notes and comments

[arabaliozian]

sin

Thursday, June 11, 2009
*****************************************
ORIGINAL SIN
****************************************
We begin by saying yes to our parents, then to our schoolteachers and parish priest (or rabbi or mullah) after which we consider it our duty to say yes sir! to empty suits and bearded fornicators. And now think of the millions of innocent victims who perished just because some loud-mouth damn fool spoke in the name of a non-existent being or a misguided ideology or a phony orthodoxy. And if you think this sort of aberration belongs to the past, think again. I have seen it happen in my own lifetime and I see it happen again and again whenever I read the headlines in newspapers or watch the news on television. And why? Because we all think my speechifier or sermonizer knows better, his god is a better god, his ideas are better ideas...all of which combined makes us morally superior and we can do no wrong and anyone who says otherwise is a liar who deserves to be silenced and sometimes silenced permanently.
The very same people who taught us to believe tasting the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge was the Original Sin have brainwashed us to believe to gorge ourselves on the fruit from the Tree of Ignorance is our patriotic duty. If you have a better explanation, I am all ears.
#
Friday, June 11, 2009
*****************************************
IT WAS WORSE THAN A CRIME,
IT WAS A BLUNDER
****************************************
There is a tendency in all of us to avoid confrontation especially when the opposition is more powerful. We call it playing it safe or being cautious. And yet, we look up to those rare heroic individuals who stand up for what is right even if it means losing their freedom and sometimes even their life. Think of Socrates versus the Athenian establishment, think of Jesus, Galileo, Gandhi, and Solzhenitsyn.
And now, let us consider the case of our revolutionaries in the Ottoman Empire. The reason they rose against the Empire was that they believed the Great Powers of the West to be on their side and with such allies they could not lose. But lost they did and it was not they who paid a heavy price but the people. Socrates and the others mentioned above relied on no one but themselves and suffered the consequences. Most of our revolutionaries survived to publish long-winded memoirs, to rewrite history, and to cover up their blunder. I don't find that heroic but cowardly and contemptible.
We all make mistakes, of course, but some of us are honest enough to admit them, sometimes even to apologize.
#
Saturday, June 12, 2009
*****************************************
WHEN THE BLIND LEAD THE BLIND
****************************************
Baudelaire on the idea of superiority: “a satanic idea, if ever there was one.”
I have said many nasty things about self-assessed moral superiority, but I have never gone as far as calling it satanic. It takes the daring of a genius to see things as they are. The rest of us might as well be blind to reality.
*
Give a nobody authority or make him feel superior and he will speak in the name of god or historic necessity or greater wisdom and go on the warpath against infidels or inferiors or anyone else who stands between him and more power. Megalomania is a hungry monster that is never satiated. Even the popes of Rome, whose job was to preach love of the enemy, went to war.
But then, where would authority be without dupes? To believe in someone else and to ignore “the kingdom of god” which is within us, might as well be the source of all crimes against humanity.
*
Flaubert: “To be stupid, selfish and have good health are three requirements for happiness, though if stupidity is lacking, all is lost.”
#

[arabaliozian]

Re: elegy

Which question(s)? On many occasions, you seem to be ignoring everyone no matter what they say! I hope that's not where you get your inspiration from. And frankly speaking, at times, it's hard to understand what your talking about or what your trying to say! I don't mean to offend you or anything. Please don't understand me the wrong way. Your a writer, I respect that, so am I and I love writing, but your posts aren't exatly very clear if you don't mind me saying so.

that is why i repeat myself -- for the sake of those who didn't understand me in the first place. if you don't give up reading me everything will b ecome as clear as daylight.

[arabaliozian]

Re: elegy

...and answers us like a book, not like a person. No wonder people misunderstand him so much. Or maybe he doesn't really care. He's just here to say whatever he wants to say. I have no problems with that. I just thought he actually wanted people to understand him. In that case, I think he should talk more and act like a fellow forumer who both reads and responds properly to other forumers instead of acting like a wall that won't answer you no matter what you do ... or answer you with riddles instead.

