The Saint Euphrosynos Cafe

I meant cotton-candy - ie wisps of unhealthy, even toxic material: looks appealing, but does much damage internally if taken in!

One other point here is that I always used to look at Americans as exemplary - as opposed to the Soviet empire. However, even during the administration of Reagan, my favorite President of this century, it's sickening to read memoirs of officials or participants in operations against the Soviets in Afghanistan, for example.
In interviews, U.S. officials admit that their goal was to "BLEED" the Red Army, not to free up a sovereign country which had been invaded for no reason whatsoever except maybe Soviet imperial hubris. To me the American stated objective wa's sick.

Notice, however, that when Kuwait, also a sovereign country but a fantastically oil-rich one, was invaded by Iraq, American forces rushed over to rescue the Kuwaitis. However, Afghanistan was and remains -- even under an influx of billions of American dollars -- around the 5th poorest country in the world. So no American intervention for the apparently oil-less Afghans.
What the former Reagan Admin officials ALL admitted was to harboring a great glee at the ability to kill as many "Russians" as possible - how barbaric is that?
Of course, bringing down the Soviet Empire was the right goal. But KILLING EVERY Russian or Ukrainian or Soviet Central Asia conscript they could get a hold of? Did those people not have families and a right to life? Most didn't even want to be there; I know for I went and interviewed captured Soviet prisoners at length.

Then too no Americans would ever admit to being involved militarily. Instead, they hid behind the brave Afghans who sacrificed THEIR lives and families to kill Soviet invaders. But not for the sheer joy of killing Communists: rather to get the Red Army occupation forces out of their country!

So America was even then a "Christian" country? Did Jesus say to go out and kill especially in a cowardly way? No.
I'm saying that the mentality here was barbaric then, and has only gotten worse. If people really believed in God, there would have been huge prayer vigils or similar to beseech God to end the Soviet Union's evil grip on its own people and many others. Real faith in God would have been demonstrated.
Not this Wild-West bloodthirstiness of US officials who never grew up from their shoot-em up games as little boys.
"Killing Russians" - ? Yes, thwarting the soviet operations but not jumping up and down to celebrate the deaths of what was accepted as subhumans-- Russians.
Neither did Americans give the Afghans credit for their role in bringing down the Soviet empire. Instead, like narcissists, those in Washington claimed the lion's share - often unrealistically if one is aware of the truth - of the credit.
What religion were those Afghans and what gave them the bravery to stand up against Evil ? Muslim and fervent believers whose actions matched their words, an index to which many Christians can not hold up as well.
Of course that factor of Islam as the motivator was played down at the time and now forgotten entirely.

Who is the only leader today who dares stand up to Israel? A Shia Muslim, Ahmadinejad. He doesn't need to indulge in taqiyya - he speaks directly because he has faith in God.

Where are Christian leaders in telling the truth? They are cowering in the corner. Do they manifest more than the most tepid belief in God? Lots of empty words, little action to back up any true faith in even the Judgment Day which will hold them accountable for their misdeeds.
Why should we have a cultural bias and automatically respect them and denounce Muslims?
One reason I believe is the incessant programming by the pro-Israel faction to change this country into a colony of Israel almost!
Don't buy into this hatred of Muslims which is endemic in especially in Fox-Tox-ic News, all the TV stations, every major newspaper and magazine, so many books. The one Prav mentioned may have a jewish author from the name? I wouldn't look at it for a second, myself. I want truth, not material designed to warp the thinking of anchor-less souls who do not go out and see for THEMSELVES what is the reality in the world.

From "killing Russians" it was a quick leap to killing Muslims. Few will protest because the masses are brainwashed by such way off the wall writings.
And too what about the plague of abortion that is shockingly spreading in these decades? Most Americans are so de-sensitized they could care less.
Muslims will never condone this evil practice. They actually love children and welcome them! So Muslims are the barbarians? Guess again, Prav!
They don't hate Christians, either, they like Christians. They will debate theology, but in a respectful manner.
Most Christians of all denominations today DO hate Muslims and scream and yell.
Which is more civilized?
Where is the Orthodox outspokenness about abortion? Very seldom does one hear anything, because of course, it's so widespread in today's Russia and Europe. Hence no Orthodox leaders dare speak a word. Maybe women will be "offended" - Such cowardliness!

