Re: Death of Zoya Krakhmalnikova

Dear Anonymous,

You got your chance to have a discussion without your taking 
responsibility for your writing, which was spammed to numerous 
netgroups. Whatever you wrote needs no discussion in your mind and as I 
was the only person willing to converse with you at all (unless someone 
I have on killfile entered the discussion, in which case, happy 
pontificating), and as you seem to take my particular discussion as 
either inadequate or as a stepping point to insults, I have decided to 
no longer bother. 

Whatever it was that you said about that wonderful pious Ukranian, Zoya 
Krahmaljnikova I cannot honestly remember, I do not feel the incentive 
to even go through the thread to reproduce, but in case you really are 
honoring her memory after her falling asleep in the Lord, know that I am 
remembering her in my prayers, that I will offer up the humble candle 
for her today at liturgy, that I remembered her at Matins and before 
that at Vespers, and that we can all be reasonably sure that she will 
lie light in this earth, and that her soul will rest with the righteous.

Lesna i zemja, Eternal Memory to Zoya!

Catawumpus wrote:

>++ <friend@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>
>  
>
>>>>Why should a civilization seek anarchy? 
>>>>        
>>>>
>
>Catawumpus <kimmerian@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>
>  
>
>>>     Why would you change the subject?  Never mind.  Rhetorical
>>>question.  Autocracy is very uncivilized, nothing more than 
>>>the law of the jungle with a pretentious crown tottering on its
>>>head.  Ditto other social hierarchies:  piles of monkeys
>>>fighting to be on top.  So for civilized life in any meaningful
>>>sense, anarchism is the choice.
>>>      
>>>
>
>++:
>
>  
>
>>And why should you make generalizations not sup****ted by historic record

>>and then condemn Orthodoxy? 
>>    
>>
>
>     Why are you making foolish, unsup****ted accusations?  They
>go nicely with your topic-changing, so I'd guess the 
>motivation is the same:  defensiveness about the cozy relations
>between Church and State.
>
>     By the way, you're on-record confusing my remark about the
>preaching in Romans 13:1-6 with a claim about history.  I 
>pointed out those verses demand obedience to the powers that be
>without any limitation to Orthodox rulers, calling down 
>damnation on those who choose to resist the reigning 
>authorities.  No room there to decide which rulers you'll rebel
>against and which you'll follow.
> 
>  
>
>>If someone makes a point, like the 
>>Theodosian Code not having been enforceable and the Code largely 
>>rewritten in many aspects, you just ignore it.
>>    
>>
>
>     Now you're descending into dishonesty.  I answered clearly
>and directly when you said that "the Theodosian Code was 
>superceded by the Justiniac" by reminding you what you tried to 
>overlook.  First, the Theodosian Code shows that the 
>alliance of Church and Crown dates back to antiquity regardless
>what happened later in time.  Secondly, the Justinian Code 
>does the same:  it insists on the assertedly "saving revelation 
>of our mighty Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" and rejects 
>heresy, puni****ng dissenters in various ways:  their assemblies
>are banned, ditto their books, they're forbidden to have "a 
>house of wor****p, or a place of prayer," blasphemy is penalized
>with death, etc.
>
>     You didn't claim the Theodosian Code was unenforceable, so
>I couldn't possibly have ignored you.  I agree dogmatic 
>assertions don't carry much weight, but to say the Roman Empire
>was unable to apply any of its laws against heresy is 
>nonsensical.  You might just as well claim that Christians were
>never persecuted by Rome.
>
>  
>
>>The fact that my comment actually was relevant and not caught by you 
>>does not turn it into changing the subject, it only puts it in the 
>>category of being categorized by you.  Your arguments are generally non 
>>sup****ted.
>>    
>>
>
>     Are you generally a liar, or are you celebrating a special
>holiday?  I've sup****ted my arguments about the scriptures 
>with chapter and verse, I've backed up my observation about the
>Justinian laws with examples and quotes, same for my 
>statements about the Theodosian Code, and where I gave readings
>or offered judgments, I usually explained my reasoning.  
>You've answered by waving your arms while shouting hysterically.
>
>  
>
>>There are different kinds of system that might be consideree, in some 
>>respect, autocratic.
>>    
>>
>
>     Obviously.  And like I said, the autocratic ones are a bad
>example of civilized life, since they're nothing more than
>jungle-law with pretensions:  the biggest monkey enthroned with
>a crown balanced on his head.
>
>  
>
>>generalization and value judgement
>>    
>>
>
>     No ****ing joke.  That's precisely what you requested when
>you asked "Why should a civilization seek anarchy?":  a
>question about civilization in general and the value of certain
>social arrangements.
>
>  
>
>>Anarchism is never a choice. 
>>    
>>
>
>     Not a popular one, certainly, but still a choice alongside
>others -- so far as there are any.  "Men make their own 
>history, but they do not make it as they please."  Truth, since
>history is often unpleasurable.
>
>  
>
>>Think about it
>>    
>>
>
>     Done.  Now you try.
>   
>  
>
>>>     Also gets some sup****t in the NT.  Not an argument for its
>>>value, of course, merely an observation.  The end-times 
>>>prophesy in 1 Cor. 15:24 says Jesus will "put down all rule and 
>>>all authority and power" in the world -- not exactly 
>>>flattering to Constantines, Alexanders, Putins or Bushes -- and
>>>over in the Gospels Jesus teaches against calling anyone 
>>>"father" on this earth, restricting that title to God in heaven
>>>and similarly arguing there's only one master, viz. the 
>>>messiah:  an obvious rejection of earthly authority (this is in
>>>Matthew 23:8-10) followed by a prediction that the social
>>>order will be overthrown:  the exalted will be humbled, and the
>>>humble will be exalted.
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>Have you a small problem with schizophrenia.  Do you find yourself 
>>muttering to yourself?  Do you actually expect people to listen to this 
>>stream of consciousness , unsup****ted generalizations and value 
>>judgements and somehow give it credence to some purpose.
>>    
>>
>
>     You have a problem with reading.  Above I showed anarchism
>-- the topic you raised -- is sometimes sup****ted in the 
>canonical NT, backing up my claim by offering chapter and verse 
>from the Gospels and Paul.  I also threw in a reference to
>revolution:  the overturning of the social order Jesus predicts
>in several places.
>
>-- Catawumpus
>
>  
>