What I sense in Mr. B's writing is that he likes to say many things with one sentence and although that's very good, I don't think ALL his posts should be written that way. Ameninch chap u sahman uni. It makes them hard to understand and many start to misunderstand him. Don't mean to offend, I have no reason to. Hope you understood me correctly !

if it's an interview you want, go ahead, ask...
a warning: i am not here to solve all mysteries.
i too am searching for answers even if i am fully aware of the fact that none of us has or will ever have all the answers...except perhaps the Good Lord, who doesn't seem to be interested in getting involved in human affairs....

[Sako]

Re: elegy

that is why i repeat myself -- for the sake of those who didn't understand me in the first place. if you don't give up reading me everything will b ecome as clear as daylight.

That's just the problem ... it's not that people don't understand you ... it's that they MISunderstand you on different occasions. You write in a special way, don't respond like a forumer (you probably don't have time I guess), and then expect everything to be clear as daylight? You seem to just want to give the lessons and be off. We might understand a few things you say but on many occasions, it seems like your not talking to anyone, just writing your own diary. If that's the case, please let us know.

What is it your trying to say and to whom are you saying it to? And also, why won't you answer people directly? I think you'd be able to get your message out there in a more effective way if you did, if you don't mind me saying so. After I read your last couple of posts directed to me, I felt like I was talking to a man named Ara Boliozyan rather then a wall named Ara Boliozyan and you know what? It felt good !

if it's an interview you want, go ahead, ask...

Haha, no Sir, it's not an interview I want. I've simply seen some misunderstand you and others ask questions you never responded to properly and it seemed very strange to me. Plus, if I remember correctly, you didn't respond to MY questions at one point which weren't interview questions ... just regular ol` ones. It feels like a miracle because you actually replied.

a warning: i am not here to solve all mysteries.

And neither am I good Sir ... I'm just here to solve a small mystery related to you !

i too am searching for answers even if i am fully aware of the fact that none of us has or will ever have all the answers...except perhaps the Good Lord, who doesn't seem to be interested in getting involved in human affairs....

The Good Lord is always involved in human affairs ... just because you can't see him doesn't mean he isn't ! EVERYTHING that happens, happens because of God's will ... both good and bad and he isn't too far away ... he's right here in our hearts and all around us and it's not very, very hard to see him ... we just don't have the proper eyes!

That doesn't mean he doesn't exist... A blind man can't see anything but that doesn't mean the world isn't real. He just doesn't have the eyes to see it all but has the mind and senses which are more important ...... that's all he or anyone else needs. You don't eyes alone to see! I know this has nothing to do with our conversation ... simply wanted to say all this .

Anyways, I hope you understood me correctly and hope I didn't offend you in any way. If so, i deeply apologize.

[jgk3]

Re: elegy

Thursday, June 11, 2009
*****************************************
ORIGINAL SIN
****************************************
We begin by saying yes to our parents, then to our schoolteachers and parish priest (or rabbi or mullah) after which we consider it our duty to say yes sir! to empty suits and bearded fornicators. And now think of the millions of innocent victims who perished just because some loud-mouth damn fool spoke in the name of a non-existent being or a misguided ideology or a phony orthodoxy. And if you think this sort of aberration belongs to the past, think again. I have seen it happen in my own lifetime and I see it happen again and again whenever I read the headlines in newspapers or watch the news on television. And why? Because we all think my speechifier or sermonizer knows better, his god is a better god, his ideas are better ideas...all of which combined makes us morally superior and we can do no wrong and anyone who says otherwise is a liar who deserves to be silenced and sometimes silenced permanently.
The very same people who taught us to believe tasting the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge was the Original Sin have brainwashed us to believe to gorge ourselves on the fruit from the Tree of Ignorance is our patriotic duty. If you have a better explanation, I am all ears.
#

That addictive fruit is what keeps us stuck to the earth, stuck to selfishness, putting ourselves before God. So we have to give it up. Having returned to our senses, we can return to the healthy Garden of Eden which God provided for us.

