User talk:Alastair Haines: Difference between revisions

; Archives
	Archive 1; Archive 2; Archive 3; Archive 4; Archive 5; Archive 6;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:47, 18 August 2008

This user is Australian

Member of WikiProject Bible

Member of WikiProject Languages

Member of WikiProject Writing systems

Member of WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics

Member of WikiProject Strategy Games

Home

Talk

Contribs

Awards

Contribs

Backlog

Incubator

Testbench

Most excellent

I agree with your comments on Early Christianity and again the Early Christian Fathers article is excellent. Thank you for your kind words and intervention. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah haha but you forgot Father Diodore of Tarsus . The Chaldocean will appreciate this am sure. God Bless, Alistair. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a fair conclusion.

LoveMonkey (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Question Alastair

Hello Alastair, I have a question for you. What is the meaning (to you) of the word heresy? LoveMonkey (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In EO it is to choose your own opinion over that of the community (the phenomena of Phronema).LoveMonkey (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Very interesting, that makes Christians heretics from the world community. :)

In Protestantism, heresy is anything contrary to the Bible. Sola scriptura is a common phrase associated with staying clear of heresy. Protestants don't trust themselves to get things right! ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

During the time of Westernization in Russia, the pro Westernizers pushed that heresy is to mean, one who opposes "Orthodoxy". This by extention meant that people did not have a "right" to their own interruption and or opinion. But to the Orthodox clergy this is not what Orthodoxy means and this is not what heresy means. The idea of heresy as this became so pervasive that the conservative elements in Russia (called now in hindsight Slavophiles) created a philosophy (yes Russian Philosophy) to address philosophical dialect with philosophical dialect- their response was called sobornost or organic, spontanious ordering. If you would like I can post the apology here on your talk page, it is to RC and Protestanism. The problem is this too, is wrong. But lets start there with sobornost. Respond if you would like to read the apology it is not long. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me but it would be better to post. You see it would be for brother Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. For old times in his honor. I think he is a saint you see. Maybe it would help people understand the old man better and why Tolstoy was wrong.

(talk) 14:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me say, that Orthodox is organic and opposes the "mechanization" of things. Philosophy is (by definition) a set of analytical tools (called dialects) to deconstruct reality. God is not a machine, man is not a machine, reality is not a machine. Orthodoxy is to maintain all of the community's traditions.^[1] LoveMonkey (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey -- if I may butt in here... the designation of "heresy" is dependent upon the group, and attempts to identify with the group. For instance, to Jewish Orthodoxy, Paul is a heretic. To Christian Orthodoxy, Paul is (by definition) Orthodox. To Buddhist Orthodoxy (if there were such a thing), Paul is neither... because no one is trying to identify Paul with that group. The designation, then, is only a response to a person or group claiming to be either a subset of the larger group, or a replacement to that group. Jehovah's Witnesses do not claim to be members of the larger group of Orthodox (i.e. Nicene) Christians. Instead, they claim to be "Christians" instead of Orthodox Christians. It is the attempted use of the identity of the mainstream group that calls into question whether one is truly representative of that group (Orthodox) or not (heretical). No one accuses Barack Obama of Democratic heresy, because he's very much in line with other Democrats. However, if Barack Obama were a Republican, he would very much be accused of "heresy" by that party, even more so than John McCain already is. My point is this: "heresy" does not mean that you are wrong; it simply means that you are not mainstream. Martin Luther was a "heretic" to Catholicism, but one of the principle founders of Protestant "orthodoxy." In terms of the politics you mention, Russian political orthodoxy, Abraham Lincoln is neither orthodox nor heretical, because no one is trying to identify him with that group, and therefore that group has no need to exclude him.Tim (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh why I wanted to post the comments. So be it. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to post, brother, especially now we are three. :)) Alastair Haines (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey, sorry for some confusion. I'm not sure why I read Russian Soviet political "Orthodoxy" in there. I see now you are an Eastern Christian. In the broadest terms, I think that both Eastern and Western Christians will agree that the Nicene Creed (with or without the filioque clause) marks the acceptable boundary of Christian Orthodoxy. Groups that are in opposition to it would be heretical. Subsets beyond that have their own definitions. A paedobaptist is non-Baptist, but that doesn't make him heretical. As Alastair mentioned, Evangelicals or many Protestants would cite sola scriptura... but that doesn't mark any definitive limit, because scripture is claimed by many groups.Tim (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it is written so let it be done. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sobornost

