The Orthodox Church and Byzantium

[xxx]

I think this question fits better in the History forum, but since it's also related to Religion...

Usually Islam has allowed Christians and Jews to practice their faiths after conquering a territory. They allowed them to because they consider them "people of the Book" (the Bible), though always as an inferior religious group and under special, heavier, taxations (dhimmis).

Now, what happened to Orthodox Byzantines? Are there any groups left in modern Turkey?

[Dienekes]

Well, in the first quarter of the 20th century, the Ottomans and later the Turkish nationalists massacred and expelled most Christians from Turkey. The treaty of Lausanne allowed a few Greek Christians to remain in Constantinople and the islands of Imvros and Tenedos, but Turkish policies since then have gradually caused the demographic decline of these communities.

[Praetor]

Mynydd said:

I think this question fits better in the History forum, but since it's also related to Religion...

Usually Islam has allowed Christians and Jews to practice their faiths after conquering a territory. They allowed them to because they consider them "people of the Book" (the Bible), though always as an inferior religious group and under special, heavier, taxations (dhimmis).

Now, what happened to Orthodox Byzantines? Are there any groups left in modern Turkey?

Islam has an interesting point of view.Muslims if I am not mistaken treat Jews until the coming of Jesus as "true followers" and after that they treat christians that lived up to Mohammed's era as true followers too.That means they sense a continuity between Judaism,Christianity and Islam,obviously considering the latter to be the new and improved truth.Still followers of Christianity,Judaism or Zoroastrism (three religions of special status) had to suffer the taxation,limited civil rights and biased courts of law(among other things). The succesors of Byzantines are obviously modern Greeks ,although some Russians might argue that Russia is the "Third Rome".Orthodox Christians of Turkey are nigh on extinction.

[xxx]

Praetor said:

Islam has an interesting point of view.Muslims if I am not mistaken treat Jews until the coming of Jesus as "true followers" and after that they treat christians that lived up to Mohammed's era as true followers too.

Not quite. They could consider true followers to those early Christians who believed that Jesus was something different to what later Christians thought of. I.e. not the son of god.

Still followers of Christianity,Judaism or Zoroastrism (three religions of special status) had to suffer the taxation,limited civil rights and biased courts of law(among other things).

Yes, they accepted the practicing of those who they consider "People of the Book". As tributaries to Islam (dhimmis or some such is the word they use).

I don't think they accept Zoroastranism (I think the denomination is also Mazdaism), as they are not, strictly speaking, "people of the book". Much of Hebrewism seems to have borrowed from Mazadaism at some point.

The succesors of Byzantines are obviously modern Greeks ,although some Russians might argue that Russia is the "Third Rome".Orthodox Christians of Turkey are nigh on extinction.

Well, religiously speaking Greeks are the successors of Byzantines, agreed. But many of the Turks I've met don't look proto-turkish at all. I suspect that they are still roughly the same Greek-Byzantine people before the fall of Constantinople. Of course this does not apply to all Turks, but many in the European part.

That would explain what I observed from some Greeks and Turks some years ago. While Greeks, in general, seemed to hate everything Turkish, at the same time some Greeks used to get along with some Turks. These Turks were of a distinguishable European phenotype and not concerned about religion.

That the Russians may consider themselves a "third Rome" sounds like a joke. I think that the Eastern-Western division is mostly gone in terms of rivalry, and bringing it up is a complete nonsense.

Personally, as a Roman Catholic by tradition, I'd much prefer a two-side approach among Catholics and Orthodox, rather than any approach to Protestants. Notice that I'm not implying a submission to Rome.

Now... even if small, are there any Orthodox groups still alive in Turkey? Is there a Patriarch for the Byzantine Orthodox Church... or is it under the Greek Patriarchate?

[Praetor]

"I don't think they accept Zoroastranism (I think the denomination is also Mazdaism), as they are not, strictly speaking, "people of the book". Much of Hebrewism seems to have borrowed from Mazadaism at some point."

Muslims were tolerant towards zoroastrism too. The crucial point is that the later was monotheistic as well .

"Well, religiously speaking Greeks are the successors of Byzantines, agreed. But many of the Turks I've met don't look proto-turkish at all. I suspect that they are still roughly the same Greek-Byzantine people before the fall of Constantinople. Of course this does not apply to all Turks, but many in the European part."

I am not talking about religion or race.I am talking about culture in general. Culturally speaking modern Greeks are the closest to Byzantines. Byzantine or eastern Roman empire was multinational especially before the 12th century AD.You can't define a certain racial type (or more)as Byzantine.As for religion,Bulgarians and Serbs are Orthodox too,but you wont see them bearing byzantine flags today or mourn the loss of Constantinople.

[xxx]

Praetor said:

Muslims were tolerant towards zoroastrism too. The crucial point is that the later was monotheistic as well .

Not quite. They were dualists. And, if I'm not mistaken, they believed in a constant fight for equilibrium between good and evil, in a way different to that of Christians, Muslims or Hebrews. It would have been very difficult for Muslims to accept it.

I am not talking about religion or race.I am talking about culture in general. Culturally speaking modern Greeks are the closest to Byzantines. Byzantine or eastern Roman empire was multinational especially before the 12th century AD.You can't define a certain racial type (or more)as Byzantine.

Well, then my mistake is that I am speaking of (ex-)Byzantines when I should be speaking of Western Turks.

Last night I watched a TV programme about Turkey. Most Turks from Istambul that were shown looked completely European, in fact they looked Greek. There were others from areas in Anatolia who looked different, still European, but with hair colour and eyes lighter as well as skin. I take these were of a Celtic origin. Then, the rest were... well, just non-European.

As for religion,Bulgarians and Serbs are Orthodox too,but you wont see them bearing byzantine flags today or mourn the loss of Constantinople.

Yes, I see your point. But I'm sure that people of Skopje mourn Alexander The Great and yet they are unconnected to the Macedonians... or are they?

I don't want to open a breach with the Greeks, more so when I admit I don't know much of the details. I'd just like to get some closer knowledge about the region and what the Greek's and other's opinion about it all.

[Praetor]

Zoroastrism (or better,Zoroastrianism)was more than anything else monotheistic afaik .There was the Great god Mazda in contrast to a great evil mainyus quite much like the christian God/Satan concept.Mazda and Mainyus both took part in Creation but according to christian faith Satan is the creator of everything evil as well.If the Muslims were to be annoyed by that dualism of Zoroastrianism they would be without doubt greatly irritated by the Triadic nature of Christian God (Father,Son,Holy Spirit).In some discussions with non christians that I have opened,I reckon them usually being unable to comprehend the Trinity.For many of them there are three Gods in that.It seems that Muslims weren't that superficial when they were defining their relations towards other religious groups.