Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriot Starts Petition to Save St. Anthony’s Monastery from being Rezoned

Seraphim Larsen has been a spiritual child of Geronda Paisios, abbot of St. Anthony’s Monastery, almost since the beginning of the monastery’s establishment in Florence; circa 1995. Geronda Paisios baptized him into the orthodox faith during a secret ceremony. Seraphim was the chairman of the Pinal County Republican party.1 Furthermore, he is also a member of the Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots.2 It is no secret that Geronda Paisios has openly supported Ron Paul and other right-wing candidates when asked by his spiritual children who they should vote for. Greek edition books concerning the New World Order and Globalism that are sold in St. Anthony’s bookstore contain photocopies from English pamphlets distributed by American neo-Nazi groups.

SL

http://phoenixteaparty.ning.com/main/search/search?q=donald+trump 

According to the PRAVSLAVIE:3

A developer is proposing drastic changes to the zoning and land usage for parcels of land IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT to Saint Anthony’s Monastery. These changes would have a dramatic and significant negative impact to Saint Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery. It would also be a dramatic negative impact to all the local residents and out-of-state visitors who attend services there, to all the families who have relatives buried in the cemetery, and to everyone who currently enjoys the tranquil and graceful nature of the Monastery.

The proposed development is truly a drastic change:
• Over 200 new houses are to be developed on land north of the Monastery, including the area immediately adjacent to the Monastery Cemetery
• A new road is to be built extending from Paisano Road, then running in between the two Monastery hills, immediately at the base of the Prophet Elias Chapel, then very close to the cemetery. As this would be the only access road to the 200+ houses, traffic and noise would be greatly increased.
• The noise, traffic, housing, music, animals, etc. would bring a dramatic change to the whole community, disturbing not only the Monastery but the neighbors as well.
• The natural habitat and wildlife would be impacted by a big new development as well, disturbing several rare plant and animal species in the area.

YOUR URGENT ACTION IS REQUESTED! Public meetings are already scheduled for the coming week!! Please sign the petition immediately!

The petition simply asks the local authorities to leave the zoning of these properties unchanged. The purpose of zoning laws is to provide long-term expectations for property owners on how the land in their neighborhood is intended to be used. This allows people to plan and build in a manner appropriate to the existing neighborhood. The proposed new development represents a drastic change to current zoning usage and would have a strongly negative impact on the local community.
The petition also asks the Bureau of Land Management and the Arizona State Land Department simply to leave the usage of these properties unchanged. These agencies must approve any changes to the land usage where the developer wants to build the new road, since it passes through lands controlled by those agencies.

There is a private hearing early next week with Planning & Zoning and the local property owners (including the monastery). The monastery is hoping to bring as many signatures as possible (both paper petitions and printouts of the online petition) to that meeting.

If they don’t make a decision following that initial meeting, it’s likely they will have a public hearing sometime over the next few weeks.

Readers wishing to sign the petition can do so here: https://www.change.org/p/preserve-the-sacred-grounds-of-saint-anthony-s-monastery

map
Map showing the support from people all over the world.

Seraphim Larsen has also made a sample email for people to send:4

Send to: Pinal County Supervisors: Pete Rios <Pete.Rios@pinalcountyaz.gov>, Cheryl Chase <cheryl.chase@pinalcountyaz.gov>, Steve Miller <Steve.Miller@pinalcountyaz.gov>, Anthony Smith <Anthony.Smith@pinalcountyaz.gov>, Todd House <Todd.House@pinalcountyaz.gov>

Subject Line: Leave Zoning Unchanged near Saint Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery

Email Body:

Dear Pinal County Supervisors,

Thank you for all the great things you are doing for Pinal County!

I am writing to ask you to leave the zoning unchanged near Saint Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery at the end of Paisano Road in the Cactus Forest area immediately south of Florence.

Elmore/Brimhall LLC has submitted a rezoning application to the Pinal County Planning and Zoning Commission, asking that a large parcel immediately adjacent to the north border of the Monastery be rezoned from General Rural to a Residential classification for one-acre residential homes.

