Rev. Father A. Maximiadis
Swami, Recently it was brought to my attention that, on 20 October 2003, between 1:43 and 4:49 PM, you, and presumably some of your devotees, posted twenty-three items. Bandying puerile, flippant remarks, and irrelevant assumptions about me on the Istagosthi website. Evidently responses, of sorts, to my posting on the Open Letters, and Forum; on this website. I believe that the curious appearance of those postings, on the same day, and within an 186-minute period, was very rather suggestive of a Machiavellian manipulation; wouldn’t you think?
Moreover, some of those postings, consisted, for the most part, of pastings (six to be precise) cut from fathershomepage.com, accompanied with unfounded, demeaning glib comments. Moreover, aspersions, added by yourself, and your devotees, v.g., “Phew, Maximiadis indeed. Here’s more on him, “Anglo-Celtic- Australian…prostitutes in New South Wales”. “Sounds like our friend Chatter!”
Swami, I’m curious to know if the “phew” was suppose to denote ‘surprise’ or ‘contempt’? And also curious to know what reference, to the matter in hand, has the accompanying glib comments? Additionally, there were other postings consisting of irrelevant assumptions about me, e.g., you, made the following generalized disapprobations.
“This is the way that sectarian propagandists work. It is really most unfair. The purpose is not to find light and friendship, but to muddy the waters and prove one’s own superiority over others”.
Swami, if you care to peruse fathershomepage.com, in its entirety, you’ll concur from the very conspicuous absence of evidential supports that you were sorely mistaken in having alleged that I’m a ‘propagandist’.
Misuse of The Nouns: Sect, Sectarian and Propagandist.
Firstly, the Church to which I serve, viz., the Greek Orthodox Church, can hardly be described as a ‘sect’, because, it can be demonstrated on the historic record, that it has existed since the first century. [vid., F.L. Cross, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2nd éd. 1974, pp. 591, 1012-14]. A ‘sect’ is a comparatively small body of followers who are inclined to reject the established Church, its teachings, and traditions, and estrange themselves from society, [vid., Oxford Dictionary, 9th ed, 1997-99, p. 1092d].
Secondly, it would be inapplicable to delineate me, or my fellow priests, as “sectarian”. Thirdly, the fact that I do not propagate any particular beliefs, dogmas, or practice or proselytize is plainly attested throughout the website. Thus you’re ‘sectarian propagandist’ allegation disappears. If you disagree, I invite you to debate this topic, with me, on the Forum.
In your opinion, I do not seek “light and friendship”, and I supposedly “muddy the waters” to evince “superiority over others”. You also censured me for alleged ‘unfairness’, and “make(ing) things up” [brackets mine]. I observed no character of “light and friendship” in your patent breach of common courtesy electing not to deal with me directly, but rather conduct clandestine oblique quibbling, about me. Safely among your obliging devotees; all of whom are complaisant to all your sentiments and opinions. As for my alleged ‘unfairness’, and “make(ing) things up” [brackets mine], I challenge the veracity of your accusations. I invite you onto the Forum to debate, with me, on these allegations; with evidential supports. Moreover, more particularly, demonstrate to our visitors, your devotees, and me, that you do not “make things up”. By quoting the actual chapter and verse, in the Bible where you alleged, in your booklet, ‘Understanding Karma’, (1995), p.6. Jesus said, “As you sow, so shall you reap”. So who actually ‘makes things up?’ Care to answer this in the Forum?
You apparently prefer the oblique modus operandi, in your comfort zone, amongst your unquestioning devotees. Easier by far to go with the audience who claps the loudest. Rather than making yourself available for public scrutiny in a rational, open debate, with me, on the very subject matters you pontificated on, in your publication, l.s.c. I wrote you a 1,757-word letter of relevant content, and you responded clandestinely with 106-word flippant irrelevancies. In my opinion, your level of internet behaviour is sadly wanting..
In response to your assumption, that I “muddy the waters” to evince “superiority over others”, I present a proposition from a psychological perspective, for your perusal, and response. A ascribes personal unconscious sentiments, values and subjective processes upon B assuming B ‘muddies waters to prove superiority over others’. I perceive this as A’s denial against recognizing these same processes within A itself. I think it reasonable to assume that this is an avoidance manoeuvre of A to: muddy(ing) the waters, to negate B rather than negotiate.
