Anatolia and the Empire’s granary, Egypt. He was poised to tighten the noose around Constantinople with the help of the Avars and the Slavs to the West. He was about to pluck the Byzantine Empire like an over-ripe fruit. Things were so bad that Heraclius was seriously contemplating making the Byzantine Empire into a client state of the Sasanian Empire, and allowing Khosrow II to choose the next Emperor. Then the Battle of Nineveh happened, and within months Khosrow went from being a world-conquerer to starving in a dungeon before being slowly shot to death with arrows on the orders of one of his sons. Credit where credit is due - Heraclius was probably the greatest Roman general since Julius Caesar.


@Potemkin :

He was, more's the pity. He saved the Roman Empire, twice. But the beginning of his reign shortly after killing the usurper Phocas with his own hands after sailing from Carthage to Constantinople, and towards the near end after returning the True Cross to Jerusalem from the Persians.... Glory followed by despairing ignominy followed by glory and despairing ignominy once more: an incredible up and down reign.
#15262872
annatar1914 wrote:@Potemkin :

He was, more's the pity. He saved the Roman Empire, twice. But the beginning of his reign shortly after killing the usurper Phocas with his own hands after sailing from Carthage to Constantinople, and towards the near end after returning the True Cross to Jerusalem from the Persians.... Glory followed by despairing ignominy followed by glory and despairing ignominy once more: an incredible up and down reign.

Indeed. If ever a life demonstrated that we are the playthings of Fortune, it was his. And Khosrow II’s, of course. Those two had more in common with each other than either of them realised.
#15262892
Potemkin wrote:Heresy and incest aside, he did save the Byzantine Empire from destruction at the hands of the Sasanian Empire.


More to the point he ruled for more than 2 decades trouble-free despite his "incestuous" marriage, which further buttresses my point about the laxity of conservative morality in the Empire.
#15263023
noemon wrote:More to the point he ruled for more than 2 decades trouble-free despite his "incestuous" marriage, which further buttresses my point about the laxity of conservative morality in the Empire.


@noemon :

A war with the Persians lasting from 602 AD to 629 AD, which ruined both Empires, followed by the Islamic invasions, coupled with the torment of spiritual controversy, seems to me that the reign of Heraclius was itself a kind of judgement. Such is the transient and false glory of the world.
#15263127
annatar1914 wrote:@noemon :

A war with the Persians lasting from 602 AD to 629 AD, which ruined both Empires, followed by the Islamic invasions, coupled with the torment of spiritual controversy, seems to me that the reign of Heraclius was itself a kind of judgement. Such is the transient and false glory of the world.


@noemon , @Potemkin , @ness31 , @Verv :

So what does this have to do with the themes of this thread as discussed?

Again, nothing impedes the movement of history, of divine providence. Two directions, two destinations. In the meantime, the problems laid out by the likes of Blessed Augustine in the " City of God", to use an example. But it would possibly be rather easy to take this too far and to fall into a kind of Quietist pessimism, to surrender the world which Christ gave His life for completely to the forces of darkness and death.

We have a knightly duty to resist evil by force if necessary, a moral imperative, regardless even of the " chances" of winning.

Maybe I was wrong about Heraclius? In at least that he knew enough of what he had to do, even if he didn't know anything else other than that one thing: keep the Empire intact, the Katehon before the Eschaton.
#15263134
annatar1914 wrote:@noemon , @Potemkin , @ness31 , @Verv :

So what does this have to do with the themes of this thread as discussed?

Again, nothing impedes the movement of history, of divine providence. Two directions, two destinations. In the meantime, the problems laid out by the likes of Blessed Augustine in the " City of God", to use an example. But it would possibly be rather easy to take this too far and to fall into a kind of Quietist pessimism, to surrender the world which Christ gave His life for completely to the forces of darkness and death.

We have a knightly duty to resist evil by force if necessary, a moral imperative, regardless even of the " chances" of winning.

Maybe I was wrong about Heraclius? In at least that he knew enough of what he had to do, even if he didn't know anything else other than that one thing: keep the Empire intact, the Katehon before the Eschaton.

Heraclius was the sword in the right hand of God, just as Stalin was during the Great Patriotic War, and just as the Assyrians were back in the day. That sword does not need to understand anything; it merely has to smite the enemies of God without breaking in his hand.
#15263146
annatar1914 wrote:
Empire



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I have to make a distinction here, though, between 'empires', and 'civilizations', since they're not both the same. I think any regular person *would* tend to associate the two together, but the argument here is that that association of terms is *historical*, and not-necessarily *inevitable*.



viewtopic.php?p=15262562#p15262562
#15263182
Potemkin wrote:Heraclius was the sword in the right hand of God, just as Stalin was during the Great Patriotic War, and just as the Assyrians were back in the day. That sword does not need to understand anything; it merely has to smite the enemies of God without breaking in his hand.