I am writing to you to express my strong opposition to this rezoning proposal. The Monastery is the spiritual home to thousands of Greek Orthodox faithful who regularly attend services and pray on the peaceful grounds of the Monastery. The Monastery is the actual residence to over fifty Greek Orthodox Monks who have devoted their lives to worship, prayer, and serving the community. The Monastery is world-renowned for its tranquil, beautiful, and holy grounds, a major tourist attraction where tens of thousands of people visit every year from Arizona and around the world. Many visitors have also expressed interest and concern about the natural habitat and wildlife, and the negative impact of significant development. Finally, the Cemetery at the Monastery is the resting place for many faithful people whose family and relatives would be greatly disturbed to have a busy new road and housing development immediately adjacent to the cemetery, with road noise, houses, animals, and music disturbing the peace of the holy grounds.

I strongly urge you to advise the Planning and Zoning Commission to deny this application for a zoning change.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

NAME and CITY, STATE

UPDATE FROM SERAPHIM LARSEN (JUNE 03, 2016)

More than 5,000 signatures!

SERAPHIM LARSEN
Seraphim Larsen

Florence, AZ

JUN 3, 2016 — We passed two significant milestones yesterday:

• We exceeded 5,000 signatures! The petition continues to build momentum!

• We had the meeting with the developer, with the Monastery and the other adjacent property owners.

The developer presented their plans and explained why they are asking for a change in zoning. They listened to the Monastery’s objections but gave no hint of conceding anything to the Monastery—they fully intend to go forward with their rezoning application. The one other neighbor who attended the meeting seemed sympathetic to the Monastery’s concerns, but their own concerns were more about how the development could impact access to their own property, which is at the far end of the development.

In other words, there weren’t any real surprises—this is the outcome we were expecting. The developer is not going to give up this project easily.

This meeting was required for the developer to complete the submission of their zoning application, which will all be turned over to the Planning and Zoning Commission in 1-2 weeks. A public hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission will then be scheduled—we will be sure to let everyone know when that will happen and how you can speak at the hearing if you want.

It’s likely there will be more than one public hearing with Planning & Zoning, who will eventually make their recommendation to the County Board of Supervisors. The Supervisors will then address the question at another public meeting, at which they will approve or deny the rezoning application.

We will keep everyone informed every step of the way, and let you know what you can do to help. For now, please continue to email the Board of Supervisors—especially if you are local or in-state. See the link below for a sample message and all the contact information for the Board members.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lj3j5gz0gw8w7oa/Sample%20Letter%20to%20BOS%20-%20with%20email%20addrs.docx?dl=0

Please also keep the Monastery in your prayers, and also the many people who are working to support the effort to block the rezoning.

THANK YOU!

NOTES

  1. http://sonoranalliance.com/pinal-county-republican-chairman-endorses-robert-graham-for-azgop-chairman/
  2. http://phoenixteaparty.ning.com/profile/SeraphimLarsen
  3. http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/93666.htm
  4. https://www.facebook.com/groups/PreserveSaintAnthonys/
Advertisements

Response to David Smith’s continued allegations of anti-Semitism (Seraphim Larson, 2006)

Outstanding Party Worker in State Award was accepted by the PCRC Chairman, Seraphim Larsen on behalf of Karen Wall.
Outstanding Party Worker in State Award was accepted by the PCRC Chairman, Seraphim Larsen on behalf of Karen Wall.

Seraphim Larsen is a convert to Orthodoxy and has been a pilgrim to St. Anthony’s Monastery pretty much since its beginning. Geronda Paisios is his spiritual father and also the priest who baptized him. Thus, as a lay person, he is in a very good position to refute accusations against the monastery as he knows more than the average person due to his unique relationship with the fathers there. In December 2012, he was elected chairman for the Pinal County Republican Party (Florence, AZ is a town in and the county seat of Pinal County). He was also the representative for Presidential Candidate Ron Paul the same year. He is currently a member of the Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots.

I am finding it difficult to give an adequate answer to David (Nephon) Smith’s latest webpage, where he addresses my earlier blog on Elder Ephraim’s supposed anti-Semitism.

Geronda Paisios and David Smith.
Geronda Paisios and David Smith.

The difficulty does not lie in answering Smith’s specific complaints; in fact, he really makes only one specific accusation, namely, that Elder Ephraim teaches anti-Semitism (which I have already refuted). Rather, the difficulty lies in the long and winding path by which Smith arrives at that one accusation. This is a path strewn with misconceptions, misunderstandings, innuendo, and petty nonsense. It is very time-consuming to attempt to address each of these twists and turns – requiring more time than I have at my disposal. Therefore, I will provide a sampling, which I hope will be sufficient to indicate to readers the strained character of Smith’s argumentation. Following this, I will address one or two concrete issues.