Link[1]
The message of Sobornost^[2]
Sobornost as an apology for Caesaropapism.^[3]
Sobornost against spiritual elitism or extra ecclesiam nulla salus.^[4]
Sobornost as an apology against Western Christianity.^[5]
Sobornost as an apology specific to sola scriptura.^[6] Sobornost to Western Christianity as a call for unity^[7]
Sobornost in contrast to Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.
Khomiakov describes the difference between the three Christian denominations as follows: Three voices are heard more distinctly than others in Europe: "Obey and believe my decrees," says Rome.
"Be free and try to create some sort of faith for yourself," says Protestantism.
And the Church calls to the faithful:
"Let us love one another that we may with one accord confess the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost."
Sobornost as love and freedom.^[8] Sobornost and the mir
^[9] Sobornost from other slavophils.^[10] Sobornost as democratic^[11]
Aleksey Khomyakov pg87 from the History of Russian Philosophy by N.O. Lossky.

^ Orthodoxy has a method of cure. It appears among other things in the subtitle of the Philokalia. It says: "Philokalia of the holy neptics in which through practice and the vision of God the nous is purified, illuminated and perfected".
^ Theologically speaking the Fellowship's impact was also felt. The introduction to the English-speaking Christian world of theologians like Bulgakov, Lossky, Florovsky, Meyendorff and Schmemann often came via the Fellowship and has had an impact which can still not be adequately assessed. Symposia of studies on various theological themes involving both eastern and western theologians were published. These tackled issues such as ecclesiology and the place of Mary. Above all, the Fellowship's journal Sobornost provided (and continues to provide) a forum for serious theological debate and discussion between Christian East and West. Unity as Christians is intrinsically bound up with the peace of the whole world, the 'peace which passeth all understanding', for which we are bound, as Christians, to pray. The work of the Fellowship is rooted in common prayer and fellowship between separated Christians. It is honest enough to be able to acknowledge differences, both positive and negative. It realises that unity in Christ need not mean uniformity in Christ. The Christian Church existed for centuries without division, but with numerous variations in local church life and practice The one constant factor was a common faith which was firmly rooted in the Gospels and the church tradition, that whole body of teaching, faith and life handed down from the apostles. 'Unofficial' ecumenism seeks to regain something of the bond of self-sacrificial love which existed between Christians in the infancy of the Church. It welcomes our unity in diversity as brothers and sisters in Christ with different traditions.
^ The Russian Emperor has no rights of priesthood, he has no claims to infallibility or "to any authority in matters of faith or even of church discipline." He signs the decisions of the Holy Synod, but this right of proclaiming laws and putting them into execution is not the same as the right to formulate ecclesiastical laws. The Tsar has influence with regard to the appointment of bishops and members of the Synod, but it should be observed that such dependence upon secular power is frequently met with in many Catholic countries as well. In some of the Protestant states it is even greater (II, 36-38, 208).
^ Although Khomiakov regarded Orthodoxy as the one true Church he was in no sense a fanatic. He did not believe that extra ecclesiam nulla salus (there is no salvation outside the church) in the sense that every Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Buddhist, etc., is doomed to perdition. "The mysterious bonds that unite the earthly Church with the rest of mankind are not revealed to us; therefore we have neither the right nor the inclination to suppose that all who remain outside the visible Church will be severely condemned, especially as such a supposition would contradict the Divine mercy" (II, 220). "In confessing one baptism, as the beginning of all the sacraments we do not reject the other six;" but in addition to the seven, "there are many other sacra¬ments; for every work done in faith, hope and love is inspired by the spirit of God and evokes God's invisible grace" (II, 14). '"He who loved truth