User:Michalis Famelis/Memorable quotes I have seen in Wikipedia

In Talk:Izmir
It is clear that the contemporary sensitivity on the origins of place names is directly attributable to the rise of nationalism as an ideology. 'The official name' of a city did not mean what it means today, say, back in the 15th century. The Ottomans certainly did use 'Kostantiniye' (among other names) in official context (edicts, other documents, coins). But not in an exclusive, or even in a predominant manner. It is understandably picked up more readily by a Western (or Greek) ear. Among the population and in the literature, Istanbul primed. And its officialization marked a point not only toward Constantinople, but toward Islambol as well. --Cretanforever. (I do not expect a Greek person to say anything other than Konstantinopoli or Smyrna or whatever when speaking or writing in Greek. Historically, they are his cities as well. That goes for any Greek source. If we are into personal connections, I did go to Ierapetra in Crete, and I see the fountain built by my great-grandfather, and I cried, so I know more or less what it feels like. When I speak in Turkish I say Selanik or Kandiye or Kaylari -do you know where that is?, it is today's Πτολεμαΐδα-, but I take care in using the actual names in a conversation with a Greek (or other non-Turkish) person. And I think that, in an encycopedia article in English, the local/current/official/standardized name should be used.)

I humbly think that Greek energies would be better spent on developing the Greek wikipedia (some 7000 articles, against 13500 in Turkish), rather than in interminable discussions on the basics and methods of the English wikipedia. We have more articles on Greek cities of antiquity than the Greeks: :) :) :)

--Cretanforever

In Talk:Constantine II of Greece
(Commenting on edit wars and talk page flames regarding the former's name and surname...) If only republican revolutionaries would have the good sense to guillotine their deposed monarchs (and their families) rather than send them into exile to make trouble, all this bother could be avoided. Adam 02:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

In Balkan Communist Federation
The nations of southeastern Europe possess all the cultural conditions for autonomous development. They are related economically. They should be related politically. Socialism will therefore uphold with all its influence the idea of the solidarity of the Balkan nations. Manifesto of the Federation

On Dogma and Orthodoxy

 * gathered from User talk:Wesley and User talk:VivaEmilyDavies

I see that you are an Orthodox Christian who has at some point been interested in the Hypatia article. I wondered if you could shed some light on a query I have about the article (see Talk:Hypatia of Alexandria). I see that "dogmatic" was used as a substitute for "fundamentalist" after some debate but I am not certain that the people who decided on use of the word "dogma" quite understand its theological meaning, especially in the Orthodox tradition. I don't completely understand it myself, but I did attend a lecture by the (largely anti-Christian) religious scholar Karen Armstrong who roundly condemned the use of "dogmatic" as a term of abuse and stated her conclusion that, particularly in the Othodox understanding of it, dogma is actually a very good thing. She argued that its negative connotations had emerged partly because it was used by analogy on people (e.g. politicians) who acted in a blind, unthinking and uncritical belief and partly because less and less people understand the theological meaning. AFAICS, if an anti-Christian scholar is saying that dogma is good and dogmatic shouldn't be used to carry negative connotations, people ought to be wary of applying it, especially to Christians (for whom it holds a particular religious meaning distinct from the meaning of popular understanding) and also particularly to people who lived before it acquired its current connotations! You seem to be a fairly logical person to ask to see if I am barking up the wrong tree or not :) Any feedback would be appreciated, but if you really don't know/don't care it's no problem. Sorry to bother you! VivaEmilyDavies 18:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking me about dogma in Orthodox Christianity. Here's my own off the cuff, unofficial answer. Dogma refers to theological beliefs that we can be sure of because God has revealed them clearly. Rejecting them or directly contradicting them is seen as directly contradicting divinely revealed truth. Not everything the church teaches is a dogma though, not by a long shot. Orthodoxy is careful to distinguish between dogma and "theologoumena" (sp??), or "theological opinions." For instance, it's dogma that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. That's not negotiable. It's a theological opinion that Mary herself never sinned at all, and many Orthodox theologians believe and teach this. Others disagree and say that she did (probably) commit some sins, but was a a generally righteous person. Some church fathers prayed for the salvation of everyone, even Satan himself, and believed Satan's salvation and repentance was possible; this seems to be a minority opinion, but despite being unpopular it's not an actual heresy. There are some things that the Orthodox will refuse to answer or to claim any sure knowledge of, such as whether any particular person will be saved or damned. "It's a mystery" is a frequent answer, and this can often be frustrating to new inquirers and catechumens.