My friends in Christ,

I have studied Islam in considerable depth, and I think that one would be hard pressed to find a more extensive, scholarly history of the terrible legacy of Islam in the Byzantine Empire than the published works of Bat Ye'or.  Catherine, you, in particular, should study these books on the history of Islamic dhimmitude.  You should also read the Orthodox hagiographical text [i][u]New Martyrs of the Turkish Yoke[/u][/i] to learn more about the many Orthodox Christians martyred by the Mohammedans right into the 20th century.  I assume that you are both aware that any Moslem who converted to Christianity was put to death under traditional Islamic shari'a-- something which happened right into the 20th century in the Ottoman Empire.

  As for "taquiyya," the doctrine was integral to Islamic theology since the earliest days of Islam, and is derived from the Sunna, the written "acts of Mohammed" which--along with the Koran-- comprise the basis for the Hadith and shari'a.  The original doctrine was based on the actions of one of Mohammed's commanders, who dissembled in order to gain entry into an enemy camp, where he then decapitated Mohammed's adversary.

  Recall that under Islam the entire world is divided into the dar-al-Islam (the land occupied by Moslems) and the dar-al-harb (the lands of war, which are destined to fall under the Moslem yoke in time.)  The religious goal of Islam is to subject the entire world to the rule of shari'a and submission to Allah.  Moslems have a religious duty to deceive and murder infidels who stand in the way of this religious injunction.  Once subjected to Islamic rule, Christians and Jews may be permitted to live, but they must pay a "dhimmi" tax, forfeit all property rights, and assume second class citizenship, wherein they may not hold high civil offices or occupy homes or commercial property that is physically "higher" than that of resident Moslems.

   In the dar-al-harb-- places like Russia, Austria-Hungary, or Italy on the outskirts of Islamic domains like the Ottoman Empire-- Moslems have typically assumed a much more conciliatory, humble demeanor toward infidels than that which they exhibit in their own occupied territories.  Hence many Europeans, and Americans, have often had a markedly distorted concept of Islamic "theology."  George W. Bush remarked, incredibly, in 2004 that "Islam is a religion of peace," the exact opposite of the terrible truth.  Western Europeans were shocked a few years ago when the Indonesian Supreme Court announced that some Moslems who had massacred Christian villagers were innocent.  (The massacres of Coptic Christians have been routine in modern day Egypt.) For, under Islamic shari'a, it is not a capital crime for a Moslem to murder a Christian or a Jew-- in fact, Mohammed decapitated an entire village of Jews in his conquests, setting a horrific historical precedent-- but it IS a capital offense under shari'a for a Christian or a Jew to kill a Moslem.

     As for the comment about the Antichrist revealing himself to humanity as a compassionate, Christ-like humanitarian, it is primarily for this reason that I first began to wonder about Barak Obama-- long before he won the Nobel Peace Prize and ascended to the U.S. Presidency.

Well, all the sources I've seen are adamant that taqiyya is a Shia doctrine only, and that Sunnis, the majority of the world's Muslims, do not believe in it. I found one source where a Muslim is attempting to argue that taqiyya is common to both Sunni and Shia Islam, but he is also explicit that this is not the received opinion within Sunni Islam, and especially not in the Wahhabi sect, which is very firmly opposed to taqiyya:

http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6b/1.html

The website appears to support a kind of Islamic ecumenism, seeking common ground between Sunni and Shia, so I don't expect it to reflect more 'orthodox' positions on either side. Shiite Muslims will argue that taqiyya IS an original Islamic doctrine, since they consider themselves to be the true Muslims. Sunni Muslims, on the other hand, will argue that it is not.

So far in my reading, Muslims figure only as one of the nations that will be subdued by a resurrected, Orthodox empire (prophecies of Hieromartyr Methodius). St Cosmas of Aitolia prophesied that the Turks would become Christian. Prophecies pointing to an army going against Gog and Magog over the river Euphrates may refer to an Islamic alliance with China against Russia. For more details consult Moss "The Book of the End", available on his website. In descriptions of the Antichrist himself, I find no references to Islam whatsoever.