and righteousness and defended the weak against the strong, who fought against corruption, tortures and slavery, is a Christian, if only to some extent; he who did his best to improve the life of the workers and to brighten the wretched lot of the classes oppressed by poverty whom we cannot as yet make quite happy, is a Christian, if only in part." "Apart from Christ and without love for Christ man cannot be saved, but what is meant here is not the historical appearance of Christ, as Our Lord Himself tells us (II, 160, 220): Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come" (Matt. XII. 32). "Christ is not only a fact, He is a law, He is the realized idea; and therefore a man who, by the dispensation of Providence has never heard about the Righteous One who was crucified in Judea, may yet be worshipping the essence of Our Saviour though he cannot name Him or bless His Divine name. He who loves righteousness loves Christ; he whose heart is open to love and compassion is His disciple though he does not him¬self know it. All Christian sects contain men who in spite of their mistaken beliefs (for the most part inherited) honor with their whole life, with their thoughts, words and deeds Him who died for the sake of His criminal brethren. All of them, from the idolater to the sec¬tarian, are more or less in darkness; but all see in the gloom some glimmering rays of the eternal light which reaches them in various ways" (II, 221).
^ In his criticism of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism Khomia¬kov takes for his starting point the principle of sobornost or commonalty; namely, the combination of unity and freedom based upon the love of God and His truth and the mutual love of all who love God. In Catholicism he finds unity without freedom and in Protestantism freedom without unity. In these denominations only an external unity and an external freedom are realized. The legal formalism and logical rationalism of the Roman Catholic Church have their roots in the Roman State. These features developed in it more strongly than ever when the Western Church without consent of the Eastern introduced into the Nicean Creed the filioque clause. Such arbitrary change of the creed is an expression of pride and lack of love for one's brethren in the faith. "In order not to be regarded as a schism by the Church, Romanism was forced to ascribe to the bishop of Rome absolute infallibility." In this way Catholicism broke away from the Church as a whole and became an organization based upon external authority. Its unity is similar to the unity of the state: it is not super¬rational but rationalistic and legally formal. Rationalism has led to the doctrine of the works of superarogation, established a balance of duties and merits between God and man, weighing in the scales sins and prayers, trespasses and deeds of expiation; it adopted the idea of trans¬ferring one person's debts or credits to another and legalized the exchange of assumed merits; in short, it introduced into the sanctuary of faith the mechanism of a banking house. Roman Catholicism rationalizes even the sacrament of the Eucharist: it interprets spiritual action as purely material and debases the sacrament to such an extent that it becomes in its view a kind of atomistic miracle. The Orthodox Church has no metaphysical theory of Transsubstantiation, and there is no need of such a theory. Christ is the Lord of the elements and it is in His power to do so that "every thing, without in the least changing its physical substance" could become His Body. "Christ's Body in the Eucharist is not physical flesh."
^
The rationalism of Catholicism which established unity without freedom gave rise, as a reaction against it, to another form of rationalism -Protestantism which realizes freedom without unity. The Bible, in itself a lifeless book, subjectively interpreted by every individual be¬liever, is the basis of the Protestants' religious life. This is the reason why "Protestants have not that serenity, that perfect certainty of posessing the word of God which is given by faith alone." It attaches too much importance to the historical study of the Scriptures. It is a matter of vital importance to them whether the Epistle to the Romans was written by Paul or not. This means that Protestantism regards the Scriptures as an infallible authority, and at the same time as an authority external to man.