Friday, June 11, 2009
*****************************************
IT WAS WORSE THAN A CRIME,
IT WAS A BLUNDER
****************************************
There is a tendency in all of us to avoid confrontation especially when the opposition is more powerful. We call it playing it safe or being cautious. And yet, we look up to those rare heroic individuals who stand up for what is right even if it means losing their freedom and sometimes even their life. Think of Socrates versus the Athenian establishment, think of Jesus, Galileo, Gandhi, and Solzhenitsyn.
And now, let us consider the case of our revolutionaries in the Ottoman Empire. The reason they rose against the Empire was that they believed the Great Powers of the West to be on their side and with such allies they could not lose. But lost they did and it was not they who paid a heavy price but the people. Socrates and the others mentioned above relied on no one but themselves and suffered the consequences. Most of our revolutionaries survived to publish long-winded memoirs, to rewrite history, and to cover up their blunder. I don't find that heroic but cowardly and contemptible.
We all make mistakes, of course, but some of us are honest enough to admit them, sometimes even to apologize.
#

From what I've read and been told about our predicament 100 years ago...

We were the black sheep, and the meat of the Ottomans, and the expendible pawns of Britain, France and Russia. We were in a bad position, what makes you think it would've improved if we had waiting longer, leaving the increasingly frequent massacres and seizures of our livelihood, unanswered? We could not negotiate with them, Abdul Hamid II was the breaking point for us. the Armenians living in regions where they formed the majority were not sitting in comfortable chairs, living lofty urban lives, seeking a more equitable social structure like Europe's socialists did. No, what was on their minds were Kurdish brigands, led by their chiefs, taking whatever they pleased of their (an Armenian's) hard earned produce, raping the girls and women, torturing (often leading to death) and humiliating any man who showed the least bit of self respect, and so on... When an Armenian villager went to court to seek justice, his word was likened in the minds of the jury to a dog's bark.

You think if the Amerindians had waited in the Americas for a day when the similar hell which the colonial nations imposed on them without shame could finally die down, they would have found "better timing"? The only "better timing" would have been to fight sooner, more often. But no... the others who were wiped off the face of the earth too were lured with promises of prosperity through cooperation with their oppressive occupants. In a land where you have no friends, it is still no excuse to befriend an enemy who wants you dead.

We were basically the Amerindians of Anatolia. Full of martyrs, victories and defeats, our people enduring massacres, famine and disease. We acted in hopes for survival, and thus, had our revolutionaries, I'm sorry if that sounds amiss to you. Maybe you too would've played with fire if you were not so sure if your family would be alive next week.

[arabaliozian]

Re: elegy

That addictive fruit is what keeps us stuck to the earth, stuck to selfishness, putting ourselves before God. So we have to give it up. Having returned to our senses, we can return to the healthy Garden of Eden which God provided for us.




From what I've read and been told about our predicament 100 years ago...

We were the black sheep, and the meat of the Ottomans, and the expendible pawns of Britain, France and Russia. We were in a bad position, what makes you think it would've improved if we had waiting longer, leaving the increasingly frequent massacres and seizures of our livelihood, unanswered? We could not negotiate with them, Abdul Hamid II was the breaking point for us. the Armenians living in regions where they formed the majority were not sitting in comfortable chairs, living lofty urban lives, seeking a more equitable social structure like Europe's socialists did. No, what was on their minds were Kurdish brigands, led by their chiefs, taking whatever they pleased of their (an Armenian's) hard earned produce, raping the girls and women, torturing (often leading to death) and humiliating any man who showed the least bit of self respect, and so on... When an Armenian villager went to court to seek justice, his word was likened in the minds of the jury to a dog's bark.

You think if the Amerindians had waited in the Americas for a day when the similar hell which the colonial nations imposed on them without shame could finally die down, they would have found "better timing"? The only "better timing" would have been to fight sooner, more often. But no... the others who were wiped off the face of the earth too were lured with promises of prosperity through cooperation with their oppressive occupants. In a land where you have no friends, it is still no excuse to befriend an enemy who wants you dead.

We were basically the Amerindians of Anatolia. Full of martyrs, victories and defeats, our people enduring massacres, famine and disease. We acted in hopes for survival, and thus, had our revolutionaries, I'm sorry if that sounds amiss to you. Maybe you too would've played with fire if you were not so sure if your family would be alive next week.

for 600 years we were the Sultan's most loyal servants -- "the most loyal millet."
why would he massacre us at a time when he needed us most?
the answer must be:
because we believed the West (we were dupes)
and because we counted on russian victory (bad judgment).

[arabaliozian]

Re: elegy

That's just the problem ... it's not that people don't understand you ... it's that they MISunderstand you on different occasions. You write in a special way, don't respond like a forumer (you probably don't have time I guess), and then expect everything to be clear as daylight? You seem to just want to give the lessons and be off. We might understand a few things you say but on many occasions, it seems like your not talking to anyone, just writing your own diary. If that's the case, please let us know.