I have to say that although the Jewish element is present in prophecies of the Antichrist, for instance his origin in the tribe of Dan, and his rule from a rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem, it is not the most prominent element, either. Most Jews will in fact be converted to Christianity after the great war. What is more significant is the deception Antichrist will practice on a world that will have become mostly Christian, as a result of the activity of the resurrected Orthodox Empire. Though some sources suggest Antichrist will coexist with or even anticipate the resurrected empire, with the two kingdoms opposing each other until the end of the world. In either case, however, a world war must come first, followed by a period of peace (fifty years, according to Revelation).

In short, the concern with Islam is very much driven by contemporary politics and I don't believe it has a great deal to do with the end of the world as we find in the prophecies, which rather indicate that Islam will be defeated completely before the end.

JGress,

   You should read pseudonymous author Joel Richardson's analysis in [i][u]Antichrist; Islam's Awaited Messiah.[/u][/i]  Richardson is, obviously, not an Orthodox saint, but his analysis is quite compelling.  As you mention, he does identify the geographic domain of the Antichrist as that of the Byzantine Empire, on the basis of the scriptures-- but describes it as a pan-Islamic state of Sunnis and Shiites, (united by the "Mahdi"/Antichrist) reconstructed from the nations of the former Ottoman Empire.  Having traveled a bit in Turkey, it is difficult for me to imagine how the Islamic Middle East could possibly be re-Christianized in the foreseeable future.

   As for the writings of the Holy Fathers about Islam-- this diabolical creation did not exist for the first six centuries of Orthodox Christendom.  There are later references to Islam, of course, from the Balkans and the Holy Mountain, but Orthodox civilization in the Middle East, and many ancient Orthodox monasteries (including those at Scetis) were annihilated by Moslems as early as the 7th century.   St. Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai was miraculously spared-- partly because the monks allowed a mosque to be built within the complex of the monastery in the ?8th century.

Pravoslavnik wrote:

JGress,

Code: Select all

   You should read pseudonymous author Joel Richardson's analysis in [i][u]Antichrist; Islam's Awaited Messiah.[/u][/i]  Richardson is, obviously, not an Orthodox saint, but his analysis is quite compelling.  As you mention, he does identify the geographic domain of the Antichrist as that of the Byzantine Empire, on the basis of the scriptures-- but describes it as a pan-Islamic state of Sunnis and Shiites, (united by the "Mahdi"/Antichrist) reconstructed from the nations of the former Ottoman Empire.  Having traveled a bit in Turkey, it is difficult for me to imagine how the Islamic Middle East could possibly be re-Christianized in the foreseeable future.

   As for the writings of the Holy Fathers about Islam-- this diabolical creation did not exist for the first six centuries of Orthodox Christendom.  There are later references to Islam, of course, from the Balkans and the Holy Mountain, but Orthodox civilization in the Middle East, and many ancient Orthodox monasteries (including those at Scetis) were annihilated by Moslems as early as the 7th century.   St. Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai was miraculously spared-- partly because the monks allowed a mosque to be built within the complex of the monastery in the ?8th century.[/quote]

Your answer reveals clearly that you are taking a rationalistic approach to the question of discerning the approach of the end of the world. You claim that you can't understand how Turkey in the present situation can become Christian. Well neither can I, but that doesn't prevent me from having faith in the prophecies of God-seeing confessors and martyrs. Likewise, you attribute the peculiar absence of an Islamic element in the reign of Antichrist to ignorance of that religion among the Orthodox. You should know that many of the prophecies Moss quoted come from saints who lived after the rise of Islam. With respect to the Russian Catacomb saints, they lived even within living memory. Their failure to mention Islam cannot under any sensible analysis be attributed to ignorance. Rather, assuming that their prophecies were inspired by the Holy Spirit, it must attributed to the fact that Islam will not play a significant role in the reign of Antichrist.

I'll ignore all those false facts about Islam and attempt to rile up readers to hate Muslims....where is YOUR peaceful spirit, Prav and why are you so hooked on an obscure and truly abominable book? Who wants to read more lies to distort one's purity of thought. Aren't there are enough permeating the planet as it is?