The attitude of the Orthodox Church to the Scriptures is different. "It regards the Scriptures as its own testimony and looks upon them as an inward fact in its own life." "Suppose it were proved today that the Epistle to the Romans was not written by Paul; the Church would say 'it is from me' and the very next day the epistle would be read aloud in all the churches as before, and the Christians would listen to it with the joyful attention of faith; for we know whose testimony alone is incontrovertible." Khomiakov regards the Protestants' rejection of prayers for the dead, of the worship of the Saints and of the value of good works as the expression of utilitarian rationalism which fails to see the organic wholeness of the visible and the invisible Church.
^ The defects of Roman Catholicism and of Protestantism spring, he thinks, from the same psychological source: fear, the fear of one to lose the unity of the Church and the fear of the others to lose their freedom. Both think of heavenly things in earthly terms: "`There is bound to be schism if there is no central power to decide on questions of dogma,' says the Roman Catholic; 'there is bound to be intellectual slavery if everyone considers himself bound to remain in agreement with others,' says the protestant."
^ What is particularly valuable in Khomiakov's religious and philosophical writings is his emphasis upon the indissoluble union between love and freedom: Christianity is the religion of love and therefore it presupposes freedom. The dogmas of the Church are inviolable, as is clear to everyone who understands the conditions of the Church's life, but in matters of "opinion" Khomiakov freely seeks for new ways. "I often permit myself," he says in a letter to Aksakov, "to disagree with so-called opinions of the Church." It is not surprising that soon after Khomiakov's death the reactionary paper Moscow News called him a teacher of heresy. Khomiakov's views on the historical development of mankind and on social life are closely connected with his religious philosophy. In his Notes on Universal History ("Semiramis") he reduces the whole histori¬cal process to the struggle of two principles-the Aryan and the Cushite. The Aryan principle is spiritual worship of the "freely creating spirit," the Cushite principle (the home of which is Ethiopia) is subjection to matter, "to the organic necessity determining its products through inevitable logical laws." The Aryan principle in religion is lofty mono¬theism, the highest expression of which is Christianity. The Cushite principle in religion is pantheism without a morally determined deity. The struggle of these two principles in history is the struggle between freedom and necessity. The realization of Christian ideals in the historical development of Western Europe is hindered by their rationalistic distortion and by the proud conceit of her peoples. Russia received Christianity from Byzantium in its "purity and wholeness," free from one-sided rationalism. The Russian people's humility, their piety and love of the ideal of holiness, their liking for communal organization in the form of the village commune and the artel, based upon the duty of mutual help, give grounds to hope that Russia will go further than Europe in realizing social justice and, in particular, will find ways of reconciling the interests of capital and labor.
^ Khomiakov attached the greatest value to the Russian village commune, the mir with its meetings that passed unanimous decisions and its traditional justice in accordance with custom, conscience, and inner truth. In Russian industrial life the artel was the parallel of the commune. In the Law Code an artel was defined as a company formed for carrying on certain work or trade by the personal labor of its members, at com¬mon expense and on joint responsibility (X, 1).
^ Khomiakov's follower, Samarin, thought that the ancient Russian social and communal life was an embodiment of the principle of sobornost. The aristocratic regime of warlike nations was foreign to the Slavs, an agricultural people, says Khomiakov.
^ "We shall always remain demo¬crats, standing for purely human ideals and blessing every tribe to live and develop in peace in its own way." Most of all Khomiakov hated slavery: "Demoralization is one of the chief punishments of slavery. Speaking relatively, the slaveowner is always more demoralized than the slave: a Christian may be a slave but must not be a slaveowner."