Smith begins his answer to my earlier posting with a perplexing statement – “I never said the monks were racists or anti-Semites. I said that Ephraim’s teachings are anti-Semitic.” What is the purpose of this hair-splitting? Is he trying to distinguish between the terms “anti-Semite” and “anti-Semitic”? What is the point here? Following the same online dictionary that Smith referenced (link, and especially link), one sees that these terms are essentially synonomous: an anti-Semite is one who promotes anti-Semitic teaching.

Is he then trying to distinguish between the teachings of the monks at Elder Ephraim’s monasteries, and the teachings of the Elder himself? This does not make sense either, as Smith repeatedly refers to “the Monastery’s network of people”, teachings “propagated by the Monastery”, “taught by the monks”, or by “the Elder’s followers”. He generally equates all of these things.

Perhaps Smith intended to communicate some nuance that escapes my notice; were it not for this possibility, I would be inclined to regard Smith’s statement as petty equivocation.

Continuing through Smith’s argument, he makes the following assertions.

(1) The Protocols are absolutely proven forgery.

My response: There are many reasonable people who would not make such a firm and absolute assertion, either for or against the Protocols. I will address this later on in this post.

This Greek translation of the Protocols, with the subtitle: "The evil plans of the Zionists that flourishes today," was sold for years in St. Anthony's bookstore.
This Greek translation of the Protocols, with the subtitle: “The evil plans of the Zionists that flourishes today,” was sold for years in St. Anthony’s bookstore.

(2) Smith demonstrates that Elder Ephraim’s disciples have expressed various opinions on the issue, some opposing the authenticity of the Protocols, and some supporting it. He quotes from several of these people.

Smith looks upon this variety of opinion as vacillation – people scrambling to downplay the Elder’s references to the Protocols. Smith describes this circumstance as “interesting”, insinuating that there is some attempt at a “cover-up”.

A much simpler explanation is that, in fact, the Elder’s spiritual children are ordinary people with their own reasonably considered opinions, some of them accepting the Protocols as valid, some denouncing them, and others never having heard of them at all. However, Smith cannot take this position, because he asserts that the Elder is running a cult, that the Elder’s spiritual children “aren’t allowed” to have any opinions of their own, and that the Elder is “pushing” the Protocols on his “followers”. The more rational explanation is much simpler.

(3) Smith provides a quote from Saint Ambrose of Milan, presenting it in a light that makes the Saint appear to be an anti-Semite.

Smith does not even refer to this Holy Father as a Saint, but refers to him simply as “Bishop Ambrose of Milan”, despite the fact that Saint Ambrose is universally regarded as one of the greatest fathers of the Western Church. One immediately suspects that the Saint has been quoted out of context, and upon reading the source of the quote, one finds that this is indeed the case.

Sts. John Chrysostom and Augustine of Hippo are the usual saints targeted for anti-Semitism accusations, not St. Ambrose.
Sts. John Chrysostom and Augustine of Hippo are the usual saints targeted for anti-Semitism accusations, not St. Ambrose.

Saint Ambrose is writing a letter to the Emperor Theodosius, asking for clemency for a village bishop and some other Christians who were accused of burning down a synagogue. Apparently the Emperor had already decreed a sentence in the matter, and Saint Ambrose reminds him that the accused bishop had not even been allowed to give a defense of himself. The Saint further reminds the Emperor that many Jews and pagans had recently destroyed a large number of basilicas and churches, and had received no punishment for their deeds. How, then, could the Emperor rightly mete out a strict punishment against these Christians, whose guilt had not even been proven? This would not only be unjust, but would also be showing partiality to those who deny Christ; by doing so, the Emperor would be making himself an enemy of Christ.

In the course of this epistle, one can find the passage quoted by Smith. Smith condemns the “hateful practice” of burning synagogues, insinuating that Saint Ambrose actually condones this, where this is not at all what Saint Ambrose is advocating. Saint Ambrose was writing in defense of a particular group of Christians in the case of a particular event, not at all trying to persuade people in general to rise up against civil order and burn down synagogues as a general practice. Saint Ambrose certainly uses strong language in his admonition of the Emperor, referring to several Old Testament passages that condemn the false religion practiced at times by the ancient Jews, but this language is not even as strong as that used by the Apostles themselves (cf. Rev. 3:9).