What is it your trying to say and to whom are you saying it to? And also, why won't you answer people directly? I think you'd be able to get your message out there in a more effective way if you did, if you don't mind me saying so. After I read your last couple of posts directed to me, I felt like I was talking to a man named Ara Boliozyan rather then a wall named Ara Boliozyan and you know what? It felt good !



Haha, no Sir, it's not an interview I want. I've simply seen some misunderstand you and others ask questions you never responded to properly and it seemed very strange to me. Plus, if I remember correctly, you didn't respond to MY questions at one point which weren't interview questions ... just regular ol` ones. It feels like a miracle because you actually replied.



And neither am I good Sir ... I'm just here to solve a small mystery related to you !



The Good Lord is always involved in human affairs ... just because you can't see him doesn't mean he isn't ! EVERYTHING that happens, happens because of God's will ... both good and bad and he isn't too far away ... he's right here in our hearts and all around us and it's not very, very hard to see him ... we just don't have the proper eyes!

That doesn't mean he doesn't exist... A blind man can't see anything but that doesn't mean the world isn't real. He just doesn't have the eyes to see it all but has the mind and senses which are more important ...... that's all he or anyone else needs. You don't eyes alone to see! I know this has nothing to do with our conversation ... simply wanted to say all this .

Anyways, I hope you understood me correctly and hope I didn't offend you in any way. If so, i deeply apologize.

People have been arguing about God for millennia. i don't hope to settle any differences you and i may have on that score.
but what follows may better explain my position:

Sunday, June 13, 2009
*****************************************
ON KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING
************************************************** ****
Socrates: “Know thyself.”
The Koran: “He who knows himself, knows God.”
The Bible: “The Kingdom of God is within you.”
Three synonymous statement.
Three different ways of saying the same thing.
*
“The Kingdom of God is within you,” and “Our Father Who art in heaven”:
I see a contradiction here. Which may suggest that the Bible cannot be the word of God. God does not contradict Himself. Neither does He speak with a forked tongue. Men do.
*
Men contradict one another because they don't understand; they can only hope to move in the direction of greater understanding.
*
I do not have a quarrel with God, only with men who speak in His name after which they legitimize crimes against humanity.
*
God does not issue licenses authorizing men to speak in His name. Licenses are issued by men to other men against other men.
*
Faith can be an asset as well as a liability. It is an asset when it leads to a greater understand and compassion for our fellow men. It is a liability when it makes as dogmatic and intolerant.
*
Diogenes Laertius: “When Thales was asked what was difficult, he said 'to know one's self.' And what was easy, 'To advise another.'”
To advise another: in modern parlance, to sermonize and speechify.
*
Sartre: “We believe that we believe, but we don't believe.”
*
If I bore you, I apologize. If I challenge you, I consider my mission accomplished.
#

[Sako]

Re: elegy

Socrates: “Know thyself.”
The Koran: “He who knows himself, knows God.”
The Bible: “The Kingdom of God is within you.”
Three synonymous statement.
Three different ways of saying the same thing.
*
“The Kingdom of God is within you,” and “Our Father Who art in heaven”:
I see a contradiction here. Which may suggest that the Bible cannot be the word of God. God does not contradict Himself. Neither does He speak with a forked tongue. Men do.[/QUOTE]

First off, just like to say that it feels refreshing hearing you reply to me and J ! Now I feel like I'm talking to a person instead of a diary. And regarding God contradicting himself ... there is nothing God CANNOT do. Please don't forget that...

Before you answer anything, please know that I'm not a fanatic Christian and my views on spirituality, religion, etc. go very deep and have very deep roots, going way beyond fanaticism which I am completely against and come from lot's of experience, travels, etc. I don't mean to brag or anything, I just want to more or less let you know who I am so we won't misunderstand each other. It's very easy for that to happen in forums where you can't see the person your talking to in front of you.