The mother of all Western Conspiracy Theories?

It seems that the Constantinian shift is yet another historically incorrect made up and made to play on people ignorants, conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories have no place being paraded on wiki as fact. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could he even do a shift without a klutch?Tim (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alastair thank you for taking an interest most people don't even consider us. I have tried like the dickens to clarify all of this in the work I did in the article theoria. God Bless you and thank you for at least listening.

"He prays with his body alone, and not yet with spiritual knowledge. But when the man once blind received his sight and saw the Lord, he acknowledged Him no longer as the Son of David but as the Son of God, and worshipped Him' (cf. John 9 38)." St Symeon the New Theologian Philokalia Vol.4

LoveMonkey (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey, just so you know -- there are plenty of us out there who appreciate the spirituality of Eastern Christianity. Just a few days ago I was defending a misrepresentation of it being made by someone attempting to make the Eastern Fathers sound like Latter Day Saints (Mormons). I have very dear friends in the Eastern Clergy, and find your form of worship to be beautiful, balanced, and humble before God. Just keep on being yourselves. You're a good part of this kosmos.Tim (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slight misreading

Hey Alastair,

Thanks for the kind words, but you misread me.

I can hardly walk into a room without Tim jumping me and bludgeoning me. He goes around telling everyone how everything up to and including racism, pollution and the high price of gasoline is ultimately my fault. And yes, I'm exaggerating a little there, but not a lot. If people accuse Alastair of improper behavior, it's my fault. That's on this very page.

My point was that as far as Tim is concerned, everything is my fault. Even the criticisms against you -- many of which are well founded, well documented, but still unacknowledged by you -- are my fault, as far as Tim is concerned. The words "That's on this very page" referred to the fact that Tim's claim that accusations against you are my fault was on that very page.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you misread what I was saying. So that's what I'm going to do. I'll be able to do so as long as you don't suggest to anyone that I was actually taking the blame for accusations against you.

In all honesty, I have no opinion on the conflict between you and Ilkali. I haven't read the evidence, and it revolved around issues that don't interest me. The fact remains, however, that on the day of that edit war, you reverted my edit without any discussion. Everyone who looks at the diffs can see that this is the case. What boggles my mind, really, is that you refuse to even acknowledge a solid fact like that. Possibly even to yourself. And it's that sort of denial that's going to mess you up big-time in this arbitration. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Orthodoxy has a method of cure. It appears among other things in the subtitle of the Philokalia. It says: "Philokalia of the holy neptics in which through practice and the vision of God the nous is purified, illuminated and perfected".

[2] Theologically speaking the Fellowship's impact was also felt. The introduction to the English-speaking Christian world of theologians like Bulgakov, Lossky, Florovsky, Meyendorff and Schmemann often came via the Fellowship and has had an impact which can still not be adequately assessed. Symposia of studies on various theological themes involving both eastern and western theologians were published. These tackled issues such as ecclesiology and the place of Mary. Above all, the Fellowship's journal Sobornost provided (and continues to provide) a forum for serious theological debate and discussion between Christian East and West. Unity as Christians is intrinsically bound up with the peace of the whole world, the 'peace which passeth all understanding', for which we are bound, as Christians, to pray. The work of the Fellowship is rooted in common prayer and fellowship between separated Christians. It is honest enough to be able to acknowledge differences, both positive and negative. It realises that unity in Christ need not mean uniformity in Christ. The Christian Church existed for centuries without division, but with numerous variations in local church life and practice The one constant factor was a common faith which was firmly rooted in the Gospels and the church tradition, that whole body of teaching, faith and life handed down from the apostles. 'Unofficial' ecumenism seeks to regain something of the bond of self-sacrificial love which existed between Christians in the infancy of the Church. It welcomes our unity in diversity as brothers and sisters in Christ with different traditions.

[3] The Russian Emperor has no rights of priesthood, he has no claims to infallibility or "to any authority in matters of faith or even of church discipline." He signs the decisions of the Holy Synod, but this right of proclaiming laws and putting them into execution is not the same as the right to formulate ecclesiastical laws. The Tsar has influence with regard to the appointment of bishops and members of the Synod, but it should be observed that such dependence upon secular power is frequently met with in many Catholic countries as well. In some of the Protestant states it is even greater (II, 36-38, 208).

[4] Although Khomiakov regarded Orthodoxy as the one true Church he was in no sense a fanatic. He did not believe that extra ecclesiam nulla salus (there is no salvation outside the church) in the sense that every Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Buddhist, etc., is doomed to perdition. "The mysterious bonds that unite the earthly Church with the rest of mankind are not revealed to us; therefore we have neither the right nor the inclination to suppose that all who remain outside the visible Church will be severely condemned, especially as such a supposition would contradict the Divine mercy" (II, 220). "In confessing one baptism, as the beginning of all the sacraments we do not reject the other six;" but in addition to the seven, "there are many other sacra¬ments; for every work done in faith, hope and love is inspired by the spirit of God and evokes God's invisible grace" (II, 14). '"He who loved truth and righteousness and defended the weak against the strong, who fought against corruption, tortures and slavery, is a Christian, if only to some extent; he who did his best to improve the life of the workers and to brighten the wretched lot of the classes oppressed by poverty whom we cannot as yet make quite happy, is a Christian, if only in part." "Apart from Christ and without love for Christ man cannot be saved, but what is meant here is not the historical appearance of Christ, as Our Lord Himself tells us (II, 160, 220): Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come" (Matt. XII. 32). "Christ is not only a fact, He is a law, He is the realized idea; and therefore a man who, by the dispensation of Providence has never heard about the Righteous One who was crucified in Judea, may yet be worshipping the essence of Our Saviour though he cannot name Him or bless His Divine name. He who loves righteousness loves Christ; he whose heart is open to love and compassion is His disciple though he does not him¬self know it. All Christian sects contain men who in spite of their mistaken beliefs (for the most part inherited) honor with their whole life, with their thoughts, words and deeds Him who died for the sake of His criminal brethren. All of them, from the idolater to the sec¬tarian, are more or less in darkness; but all see in the gloom some glimmering rays of the eternal light which reaches them in various ways" (II, 221).