In my opinion, Smith has shown himself to be an unreliable patristic interpreter, spinning the Saint’s writings to fit his own purposes. He skews the evidence to support his pre-determined conclusion. He even dares to misrepresent a great father of the Church in this way.

(4) Smith finally makes a concrete accusation – “There is NO place in Christianity for the kind of statements about Jews (or anyone else) that Ephraim is making and encouraging his followers to make.”

However, Smith has very little to stand on. He refers to one or two obscure references to the Protocols in Elder Ephraim’s books, and based on this he claims the Elder is teaching anti-Semitism. Based on the writings of “a disciple of Fr. Paisios”, who provides a general characterization of Judaic spirituality, Smith assumes he learned these things from St. Anthony’s Monastery, and declares there is “NO place in Christianity” for opinions of this kind.

Smith imagines there is a concerted secret effort going on amongst Elder Ephraim’s spiritual children to incite prejudice against the Jews and get people to believe in the Protocols. But Smith himself demonstrates that the Elder’s spiritual children have expressed many different opinions on the matter.

I think it is fair to ask, who is really being prejudiced here? Who is really taking an extreme position and making a ridiculous argument?

Geronda Ephraim has recanted his belief in the Protocols as a legitimate document.
Geronda Ephraim has recanted his belief in the Protocols as a legitimate document.

Now, to move on to Smith’s specific allegations. Smith continues to charge Elder Ephraim with teaching anti-Semitism, based solely on the Elder’s referring to the Protocols as though they were a genuine document. Smith cites many sources that purport to make the case that the Protocols are a forgery.

As I have already pointed out, it is quite possible for reasonable people to look at the evidence on both sides of the issue, and come to different conclusions. I personally believe that this happens because the issue is quite complex. People think differently and give different weight to the various points of evidence, thereby reaching different conclusions.

Smith, however, seems to think that the only way a person can assess the evidence and then conclude that the Protocols are genuine, is if the person is already predisposed by anti-Semitic prejudice. Of course, Smith’s approach precludes any rational discussion of the topic, since if a person takes the opposing point of view, Smith will denounce him as de facto anti-Semitic.

Smith therefore concludes that the Elder must teach (and therefore believe) anti-Semitism, because the Elder apparently teaches (and believes) that the Protocols are genuine.

I have already given substantial evidence to show that the Elder has absolutely no prejudice towards the Jews. But the only thing that seems to matter to David Smith is the Elder’s opinion of the Protocols; this is enough to convict the Elder of anti-Semitism. It doesn’t matter that many of the Elder’s spiritual children are Jews. It doesn’t matter that many of the monks and nuns in the Elder’s monasteries are Jews. It doesn’t matter that even the Elder’s personal physician is a Jew. It doesn’t matter to Smith that none of these people have ever complained of anti-Semitism from the Elder or from the monasteries, and that they have experienced no negative prejudice shown toward them. The only thing that seems to matter is this one allegation — that Smith believes the Protocols are a fraud — and anyone who disagrees with his opinion is anti-Semitic.

Which point of view is truly prejudiced?

Smith concludes his argument about anti-Semitism as follows: “The only reason to propagate the Protocols, like Ephraimites do, and like the Archdiocese allows the Ephraimites to, is if you honestly believe there is a conspiracy against Christianity by Zionists, which Ephraim certainly believes and it appears his followers do too.”

Surely Smith (and perhaps some other readers) will object that I have not yet come out and stated clearly whether the Elder actually does “honestly believe there is a conspiracy against Christianity by Zionists”, and so on.

It is true that I have not addressed the issue. I have many good reasons for this. Chiefly, this is a very serious topic that especially requires an appreciation and understanding of what the Holy Fathers have written about it. But in an atmosphere of innuendo, misunderstanding, and antipathy towards the Holy Fathers, to begin a discussion of these things in detail would surely only add to the confusion. This is why I have preferred to limit my current response, addressing only the disingenuous method of argumentation employed by David Smith.

If we are able to “clear the air” and discuss the issues forthrightly, with at least some deference shown toward the opinions of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church, and without knee-jerk accusations of anti-Semitism being flung about, then perhaps a discussion of the Protocols would be worthwhile. But in the current atmosphere, I doubt such a discussion would be profitable for anyone.