You sound ready set off across Europe to Acre yourself: do you have your trusty steed saddled and javelin ready to go for a new crusade? Wait til you find out the kindliest and most hospitable people in all Palestine to receive you will be ...the Muslims !
A few days in Turkey on a bus tour is not traveling. Yes, I long ago had gotten the pic you had a whirlwind visit to Istanbul and Ephesus maybe at different times. Americans always go to Ephesus from Greek Island cruises, standard routine. Not very exciting or adventurous. The stones of the St John Basilica there, by the way, may have been removed by anybody. That was done much, much later. Historical records make no specific attribution to Muslims. All over the world, stones are recycled by later civilizations. Seems to me Christian Churches did the same with earlier places of worship.
Hope you went to Meryemana while there, one of the loveliest sites, far more interesting than the rather dull remains of the Basilica...did you see it? Don't insult, now - just answer the question without insisting that we read this guy's book. I'm beginning to think the author is Mr. Pravoslavnik. I did not read the review you wrote fearing it would be the same crazy stuff as you write here-!
Maybe Ian over on the other thread would like to sign up too for your next jaunt to visit "the Saracens".
[What a weird and ridiculous term, I've always thought. Medieval Europeans weren't always so swift.]

Back to the subject of Obama, someone just emailed this article. Substantive or not, I don't know.
Only can we see for sure that a Creep is involved here...

"VERY QUIETLY OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT

WASHINGTON D.C -
In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has Released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College . Released today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.
This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as President article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

    Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study  estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to  block  disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U..S. Attorney general, Eric Holder.  Mr. Holder has refused to comment on  the matter...

LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS, THE MEDIA WON'T !

   Subject: RE: Issue of Passport? 
     
    While I've little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi ?
    
    So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?
    
    And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi, what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?
    
    The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one.
    
    Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20? 
     A : Yes, by his own admission. 
     
    Q: What passport did he travel under? 
     A: There are only three possibilities. 
        1) He traveled with a U.S. .. Passport, 
        2) He traveled with a  British passport, or 
        3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport. 
     
    Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981? 
     A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the  U.S. .. State Department's "no travel" list  in 1981. [Catherine note: wait a minute: that could be way wrong. I first went to Pakistan to see and help the Afghan resistance to the Soviet invasion in earlier 1982 - there was no ban whatsoever on travel to Pakistan then, and I doubt there had been the year before. This is a weak argument they are making. There was probably a US State Dept Travel Advisory against travel but that doesn't BAN outright US citizens from visiting a nation; it warns them of PERHAPS dangerous conditions there. I never let those State Dept Advisories stop me for a minute from going anywhere....! ]      
    Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an  Indonesian passport.

If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.
Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981 and 2008.

Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better."

Catherine,

   Please.  Do you also object to the portrayal of the Satanic Moslems in the Orthodox Christian hagiographical work [i][u]New Martyrs of the Turkish Yoke[/u][/i]?  Or do you imagine British historian Bat Ye'or's book [i][u]The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam[/u][/i] to be less than accurate in its horrifying description of Islamic dhimmitude in history?  (Incidentally, Bat Ye'Or was raised in Cairo, in a Jewish family that was native to Cairo for centuries.)

   Do you know that Mohammed claimed to be the "Paraclete" -- the Holy Spirit, Comforter, who would be sent be Christ to enlighten and guide the Church?  That he taught that Our Lord Jesus Christ (Isa) was a mere prophet-- of lesser spiritual importance to mankind than Mohammed, himself, the "Prophet" of Allah?

   Do you know that Islam teaches that is acceptable, even laudable, for Moslems to kill non-Moslems to further the spread of Islam to the entire world?  That under Islamic law, shari'a, it is not a capital offense for a Moslem to kill a Jew or a Christian-- and that Jews and Christians may not testify as legal witnesses against Moslems?

   Do you know that the Turks completely demolished the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople-- one of the greatest churches in Christendom-- and that they moved the altar at Hagia Sophia to face Mecca (still true today)?  That they covered the icons of Christ the Pantocrator and the Theotokos in Hagia Sophia with plaster for centuries-- until the time of Kemal Attaturk?