[5] In his criticism of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism Khomia¬kov takes for his starting point the principle of sobornost or commonalty; namely, the combination of unity and freedom based upon the love of God and His truth and the mutual love of all who love God. In Catholicism he finds unity without freedom and in Protestantism freedom without unity. In these denominations only an external unity and an external freedom are realized. The legal formalism and logical rationalism of the Roman Catholic Church have their roots in the Roman State. These features developed in it more strongly than ever when the Western Church without consent of the Eastern introduced into the Nicean Creed the filioque clause. Such arbitrary change of the creed is an expression of pride and lack of love for one's brethren in the faith. "In order not to be regarded as a schism by the Church, Romanism was forced to ascribe to the bishop of Rome absolute infallibility." In this way Catholicism broke away from the Church as a whole and became an organization based upon external authority. Its unity is similar to the unity of the state: it is not super¬rational but rationalistic and legally formal. Rationalism has led to the doctrine of the works of superarogation, established a balance of duties and merits between God and man, weighing in the scales sins and prayers, trespasses and deeds of expiation; it adopted the idea of trans¬ferring one person's debts or credits to another and legalized the exchange of assumed merits; in short, it introduced into the sanctuary of faith the mechanism of a banking house. Roman Catholicism rationalizes even the sacrament of the Eucharist: it interprets spiritual action as purely material and debases the sacrament to such an extent that it becomes in its view a kind of atomistic miracle. The Orthodox Church has no metaphysical theory of Transsubstantiation, and there is no need of such a theory. Christ is the Lord of the elements and it is in His power to do so that "every thing, without in the least changing its physical substance" could become His Body. "Christ's Body in the Eucharist is not physical flesh."

[6] 
The rationalism of Catholicism which established unity without freedom gave rise, as a reaction against it, to another form of rationalism -Protestantism which realizes freedom without unity. The Bible, in itself a lifeless book, subjectively interpreted by every individual be¬liever, is the basis of the Protestants' religious life. This is the reason why "Protestants have not that serenity, that perfect certainty of posessing the word of God which is given by faith alone." It attaches too much importance to the historical study of the Scriptures. It is a matter of vital importance to them whether the Epistle to the Romans was written by Paul or not. This means that Protestantism regards the Scriptures as an infallible authority, and at the same time as an authority external to man.
The attitude of the Orthodox Church to the Scriptures is different. "It regards the Scriptures as its own testimony and looks upon them as an inward fact in its own life." "Suppose it were proved today that the Epistle to the Romans was not written by Paul; the Church would say 'it is from me' and the very next day the epistle would be read aloud in all the churches as before, and the Christians would listen to it with the joyful attention of faith; for we know whose testimony alone is incontrovertible." Khomiakov regards the Protestants' rejection of prayers for the dead, of the worship of the Saints and of the value of good works as the expression of utilitarian rationalism which fails to see the organic wholeness of the visible and the invisible Church.

[7] The defects of Roman Catholicism and of Protestantism spring, he thinks, from the same psychological source: fear, the fear of one to lose the unity of the Church and the fear of the others to lose their freedom. Both think of heavenly things in earthly terms: "`There is bound to be schism if there is no central power to decide on questions of dogma,' says the Roman Catholic; 'there is bound to be intellectual slavery if everyone considers himself bound to remain in agreement with others,' says the protestant."