SOURCE: https://web.archive.org/web/20070412034836/http://joyfullight.blogspot.com/2005/12/does-elder-ephraim-teach-anti-semitism.html

Geronda Paisios, abbot of St. Anthony's Monastery.
Geronda Paisios, abbot of St. Anthony’s Monastery.

Does Elder Ephraim teach anti-Semitism? (Seraphim Larson, 2005)

Seraphim Larsen is a convert to Orthodoxy and has been a pilgrim to St. Anthony’s Monastery pretty much since its beginning. Geronda Paisios is his spiritual father and also the priest who baptized him. Thus, as a lay person, he is in a very good position to refute accusations against the monastery as he knows more than the average person due to his unique relationship with the fathers there. In December 2012, he was elected chairman for the Pinal County Republican Party (Florence, AZ is a town in and the county seat of Pinal County). He was also the representative for Presidential Candidate Ron Paul the same year. He is currently a member of the Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots.

Seraphim Larsen's Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots Profile Pic. http://phoenixteaparty.ning.com/profile/SeraphimLarsen
Seraphim Larsen’s Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots Profile Pic. http://phoenixteaparty.ning.com/profile/SeraphimLarsen
As I mentioned earlier, I intend to address the issues raised by David Smith one-by-one.

The first issue he raises is anti-Semitism.  He accuses Elder Ephraim and the Fathers at Saint Anthony’s Monastery of being anti-Semites. Such a claim is absolutely unfounded.It is worth mentioning that the Elder’s own personal medical doctor in Phoenix is a Jew.  A lawyer that the Monastery uses is also a Jew.  In addition, there are a number of Monks who are from Jewish backgrounds, and at least one of the Orthodox Priests who regularly visits St. Anthony’s Monastery is a Jewish convert to Christianity.   I know two of these people quite well, and they have never complained of any anti-Semitic teaching coming from Elder Ephraim.

Fr. James Bernstein, Jewish convert to Orthodoxy.
Fr. James Bernstein, Jewish convert to Orthodoxy.

Smith provided some quotes from some of Elder Ephraim’s writings to try to prove that the Elder is anti-Semitic. For example:


One Sunday, a preacher delivered a sermon on “love your enemies.” On the Sunday after, he spoke against alcohol addiction – about the havoc it wrought among the Christian peoples. Incidentally, the infamous Zionists greatly boast about this in their notorious ‘Protocols.’

It is important to note, in the quotes cited by Smith, Elder Ephraim speaks against the Zionists, not Judaism or the Jewish people.

Zionism is not equivalent to Judaism — not at all. Zionism is “an international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine, and later for the support of modern Israel” (Merriam-Webster). The ranks of the Zionists have included many who are not even Jewish — for example, many American Evangelicals identify themselves with the Zionist movement.

Many people of greatly varied political and religious views are opposed to Zionism for many different reasons, and it would be ridiculous to claim that all of them are anti-Semites. There are even Jewish people and organizations that oppose Zionism. Are they also anti-Semites? This is plainly ridiculous.

Thus, there is no foundation at all to the accusation that Elder Ephraim and/or the fathers at Saint Anthony’s Monastery are racists or anti-Semites.  This accusation simply has no basis.

3 Comments:

christopher3rd said…
The part of this comment that is deemed offensive is not the reference to Zionists, but the reference to the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” which is a forged, anti-Semitic text that is not primarily concerned with Zionism. For background see:

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/
The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion

This clarification should not, in any way, be taken as a denouncement of Elder Ephraim or his monasteries in the US. Ignorance concerning Elder Ephraim and Orthodox, Athonite monasticism has been the basis for much of the controversy surrounding Geronda Ephraim. The lack of clarity in this defense of Geronda’s comments concerning the Protocols simply adds to the confusion.

The Protocols of Zion are assumed to be fact in many quarters of the world, and perhaps this is the basis of Geronda’s comments. Then again, the reference to “the infamous Zionists” is not the focus of his comment but on the alcohol additiction “among the Christian peoples”. The reference to “the Zionists… in their notorius Protocols” can be taken in the same way that a reference to Hamlet, Zeus, Raskolnikov, or other literary and folk figures, helps to underline a point. Referencing Zeus or Apollo is not tantamount to admitting their historicity, nor is quoting “To be or not to be” an approval of Prince Hamlet’s murderous actions or of Shakespeare himself.

