Holy Empires

Anastasios · Post by **Anastasios** » Sun 2 October 2005 5:55 pm

Nikodemus wrote:
Michigan

The first name that appeared in my head when I read your comment was Arnold Schwarznegger. I dont want to judge him, since I believe he hag true values, but to chose him as governor in USA!!??? I should say that I have great respect for some of USA politicians, but didnt believe the people would chose a man who made a film carrier primarily because of his bodyphysics. Moreover, it is not the people that chose the politicians it is they themselves who chose tthemselves through the people.

Arnold has a degree in economics and is a skilled businessman (hence why he has millions of dollars) so I don't see why he isn't qualified to be a governor.

It is a truth that a person like Hitler could not have come to power if it was not for the democratic Weimar system.

Neither Lenin nor Stalin were elected.

Anastasios

Nikodemus · Post by **Nikodemus** » Sun 2 October 2005 7:14 pm

Anastasios

I guess that if you would ask a priest in Byzans or in Holy Russia what the best qualifications would bee to be involved in politics, he would not give the answer: A degree in economics

Today we worship science and education. The new priesthood is men in white coats with academic degrees. The politicians get themselves elected and especially so in a country that besides science worship money. Money seems to be one of the most important keys to win an election. In a more traditional society they woudl focus on other skills.

I think Arnold Schwarznegger as governor is a product of a degenerate democracy that puts quantity (votes and money) above quality (virtue and spirit), of a modernistic spirit in ideas (the idolatry of science, masonic freedom and rights), of a massculture (that gave him the opportunity to become a fetisch in popular culture and of indifferentism to Tradition (politics is just about economy and law these days and not about the building of a genuine civilisation under God).

Nikodemus · Post by **Nikodemus** » Sun 2 October 2005 8:13 pm

And by the way, the bolschewik party had not majority, but they had the power to have a great influence in the demcratic parlament before the revolution.

Nikodemus · Post by **Nikodemus** » Sun 2 October 2005 8:14 pm

Holy Tsar Nikolaj II pray for us and let us honour thy most sacred throne for ever and ever.

Amen

Anastasios · Post by **Anastasios** » Sun 2 October 2005 10:28 pm

Why wouldn't a priest in Russia or Byzantium think that a degree in economics would be a good prerequisite for being in politics?

If you think that in Byzantium and Russia, the evils you describe in modern society did not influence emperors and the ruling elite, you are being naive. That's why there were so many examples of regicide in the history of Byzantium. There were holy emperors and there were evil emperors who wanted money and power, just like nowadays there are holy leaders and evil leaders.

You should read up on what the Holy Fathers have to say about getting a (secular) education. They prized rhetoric, philosophy, language, literature, and art--all secular subjects--as education and study were seen as an aid to the attainment of holiness.

In regards to your second post, it doesn't matter if the Bolsheviks had influence in the parliament; they won by bloodshed not elections.

Anastasios

Nikodemus · Post by **Nikodemus** » Mon 3 October 2005 7:35 am

Anastasios

I didnt say that secular learning was evil, I just said that it should be subordinate (lexically) to moral qualities and sacred science ie theology. In Byzans most of the emperors if not all thought that theological questions were among the most important and therefore many of them saught doctrinal unity in the Holy Synods. Unity in faith (even if the faith was in fact a heresy like iconoclasom or arianism) were regarded as the foundation of society. Today everyone instead seek unity in society on secular standards. Everyone must be a democrat (read orthodox).