[8] What is particularly valuable in Khomiakov's religious and philosophical writings is his emphasis upon the indissoluble union between love and freedom: Christianity is the religion of love and therefore it presupposes freedom. The dogmas of the Church are inviolable, as is clear to everyone who understands the conditions of the Church's life, but in matters of "opinion" Khomiakov freely seeks for new ways. "I often permit myself," he says in a letter to Aksakov, "to disagree with so-called opinions of the Church." It is not surprising that soon after Khomiakov's death the reactionary paper Moscow News called him a teacher of heresy. Khomiakov's views on the historical development of mankind and on social life are closely connected with his religious philosophy. In his Notes on Universal History ("Semiramis") he reduces the whole histori¬cal process to the struggle of two principles-the Aryan and the Cushite. The Aryan principle is spiritual worship of the "freely creating spirit," the Cushite principle (the home of which is Ethiopia) is subjection to matter, "to the organic necessity determining its products through inevitable logical laws." The Aryan principle in religion is lofty mono¬theism, the highest expression of which is Christianity. The Cushite principle in religion is pantheism without a morally determined deity. The struggle of these two principles in history is the struggle between freedom and necessity. The realization of Christian ideals in the historical development of Western Europe is hindered by their rationalistic distortion and by the proud conceit of her peoples. Russia received Christianity from Byzantium in its "purity and wholeness," free from one-sided rationalism. The Russian people's humility, their piety and love of the ideal of holiness, their liking for communal organization in the form of the village commune and the artel, based upon the duty of mutual help, give grounds to hope that Russia will go further than Europe in realizing social justice and, in particular, will find ways of reconciling the interests of capital and labor.

[9] Khomiakov attached the greatest value to the Russian village commune, the mir with its meetings that passed unanimous decisions and its traditional justice in accordance with custom, conscience, and inner truth. In Russian industrial life the artel was the parallel of the commune. In the Law Code an artel was defined as a company formed for carrying on certain work or trade by the personal labor of its members, at com¬mon expense and on joint responsibility (X, 1).

[10] Khomiakov's follower, Samarin, thought that the ancient Russian social and communal life was an embodiment of the principle of sobornost. The aristocratic regime of warlike nations was foreign to the Slavs, an agricultural people, says Khomiakov.

[11] "We shall always remain demo¬crats, standing for purely human ideals and blessing every tribe to live and develop in peace in its own way." Most of all Khomiakov hated slavery: "Demoralization is one of the chief punishments of slavery. Speaking relatively, the slaveowner is always more demoralized than the slave: a Christian may be a slave but must not be a slaveowner."

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

@@ Line 101: / Line 101: @@
 [[User:LoveMonkey|LoveMonkey]] ([[User talk:LoveMonkey|talk]]) 18:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
+== Slight misreading ==
+Hey Alastair,
+Thanks for the kind words, but you misread me.
+<blockquote>
+I can hardly walk into a room without Tim jumping me and bludgeoning me. He goes around telling everyone how everything up to and including racism, pollution and the high price of gasoline is ultimately my fault. And yes, I'm exaggerating a little there, but not a lot. If people accuse Alastair of improper behavior, it's my fault. That's on this very page.
+</blockquote>
+My point was that as far as Tim is concerned, everything is my fault.  Even the criticisms against you -- many of which are well founded, well documented, but still unacknowledged by you -- are my fault, '''as far as Tim is concerned'''.  The words "That's on this very page" referred to the fact that Tim's claim that accusations against you are my fault was on that very page.
+I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you misread what I was saying.  So that's what I'm going to do.  I'll be able to do so as long as you don't suggest to anyone that I was actually taking the blame for accusations against you.
+In all honesty, I have no opinion on the conflict between you and Ilkali.  I haven't read the evidence, and it revolved around issues that don't interest me.  The fact remains, however, that on the day of that edit war, you reverted my edit without any discussion.  Everyone who looks at the diffs can see that this is the case.  What boggles my mind, really, is that you refuse to even acknowledge a solid fact like that.  Possibly even to yourself.  And it's that sort of denial that's going to mess you up big-time in this arbitration. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 11:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)