We should remember to put the best construction on second and third hand information such as this, taken out of context, and mixed with vague suspicions of impropriety. These tendencies toward gossip are the basis of many of the accusations against Geronda Ephraim, as well as those against other “secret organizations” such as the Masons, the United Nations, and the “Elders of Zion” which are demonized without actual proof. Uninformed, anti-monastic, gossip is not appropriate to Christians- nor is fixating on who may or may not be wielding worldly power when our Lord’s Kingdom is not of this world.

12/13/2005 10:24 AM
Anonymous said…
Since Arabs can also be Semites, we cannot use the term anti-Semitism to describe someone who hates Jews as a people. The correct term would be “anti-Jewism” or perhaps “Jewphobia”, as a Jewish scholar suggested recently.

Apart from that, even if one supports the theory of the Protocols, this speaks against Zionism, which, beyond national borders, if seen as the belief system that it really is (the supposed 1000-year Jewish dominion etc.) is evidently against the teachings of the Orthodox Church. (For example read here
http://www.eastern-orthodoxy.com/zionism.htm)

Unfortunately, I did not manage to find an excellent link that provides a 1000-page analysis (!!) as evidence to the contrary of the hoax theory by a serious scholar who has been in contact with Cohen and the others. Nevertheless, I do recall that the analysis admitted that the results, seen by all sides, are inconclusive, so one cannot claim that they have proof of the validity of the Protocols. At the same time however one cannot claim that they have proof that it is parody. If I find the link, I will send it here. (Apologies for this — but it is true).

"Every one is striving to ensure the creation of one religion.  And it will be accomplished in such a way – by claiming that 'all religions are the same;' that 'we shall form a new religion'… This is being done by something they call Zionism. " St. Porphyrios  the Kapsokalivite
“Every one is striving to ensure the creation of one religion. And it will be accomplished in such a way – by claiming that ‘all religions are the same;’ that ‘we shall form a new religion’… This is being done by something they call Zionism. ” St. Porphyrios the Kapsokalivite

Freemasonry however is a different fruit. There are no mysteries there; not today. It has been officially forbidden for Orthodox Christians by a regulation of the State Church of Greece Continuous Local Synod on more than one occasion. Many enlightened elders have spoken against the spiritually destructive nature of that organization, including recently by Elder Porphyrios, as can be found in Conitsiotis’ well-known book (now the third edition also available in English).

Even if one just takes into consideration the fact that they (as they themselves admit) start their sessions by a common prayer “each to their god”, in true violation of the Orthodox ordinances that anathematise anyone who does this, one can see clearly that Orthodoxy and Freemasonry are incompatible.

The well-known and respected father of blessed memory archimandrite Vasilopoulos wrote about the para-religious cult-like form of Freemasonry in the past. Many reporters, right or left wing, Greek and English, have written on the subject, the world over. There is well-established literature that discusses the para-religious nature of Freemasonry. This of course is also admitted by the older freemasons who were whistling a different tune before they were unmasked. See for example Pythagoras Lodge’s magazine, edition 1, January, 1930 (in Greece).

Archimandrite Haralmabos Vasilopoulos wrote extensively about the Protocols and Zionism.
Archimandrite Haralmabos Vasilopoulos wrote extensively about the Protocols and Zionism.

Returning to the issue of anti-Semitism, however. I *do* wonder. Why is it that we do not hear anyone calling some Jews as anti-Hindo-European or something?

Even black people can be labeled as anti-white and white of course as racists. But Jews are never seen as being in a position to be racist.

Yet when a religious orthodox Jew reads the Zohar (11, 64B)
and “learns” that “the births of Christians must be reduced”, or when he opens up Makkoth (7B) to read that he is “innocent of crime if the purpose is the murder of a Christian”; please tell me: would I be an “anti-Semite” when I ask the above question?

According to the ADL, the film “The Passion of the Christ” was anti-Semitic because it showed the Jews as murderers! Of course, as an Orthodox I disagree with the portrayal of God in movies, but the point is that the use of the word “anti-Semite” is totally in the hands of the rich and powerful American Jewish lobbies and ADL to receive any absurd meaning they want it to receive.

The Passion of Christ is blessed for Geronda Ephraim's  monks and nuns. Some of the monks and nuns have this movie on their IPODs.
The Passion of Christ is blessed for Geronda Ephraim’s monks and nuns. Some of the monks and nuns have this movie on their IPODs.

