The only people a non-election would be "disaster" for, would be Samaras and the present government.
after this month a new nation will appear ,and it would be named SHIT HOLE
That's Greek politics for you where every politician is convinced - and tries to convince others - that, if his opponents win the election, the floodgates of Hell will open up and swallow the entire country.
or perhaps telling them the truth for a change,syriza can not tell europe what to do.... EUROPE WILL TELL SYRIZA WERE TO GO ,MY GUESS IS 3RD WORLD.
I, for one, am glad that Mr Cheney defended the allegations because it proves that everyone from the top of the Bush administration down to the last Guantanamo interrogator is responsible for the gross violations of human rights that took place.
Add to that: an unprovoked aggressive war, theft of Iraq's natural resources and brinkmanship with Russia over Georgia's invasion of Ossetia and we have a clear case of some dangerous common criminals who should be sitting in the Hague right now.
An amendment to the law to accommodate a bank robber? Please! Just let him starve to death.
Greece's law and prison system looks more like a country club where members (see prisoners) get to enjoy the good life.
Do you want a good life with no worries? Rob a bank!
Maybe when SYRIZA assumes governing they'll free all inmates and let them pillage the country.
All the best to them!
Combining this article with another about illegal immigrants. If Turkey and muslims are so loyal to their own, why don't illegal migrants of Muslim (Muhammedans) faith try to get asylum citizenship in Turkey? I am thinking, if Turkey is economically on the rise, why not want to go to another country that is majority Islamic? Wouldn't they feel more likely to adjust/adapt to Turkey than the economic situation Greece is in?
Muslims do not sail very far. Their boats capsize too easy and they need to be rescued by European sailors. Mr. Erdogan is smoking good stuff.
muslims ?perhaps? not not not turks mongols they have no idea how to sail..
Maybe they had "Gone Sasquaching".
But in all seriousness, why build a mosque if there were no settlements of Muhammedans (Believers of Muhammad)?
So, I guess this statement was inevitable as they attempt to create the glory of previous achievements. No mention of settlements? Only of a mosque on a hill in Cuba? No mention of finding Bigfoot too?
I am sure that's terrific news for the one-fourth of the population that are out of work!
Without a doubt they must've been Turkish sailors looking for... Malta.
Ranieri is still experimenting four games into the Euro 2016 campaign. He acts like a part-timer who is handling our national team as a side-job.
He clearly has little knowledge of the players. He has not built a team. He has failed to even maintain that which he inherited.
His hiring was a mistake but I cannot see compensating him 1 eurocent when he clearly put no solid effort into the job.
EPO have to find a way to squeeze him out - and I wish them all the luck in the world.
I just assumed that these monks may have been declared schismatic due to differing views on the faith. But I imagine that if they condemn the Patriarch and defame his decisions, that he would be upset with them. Not sure of the background of their relations. I suppose that if they declare themselves separate because they oppose the patriarch's stance on uniting the churches, they would then automatically be considered schismatic by definition of the term and so would not be permitted to use property of the Orthodox Church or assume that they represent the church any longer? You are dealing with the church as a hierarchical organisation and not with Christ himself, who would be showing compassion as a person. I guess they would have an official meet with all Orthodox representatives in the matter before a decision was officially made. I guess it's a matter for the church (as an organisation) and a separate matter for the soul (on an individual level)?
Christ respected the traditions of the Hebrew monotheistic faith and Socrates respected the traditions of the Pantheon faith. However, they both ruffled the feathers of those in power. Both spoke to the masses, neither ever wrote anything, both had disciples (so to speak). Both came from working class families. Philosophically, they had quite a few things in common. One from a Hellenic environment, the other not. I just chose to compare the two for Tieyetos' entertainment and to make the point that even those living with the Hellenic Pantheon faith, were not all believing in it.
I was not intending to write a thesis. Not sure what was meant by Hellenism, so I included a mesh of ideas. Socrates was mentioned because he was from ancient Athens and despite respecting traditions, he was not so 100% on the pantheon system. I drew comparison of his murder to that of Christ's just to show similarities between the two reflect on the injustice faced by both at different eras (Ancient Greece vs Roman empire). I don't believe that you can simply cut from traditions and build a new faith that will withstand the test of times. We continue elements of our culture and adapt these to reflect on current historical, ecological and social changes (look at the definition of culture). Since I don't have the time nor you have the patience to read an essay from me, I simply through everything in the mix - as though I were thinking aloud. Pardon my ramblings. What I should have written: Greece has produced many saints and there are many miracles performed in the name of Jesus Christ even today. I don't think that they will part with the Orthodox Christian Church anytime soon. It's also very hard to revive a faith that may have naturally died out despite Christianity. With Christianity, we know the rules are unchanging (unlike those outlined by the Ancient Gods under command of bed-hopping Zeus) and we have a chance as mere mortals to go to heaven. It's harder to sell the Hellenic Pantheon faith.
The existence of the Roman (not Hellenic) Empire and the use of Greek as the lingua franca of that era did help in the spreading of Christianity but the rest of your posting is lost to me!
How is the atoning death of Jesus related to Socrates' execution?
Who showed respect for the traditions of that time? And how can we say Christianity was adopted by Greece when the movement was rather small in the 1st century?
I don't believe any doctrinal issues are involved: these monks are against the Patriarch's rapprochement with the Catholic Church.
Once again the Orthodox Church met dissent with any and all means the world affords: court orders, police, etc.
Hardly Christ-like, wouldn't you agree?
From what my experience is in Greece, the church has no influence on re-selling of the plots, this may be organised by the family of the deceased. Usually, the plots are prepared for other family members. I don't know why they would dig up the deceased after 3 years. Maybe email a Greek church to explain the traditions to you.
That Christianity as we know it was influenced by the era and events of the time. The Jews don't want it and the Orthodox Greek Church was born from the traditions of Hellenism cross with Jesus' teachings and the teachings of the early church fathers. Socrates didn't believe in the pantheon system either, he promoted the concept of that there could only be one God, like Jesus he was murdered for "corrupting" the youth. Both went against the status quo. It's not a coincidence that Christianity became popular during the Roman empire, even though they both showed respect for the traditions of their time. There were a lot of movements that people could have adopted. Think about why the New Testament was first written in Greek and also what the affects of Alexander's Hellenic Empire had on the spreading of Christianity. That will give you an idea about why Christianity was adopted by Greece. Hellenism did not exist in a vacuum either.
send them back were they came from ,and bring back HELLENISM.
You can believe whatever you like, but you can't claim to be of the Orthodox Greek Church and not abide by the doctrine. You may not promote ideas that are in contrast to the faith, because then you are misrepresenting the faith. That is, the monks are likely to misguide those that may think whatever these monks might be up to (legal or not) is approved by the governing body of the church. Imagine, someone posing as a catholic priest meshing concepts from Scientology and then promoting it as part of the doctrine of the Catholic Church. If you decide to promote your own ideas, you can not then claim to be part of the Orthodox Church any longer - since you don't really represent them anymore. I think that is why the church head reacted.
We say that we focus on progress, yet ignore those who are an integral part of the future.
We need to promote an environmentally friendly way to sustain all life on the planet.