 |
Re: Interesting Find While Searching the Web
|
|
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 03:20:39 +0300, "stephan.nikolov" <...@pri.abv.bg
"++" <...@rcn.net...
Yet another ignorant posting of yours hinting that you might be a late
convert into Orthodox Cristianity,
so this might explain partly your heretical writings.
If one becomes a ktitor (that is the person who sponsors the building of a
church) this is not an act of "donation for the good of the people".
This is an act between the benefactor and God. And it is expected that this
should be documented in the pictorial representations in the church.
One might build a church for love of God, or to repent for his sins, for the
sake of salvation, for miraculous recovery from sickness , etc. ,
and this has nothing to do with the "good for the people".
We no longer have
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:30:42 -0400, ++ <...@spambot.com
Your insults show lack of reading of what I wrote, which was on
donations in general AND to the Church -my PERSONAL philosophy toward
this.
You've shown nothing heretical in my writings.
It _is_ for the good of the people as they will attend that church, and
their great grandchildren, one hopes, but I did not make that comment.
I was, again please read, commenting on my PERSONAL feelings on honoring
the donors with mention. Note that iconography is _not_ intended as
pictorial reality. It is representational only as an idea.
Never said otherwise. It is irritating to read insults peppering
refutations of things no one has said and haven''t even implied. I'm
sure you have many better things to do with your time other than playing
insult games. I commend you to them.
|
|
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:07:47 +0300, "stephan.nikolov" <...@pri.abv.bg
"++" <...@rcn.net...
Your "personal philosophy" is completely irrelevant.
As I said building a church is a personal act of faith.
It is not an act of pride, but act of humility before God. It is not a
donation to ecclesiastic organisation that deals with the people.
There are two concerned here - God (the addressee of the act) and the
ktitor.
The believers who might attend the church are strangers to that act, yes
they might witness the act, but they are mere audience -
similiar to those observing one praying, or one repenting for his sins.
hahaha. Of course, you have shown quite a few,
not to mention that you adhere to a heretical and schismatic church and that
you constantly bear false witness,
you contadict biblical texts, you try to marginalize their truth ....
And contradictions follow:
didn't you?
and
As you can see you made this comment, so now you are clarifying it.....
We do not speak of icons here, ignrant git!
Noone says that a reprsesentation of of a ktitor is his icon or an icon at
all.
Or you can not make difference between the types of paintings in a church.
|
|
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:54:21 -0400, ++ <...@spambot.com
never said it wasn't. But when donations are used to glorify the donor,
or in the modern era for tax breaks and glorifying the owner, the act is
somewhat eclipsed by the benefit to the donor. Note, again, please read
what I wrote which pertained to donations of all kinds, _and_ donations
to the Church, and not necessarily for donation of a church itself. One
church I was in had donor info large enough to read from afar beneath
icons. This eclipsed the icons themselves, which in that case did not
have identification at all. It's not so bad when info is given and the
donation is in honor of an idea or a person, ex. "This icon of St.
Mary of Egypt is given in memory of Bojanka and Nevenka Miroslavljevic,
who devoted their lives to helping women of the streets. May their
memory be blessed." But a huge donor fresco these days? Not so sure.
It's humility when people give their hard earned savings without
expecting constant adulation for the act.
The laos is _not _ "audience", They are participant in the two or three
gathered together in His Name. They benefit from their own acts of
donation as well as the acts of larger donations of others.
love your specificity.
Just curious here - You pepper your posts with insults. Are they
typical of your daily speech, ie. do you pepper your daily conversations
with insults? And if so, do you find that this practice is productive
of healthy friendships? I think I have said this before to you, but
literally everything you write can be written without insults or
pejoratives.
The discussion concerned depictions of donors as part of iconographic
schemes. The discussion started with a mention of a newly built church
with new iconography and how a poster felt who had seen that church and
noticed that iconography. The iconographer was an Ukrainian, which was
interesting in itself as it showed a cooperation between the Macedonian
and Ukrainian people. After communism, hard or soft, such communication
is in itself beautiful to contemplate. I have not personally seen the
church, although I did see a call for contributions to building it in a
Macedonian magazine.
In discussing the same church, one poster who had actually seen it
suggested that he didn't much care for the depiction of a donor in the
iconography. I gave a tad of the history of the use of donors in
iconography, to clarify why it was done. The discussion began in
English, continued in English and yet the discussion must cease because
you have added nothing substantive to the discussion and only used the
discussion as a vehicle to attempt insults. The discussion had no need
for anything except people adding a bit of this or that from their own
experience or education. You _could_ have positively contributed to the
discussion. You chose not to. And from here on out, I see no reason to
expect substance instead of insults. You've killed yet another thread
which could have been substantive, participatory by everyone and
promising because insulting was more important to you than dialog
|
|
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:06:09 +0300, "stephan.nikolov" <...@pri.abv.bg
"++" <...@rcn.net...
And here is precisely where went wrong as usual.
Bringing up the Chora was completely unnecessary combined with you "personal
philosophy".
I was pointing out the whole philosophy in Orthodoxy that comes to the long
established iconographic cliche -
the pictorial representation of the ktitor. It has nothing to do with the
the puritan anonimity of donations for
good causes in modern times. You messed it up.
What is really provoking me is that you have taken the mask of an Orthodox
believer while your postings in fact
either mess up with established Orthodox traditions, or promote alternate to
Orthodoxy values.
As I said it before stop misusing and indeed abusing Orthodox Christianity -
it really does not deserve it.
As for calling you ignorant git, yes, you have proven on numerous occasions
your arrogant ignorance.
So, it is not an insult - it is simply calling things with their real names.
The discussion began in
|
|
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:24:06 -0400, ++ <...@spambot.com
yawn
|
|
|