Elder Ephraim, by being Orthodox, cannot by default BE anti-Jewish since our Christ according to the flesh was a Jew! And we are to love our enemies, even those of the Jews who openly oppose Orthodoxy.

When the US media (newspapers, channels and some major magazines) are all in Jewish hands, together with Hollywood, do you really expect anything different for the propaganda of the public opinion?

As for the existence or not of “conspiracies”. Well, certainly some MUST take place since we had 9/11 carefully orchestrated around our head.

Again, one-sided information was provided by the media in order that Jewish people do not get under the gun of suspicion. Yet very few people bothered to find out on their own that the Associated Press recorded that a short while before the explosions, Scotland Yard sent a telegram to the Israeli Secretary of Treasury Mr. Benjamin Netaniahu not to go to the hotel where he was going to give a speech but to stay at his hotel.

This is a fact; and yet, if one mentioned it today insinuating that certain Israeli groups (and in fact British groups) had foreknowledge of the attacks would most likely once again be labelled as an “anti-Semite”.

Well, I love all people, for all people are images of the Holy Trinity. And whatever they do wrong under the influence of the Devil is not a matter for hatred but sadness. “If God is with us, who is against us?”

However, I do not like to fall victim to the empty and well-known propaganda of “anti-Semitism”, in the same way I do not like any time of propaganda, whether of a sociopolitical or of a religious nature.

The Elder is not a racist, for that would undermine all he ever wanted to be. Religious Zionism, whether people like to hear it or not, is anti-Christian by default and in many ways similar to the ultra-nationalist Greek “Hellenists” that have recently emerged. In both cases phyletism is the underlying issue and phyletism has been FORMALLY condemned by the Orthodox Church.

The Elder has named his black pets, or pets with lots of black color, "Arapi", which is the Greek equivalent of 'Nigger.' Sometimes the monks Basilios, Mattheos, etc. are referred to as "Arapi" behind their backs.
The Elder has named his black pets, or pets with lots of black color, “Arapi”, which is the Greek equivalent of ‘Nigger.’ Sometimes the monks Basilios, Mattheos, etc. are referred to as “Arapi” behind their backs.

Thank you.

1/04/2006 3:29 PM
Anonymous said…
The link, as promised.

Myers is a serious and honest scholar who is however non-Christian. Nevertheless, he provides some significant pieces of information that refute some of the common arguments in favor of the “hoax story”.

http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/hiding.html (dead link)

https://web.archive.org/web/20010714000646/http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/hiding.html

Of course, there is always the former Rabbi Benjamin Freedman’s explicit revelation, who, deeply knowledgeable in the Talmudic teachings being a professor, in 1954, after converting to Christianity, wrote an open letter to the arch-rabbi of Boston Dr. David Goldstein, LL. D, dated 10th October 1954. There, for the first time, Americans learnt the deep hatred that the Talmudist Jews hold for us. Iore Dea (148, 12H) for example, also quoted in that letter, remind us of the Pharisaical hypocrisy we meet in the Bible: “Hide your hatred against the Christians during their festivities.”

Orthodox Christians love and get on well with both Moslems and Judaizing Jews. However, both Islam and Supremacist Zionism as religious systems are against the spirit of the Orthodox Church.

For example, take St. Kosmas the Aetolos. Both Christians and Moslems in Greece (circa 1765) respected greatly this monk, but some Judaizing Jews hated him. Thus, the Jews of Ipiros in Greece slandered his name — that he was supposedly an instrument of the Russians and was preparing the revolution of the Greeks against the Ottoman Empire.

St. Kosmas Aitolos frequently refers to Jews as "children of the devil" in his sermons.
St. Kosmas Aitolos frequently refers to Jews as “children of the devil” in his sermons.

http://www.stmaryofegypt.org/files/library/Father-Kosmas-Apostle-of-the-Poor.pdf

Thus, while he was preaching the word of God in the village of Kolikontasi of Beratius in Albania, he was arrested on 23 August 1779, by issue of Kurt Pasha, and the next day hanged by a tree by the river Apsus. His body was thrown to the river, from where it was eventually picked up by the village priest.

These are facts. Even if they may not be politically correct. The Elder speaks in love and humility, not with hatred. Christians are to love their enemies. That is the best defence against all the hatred we face. Amen.

SOURCE

https://web.archive.org/web/20070412034836/http://joyfullight.blogspot.com/2005/12/does-elder-ephraim-teach-anti-semitism.html