You said:
“The good father is pretty good. I think he would make mincemeat of most devotees in a debate. Hridayananda would probably be able to take him on if he still has the taste for that kind of thing. … Of course, it is less pleasant to be the object of misrepresentation, especially when the person doing the misrepresenting is obviously doing so maliciously. … he’s criticizing, albeit with the gloss (or shield) of scholarship”.
I wouldn’t gain pleasure from, as you [a vegetarian] so garishly put it: “make mincemeat of most devotees in a debate” or anybody else for the matter of that. Yes, it would be “… less pleasant to be the object of misrepresentation” if one was, ipso facto being ‘misrepresented’, which in your case you were quite clearly not. These are quite manifestly diversions you deploy, to gain points, by deflecting attention away from the topics of my discussions to other extraneous matters. If you believe that you were ‘misrepresented with obvious malice’, indicate the precise sentence from my letter; and discuss. Your suggestion, to your devotees, that ‘Hridayananda would probably be able to take me on…’ is tantamount to calling someone else to clean up your mess. My letter was addressed to you, not Hridayananda. You are the author of ‘Understanding Karma’ in which you denigrate Christians, misreported Jesus Christ. It is your mess, not Hridayananda’s. So you ought to accept full responsibility for it.
Yamaraja, presumably one of your devotees, comments:
“Coming from the Christian background, I can tell you that 90% of the Chritians “SEE” all those that are not in-line with their doctrine as inferior and in need of conversion. I know I have been in the same state of mind before. Even the humblest and most kind Christian will have the elitist judging voice in the back of their head!! The doctored version of the bible has conditioned its followers to this mentality! No matter what point the Rev. has made, it is all tainted by his “conversion” mentality. He only argues these points out of his desire to convert. If he was truly following Jesus, he never would of read the said pamphlet!!!” (sic)
Yamaraja, I’m eager to learn about your unique ability to “know” the “state of mind” of “90% of the Chritians” who “have the elitist judging voice in the back of their head!!” ‘Knowing’ the ‘state of mind’ of “90%” of 2.1 billion Christians, or approximately 33% of the world population [David B. Barrett, World Christian Encyclopedia, 1994], is no small feat even by a very long chalk , and by the by, would you please name the source from where you extrapolated that figure of “90%”, and persuade me to believe that you actually haven’t “the same state of mind” now, in your newfangle Jagad’s pseudo-Hindu cult? You refer to “the doctored version of the bible”. Perhaps you can enlighten our visitors, and I, by discussing this unheard-of “doctored version” on the Forum. If not, at least let us know where we can obtain a copy?
Your opinion that I have a “conversion” mentality is utterly ungrounded. Firstly, where, in fathershomepage.com, can evidential support be found to demonstrate my supposed “conversion” mentality? Secondly, how did you reach that conclusion that I desire to convert? You cannot assume what I desire, whether it be to ‘convert’ or otherwise, unless, I disclose my intention to you, specifically what it is I’m supposed to desire, or that you provide evidential support, v.g., a cerebral roentgen-ray image of my desire to convert. Or is your assumption, that I want to convert, based on some hypothesized telepathic ability you have to read my mind? Thirdly, your argument that “If he was truly following Jesus, he never would of read the said pamphlet!!!” (sic.). Are you suggesting that not reading the said ‘pamphlet’, would be a decisive factor of a ‘true follower’ of Jesus? As well as pamphlets, would you consider the reading of material on the internet as also a determining factor, whether or not one was a ‘true follower’ of whoever? If so, I would deduce from this that you would not be a ‘true follower’ of Jagad Guru; if you had have read my article on the internet. I wouldn’t think you’d have any worries about this because I don’t believe that you read beyond the opening page, if that, nor do I believe you came from a “Christian background” that encouraged very much cerebral activity in learning the more perceptive understanding of Biblical Theology and Ecclesiology. However, I wish you peace, love and happiness for your spiritual journey.
Swami, I invite you, yet again, to debate on all, or some of these issues on the Forum.
Rev. Father A. Maximiadis.
Thursday 8 September, 2005.
NO REPLY