@Potemkin

Well said. Rulers are established, or disestablished, by ordinance of God, and it is not for nothing that the rulers weild the sword for the punishment of the wicked.

Even if the rulers are wicked themselves. And so evil is restrained by evil, so that everyone might have some goodness in each life rather than nobody have any good at all for themselves.

But other systems promise that the societies ruled or informed by them are just and the best possible, ideal society.

Christianity says that there are no ideal societies aside from the coming rule by God Himself. But that until then, government is a participant in that coming rule.

This is naturally a hard thing to bear, even among Christians. Islam for one suggests a different vision of reality, radically different.
#15263183
Christianity was born in a world that already had advanced civil government and so Christianity's position has always been under the State.

Ecclesia vivit lege Romana.

Christianity can not provide more functions than the civil state, especially the Greco-Roman state, except for in areas that were totally and entirely devastated as in post-Gothic Italy where the Pope & Church provided more civil function than the rudimentary Gothic states or as in Ottoman Greece.


Islam was born in a world that did not have civil infrastructure and Islam provided that after adopting Persian civil infrastructure.
#15263184
noemon wrote:Christianity was born in a world that already had advanced civil government and so Christianity's position has always been under the State.

Ecclesia vivit lege Romana.

Christianity can not provide more functions than the civil state, especially the Greco-Roman state, except for in areas that were totally and entirely devastated as in post-Gothic Italy where the Pope & Church provided more civil function than the rudimentary Gothic states.


Islam was born in a world that did not have civil infrastructure and Islam provided that after adopting Persian civil infrastructure.


@noemon :

" The Church lives by Roman law". This would also go back to the Katehon, that which restrains the man of lawlessness from coming into the world openly. The Roman Empire still exists in a real sense by the Church's Romanity.

Agreed.
#15263259
annatar1914 wrote:@noemon :

" The Church lives by Roman law". This would also go back to the Katehon, that which restrains the man of lawlessness from coming into the world openly. The Roman Empire still exists in a real sense by the Church's Romanity.

Agreed.


And so, we return to the themes of this thread. For the " man of lawlessness" is Antichrist. Is he some kind of Barbarian? No, for Barbarism in my worldview is the world of sacredness of the oath, of honor and holding to the spirit and the letter of the laws of one's people. Civilization in contrast is where sacredness and honor, laws and oaths, go to die, drowned in a sea of legalism, truths inscribed by laws condemned by exceptions and exemptions and nullified. Sacred spaces turned out in favor of marketplaces.

Thus we find that with the Christian, all this is interiorized within one's person. One follows the laws in spirit, with a Love that renders the letter of negative condemnations unnecessary.

Is Islam then in contrast the religion of civilization, of mankind and the city of man? Trump for example (to recall the murder of general Soleimani )would then be it's subject, eyes for eyes and tooth for tooth and then some, the retaliation back and forth sure to follow. All heresies and schisms a kind of preparatory Dhimmitude out in the non Islamic " Dar ul Harb" or " House of War", where things gradually become Islamic over time if not successfully contested by the non Muslims.
#15263263
annatar1914 wrote:
And so, we return to the themes of this thread. For the " man of lawlessness" is Antichrist. Is he some kind of Barbarian? No, for Barbarism in my worldview is the world of sacredness of the oath, of honor and holding to the spirit and the letter of the laws of one's people.



'Of one's people' -- ? We live in *modern* society these days.



An honor killing (American English), honour killing (Commonwealth English), or shame killing[1] is the murder of an individual, either an outsider or a member of a family, by someone seeking to protect what they see as the dignity and honor of themselves or their family. Honor killings are often connected to religion, caste and other forms of hierarchical social stratification, or to sexuality, and those murdered will often be more liberal than the murderer rather than genuinely "dishonorable". Most often, it involves the murder of a woman or girl by male family members, due to the perpetrators' belief that the victim has brought dishonor or shame upon the family name, reputation or prestige.[2][3][4][5] Honour killings are believed to have originated from tribal customs.[6]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killings_by_region



---


annatar1914 wrote:
Civilization in contrast is where sacredness and honor, laws and oaths, go to die, drowned in a sea of legalism, truths inscribed by laws condemned by exceptions and exemptions and nullified.



Civilization transcends petty medieval *nationalism*, which *you* seem to be clinging to. Would you rather see tribal warfare all over again instead, for localist *turf* -- ?


annatar1914 wrote:
Sacred spaces turned out in favor of marketplaces.

Thus we find that with the Christian, all this is interiorized within one's person. One follows the laws in spirit, with a Love that renders the letter of negative condemnations unnecessary.