 * By way of contrast, the Roman Catholic Church seems to have defined many more dogmas than the Orthodox Church has, and as a result is even more inflexible. The Protestants of course have far fewer dogmas; sola scriptura is one of the few widely held dogmas, but in practice it allows them to believe almost anything so long as they can quote a couple of verses that seem to support it. Hope this helps answer your question. Wesley 05:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply! What was really bothering me about "dogma" is that although it clearly represents something that from the viewpoint of the religion is certain, is it coupled with the recognition that from the outside of the religion, it may appear fundamentally uncertain, and that it is ultimately acknowledged to require a "leap of faith"? Also, does "dogmatic" make (theological) sense as a way to refer to people with beliefs that might now be characterised as a "fundamentalist", particularly rigid literalism and a tendency to try to see all things (including philosophical and scientific topics) through the prism of scripture? I know that "dogmatic" in standard English can have this connotation, but it is at heart a theological term, and clearly the instigators of "dogma" and "dogmatic" as a term didn't intend it as a form of abuse! (I am also suspicious that Karen Armstrong mischaracterised the Orthodox approach to dogma: her presentation of it as a form of acknowledgement that ultimately belief in certain things requires an act of faith, and therefore is an acceptance of the limit of human knowledge of theological affairs, suits her own views on how religions should refrain from attempting reasoned, absolute proofs for themselves, but she doesn't seem to escape the fact that "dogma", whether it requires faith or reason, still represents a firmly held belief, rejection of which may be seen as heretical...) VivaEmilyDavies 06:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Good questions. I really don't know how to address whether Orthodoxy recognizes 'that from the outside of the religion, it may appear fundamentally uncertain, and that it is ultimately acknowledged to require a "leap of faith"?' Of course the Church recognizes that not everyone believes everything that God has revealed or that the Church teaches. In some prayers, we acknowledge that we ourselves act at times as though we don't believe in God or as though we don't love God or as though we have some other false idea about God, and confess that our sinful actions reflect our own unbelief. "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief." But the Church does not say that what we believe is true for us, and something different or opposite may be just as true for another religion. That would be logically impossible. Christianity is not pluralistic the way Hinduism is, for example. You also asked, "does "dogmatic" make (theological) sense as a way to refer to people with beliefs that might now be characterised as a "fundamentalist", particularly rigid literalism and a tendency to try to see all things (including philosophical and scientific topics) through the prism of scripture?" I would say no, because Orthodoxy is not fundamentalist in that sense, it does not believe in sola scriptura or in a rigidly literal reading of all Bible passages. For example, it is not dogmatic regarding whether God literally created the world in six 24-hour days just a few thousand years ago. Some do believe that, but others believe that God caused the "Big Bang" billions of years ago, and both are acceptable so long as God remains affirmed as the Primary Cause of everything that exists. We are not "dogmatic" about the mechanical, scientific details, but we are dogmatic about God's existence, and the things said about Him in the Nicene Creed and so forth. We believe that sincere atheists, or Greek pagans that sincerely believed in Zeus and friends, were sincerely mistaken. Hope this helps. Wesley 16:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In Talk:Greco-Turkish relations
This edit summary: my name is bond, cultural bond. !!!!

In William Pitt the Younger
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." Speech to Parliament 1783