Now first, What is your perception of God? A strong man with a big, silky beard sitting on a throne somewhere in heaven? If so, then naturally, the second statement “Our Father Who art in heaven” would seem more rational to you. If you were on the other hand an impersonalist who couldn't fully understand where God is or WHO God is, you would think the first statement “The Kingdom of God is within you” was more rational. To me ... both statements are correct and rational! Why? Because God is everywhere. He is in your heart and he is at the same time in heaven. He sees all of us but we can't see him, which leads some to doubt (for no reason). I get the impression that you think God can only be in one place at one time and if I'm correct then forgive me but you are wildly mistaken. God is not a human like us. He can be wherever he likes and IS everywhere. Also, we are all part of God but we aren't God. We are nothing but a spark. I think the main question is ... Why do you see a difference between the first statement and the second statement? Why is the Bible not the word of God to you? Or better yet, what is it REALLY that makes you doubt Jesus Christ or the Bible?

I have no problem whatsoever if you like another religion Mr. B. God gave us many roads ... we can choose whichever we like ... but they all lead to the same destination sooner or later just like all the rivers in the world end up in the ocean. Some are simply LONGER and more troublesome then the others! The choice is still ours. Here's a great quote ... one of my favorites: Life isn't a destination ... it's a journey!

Here's a simple question for those who can't understand the following. Why is there so many religions in the world? The answer is simple. Because there are so many types of people with different capacities and for that reason God has given all of us many different options/choices along with a certain amount of freewill to be able to make decisions. We can choose whatever we like. Here's what I've chosen...

I as a person respect all religions because I believe that God is ONE! I have many friends all over the world. Some call me Sako, some Sarkis, some Sachi, and others Jason. But I'm still the same person! In the same way God has many names but they all belong to the same entity so if I dis any religion, I dis my own God automatically. For that reason, I respect all but stay on my path and always look at the bigger picture and most importantly try to remain a good person because if you aren't a good person FIRST you will never be able to be a good devotee or ANYTHING else! I think we can all agree with this simple fact.

I do not have a quarrel with God, only with men who speak in His name after which they legitimize crimes against humanity.

I agree with you 100%. I see so many do just the opposite. They disrespect the religion itself which is downright low instead of blaming the followers who put a bad name on it/them.

Diogenes Laertius: “When Thales was asked what was difficult, he said 'to know one's self.' And what was easy, 'To advise another.'”
To advise another: in modern parlance, to sermonize and speechify.

Mr. B, a simple question again, how do you perceive a teacher and a student? Naturally the teacher teaches and the student learns right? In the same way, religion must be taught and practiced and followed by the people because people nowadays in this age cannot find the right path without guidance just like you can't read or write without going to school first. I agree that to advise another when you YOURSELF aren't doing the right thing is wrong but to think that all who teach are that way is simply foolish. Religion is a school of learning ... it is a very deep subject ... it isn't something material though like math and science. It is the science of God. If you have something against religion or are intolerant of such subjects, please let me know so I'll stop here but if you aren't then please read on.

Bottom line is, Religion is perceived very wrongly nowadays and so is God, spirituality, faith, etc. People base belief on "Seeing is Believing" which is BS. A blind man can't see the sun ... does that mean the sun doesn't exist? Is his/her way of thinking correct?

Sartre: “We believe that we believe, but we don't believe.”

Very wrong, again. This leads to basically "Do what I say, not what I do"

If I bore you, I apologize. If I challenge you, I consider my mission accomplished.

Not much of a challenge here Mr. B, no offence . I've been through much tougher discussions. I feel you have a lot to say and say it but in a certain way. I would appreciate it if you said everything in a more straightforward way instead of giving me lists of different thoughts divided by stars. If you would like us to go deeper into the subject at hand, it would be only an honor for me to continue conversing, especially if our friend Jgk joined us. Me and him go way back ! You definitely don't bore me but I would appreciate it if you talked to us in a more casual way, if you don't mind.

[seruven]

Re: elegy

for 600 years we were the Sultan's most loyal servants -- "the most loyal millet."
why would he massacre us at a time when he needed us most?
the answer must be:
because we believed the West (we were dupes)
and because we counted on russian victory (bad judgment).

It's always refreshing and encouraging to see someone daring to question settled beliefs of the society instead of simply reciting them.

[UrMistake]

Re: elegy

It's always refreshing and encouraging to see someone daring to question settled beliefs of the society instead of simply reciting them.

what do u mean?
And not all of Armenia were under ottoman rule.East were under other occupants.