The *spirit* of the law, rather than the *letter* of the law. Got it.


annatar1914 wrote:
Is Islam then in contrast the religion of civilization, of mankind and the city of man? Trump for example (to recall the murder of general Soleimani )would then be it's subject, eyes for eyes and tooth for tooth and then some,



Islam vs. Trump. The main event. (grin)


annatar1914 wrote:
the retaliation back and forth sure to follow. All heresies and schisms a kind of preparatory Dhimmitude out in the non Islamic " Dar ul Harb" or " House of War", where things gradually become Islamic over time if not successfully contested by the non Muslims.



And here's the sell -- Christian nationalism vs. the heretics.
#15263270
Potemkin wrote:@annatar1914 is not a common-or-garden variety of American Christian nationalist, @ckaihatsu. You're attacking the wrong target. Have you even bothered to read his threads?


@Potemkin :

Indeed, and thank you:

Being one who is against the modern conception of the " Nation State", I can hardly be a " Nationalist". What part of" Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" is not understood by some people?

And being an Orthodox Christian, which doesn't force conversion of those of the other creeds but allows them peace, while trying to inform society as a whole of our principles, with our beliefs, I can hardly be accused of a certain sort of exclusivity that is suggested by the poster.

And I am a Socialist, of the Soviet Union sort. Doesn't mean that I think that the USSR was perfect, but that it did have the Sovereignty which indicates the direction of Divine Providence (and the Dialectical process, which is the same thing, for materialists) in the world and in the process of encountering that information and infusement of the World by the Spirit of Christ.

Hence the dichotomous juxtaposition of the Red Flag of Twelver Shia revenge, with the rising in some hearts of the call of the Holy Spirit.
#15263277
Potemkin wrote:
@annatar1914 is not a common-or-garden variety of American Christian nationalist, @ckaihatsu. You're attacking the wrong target. Have you even bothered to read his threads?



annatar1914 wrote:
And I am a Socialist, of the Soviet Union sort.



If you don't mind, then, maybe you could address the *following*, which, at face-value, sounds somewhat *Islamophobic*:


annatar1914 wrote:
things gradually become Islamic over time if not successfully contested by the non Muslims.
#15263288
ckaihatsu wrote:If you don't mind, then, maybe you could address the *following*, which, at face-value, sounds somewhat *Islamophobic*:


No, it's just an estimation of the success of Islam, it's continued success.

Strange that you would use an ideologically liberal bourgeoisie term to shut down conversation, on the spirituality section of PoFo at that. Your role here has been that of a troll. Please consider finding another thread to interact with others on.
#15263290
annatar1914 wrote:
No, it's just an estimation of the success of Islam, it's continued success.



Okay, thanks -- just asking.

So is your concern about *cultural relations* within the former USSR -- ?



Nationality policy in the Soviet Union

During the history of the Soviet Union, different doctrines and practices on ethnic distinctions within the Soviet population were applied at different times. Minority national cultures were never completely abolished. Instead the Soviet definition of national cultures required them to be "socialist by content and national by form", an approach that was used to promote the official aims and values of the state. The goal was always to cement the nationalities together in a common state structure. In the 1920s and the early 1930s, the policy of national delimitation was used to demarcate separate areas of national culture and the policy of korenizatsiya (indigenisation) was used to promote federalism and strengthen non-Russian languages and cultures. By the late 1930s, however, the policy was changed to a more active promotion of the Russian language and later to more overt Russification, which accelerated in the 1950s,[citation needed] especially in Soviet education. Although some assimilation did occur, it did not on the whole succeed. The continued development of the many national cultures in the Soviet Union led to the drafting of the New Union Treaty in 1991 and the subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union.[1]




Post-Soviet Russia

In contrast to Soviet national identity politics, which declared the Soviet people as an international and supranational community, the post-Soviet Russian Constitution speaks of a "multinational people of the Russian Federation". From the outset, the idea of the Russian nation as a community of all Russian citizens has met with opposition.[5]

In December 2010, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev pointed out the lack of an all-Russian unifying idea as a problem during a discussion in the State Council and proposed "all-Russian patriotism" as a replacement for the idea of "the Soviet people".[6]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_pe ... viet_Union



---


annatar1914 wrote:
Strange that you would use an ideologically liberal bourgeoisie term to shut down conversation, on the spirituality section of PoFo at that. Your role here has been that of a troll. Please consider finding another thread to interact with others on.



The phrase you used sounds like it could have been lifted from something *Rich* would say, with his 'clash-of-civilizations' Islamophobic politics.

I *haven't* been trying 'to shut down conversation'.

I *haven't* been doing any troll-like behavior -- I'm *issue*-oriented.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

You mean Armenia, I presume. :D :D

@Rancid Maybe mercenary groups should hire or […]

January 30, Monday President Lincoln issues a […]

The Police Murder of Tyre Nichols

What evidence do you have that systemic racism oc[…]