IF's nicknames -- they weren't meant for us!

In my opinion it is somewhat disrespectful to use their nicknames. I don't think that anyone here would appreciate it if I used one of his/her private nickname without asking. Of course the IF passed away a long time ago but I think using their private nicknames is still wrong. But all in all I agree with RomanovMartyrs that disrespect is a matter of opinion and personal view. I don't want to condemn anyone here for using their nicknames. It's just my opinion that it is wrong and I would never do that.

RomanovMartyrs:  I note that you apparently post from Finland.  I do not know if English is your native language, but it is highly readable and your points are clear.  Regards,  AP.

Aleksandr Pavlovich, though I agree with your points and am myself very upset with all these imaginative Tatya, Olishka and Mashenka, I would humbly suggest you not be so strict with the "groupy cliq". You know, in a world where young girls are most of the time following the example of Angelina Jolie or hanging pictures of Eva Longaria, I think it is very laudable and healthy that some of them around the world choose other "stars" to follow. We have to encourage them, to help this entousiasm became more calm, more historical. It is nothing good to mock at them, you know. As you noticed, some of them, members of this forum since many years grew up under our eyes in their opinions and approaches, partly because they simply grew up, partly thanks to this forum, opened for great historians and for naive children. Teenagers always pass this period of enthousiastic, a little bit silly love for someone great they assimilate themselves with. It is a normal phasis of their developpement, isn't it?
I apologize for my miserable english and hope my point was more or less clear.

I don't understand why it's immature to kiss photos of the Romanovs if you're doing it because you like them, but it's okay if it's part of your religion. You're still kissing portraits of dead people. It's either silly or it isn't. I've never believed making something part of a religion made it more or less okay, but I'm agnostic.   I'm not saying I personally think it's silly, but it's hypocritical to say, "That's stupid, unless it's your religion. Then it's okay."

Also, I feel I have a lot in common with OTMA. That's why I stay interested. For instance...
1) I like to read(Olga).
2) I like animals.
3) My parents and grandparents aren't the best of friends.
4) I have an anxiety and depression disorder(Olga had some of that).
5) I'm going into nursing(OT).

Plus tons more. Just because they were royal and lived one hundreds years ago doesn't mean you can't connect.

Re Reply # 62:  Hello, "matushka," and thank you for your well-expressed comments!  Your English is quite clear. Best wishes to you and yours for the New Year!  Regards,  AP.

Re Reply # 63:   Thank you as well, "clockworkgirl21," for your comments. One's religious faith and associated practices, or lack thereof is a personal matter, as you have so correctly observed, just as your justifying reasons mean, in your opinion, a satisfactory "connect" for you in particular.  I wish for you and yours a peaceful Happy New Year.  Regards,  AP.

I don't understand why it's immature to kiss photos of the Romanovs if you're doing it because you like them, but it's okay if it's part of your religion. You're still kissing portraits of dead people. It's either silly or it isn't. I've never believed making something part of a religion made it more or less okay, but I'm agnostic.   I'm not saying I personally think it's silly, but it's hypocritical to say, "That's stupid, unless it's your religion. Then it's okay."

Yes, people can do as they want to, it is (should be) a free world. I was just trying to justify the IF-venerator's actions to Aleksandr Pavlovich whom I know to be a traditionalist.

I don't understand why it's immature to kiss photos of the Romanovs if you're doing it because you like them, but it's okay if it's part of your religion. You're still kissing portraits of dead people. It's either silly or it isn't. I've never believed making something part of a religion made it more or less okay, but I'm agnostic.   I'm not saying I personally think it's silly, but it's hypocritical to say, "That's stupid, unless it's your religion. Then it's okay."

For those of Orthodox faith, it is not about "kissing portraits of dead people." Firstly, Orthodox do not kiss photographs, but rather icons. In the words of Father Anthony M. Coniaris, a most revered Greek Orthodox American priest, "The purpose of icons is three-fold: 1. To create reverence in worship; 2. To instruct those who are unable to read; 3. To serve as an existential link between the worshipper and God."

In my opinion it is disrespectful to compare the kissing of a Romanov photograph by your average teen OTMAA fan, to the religious acts of the faithful Orthodox Christians. Icons are blessed by priests, and I am almost certain that your average OTMAA fan uses pictures out of photo albums or printed off the internet- not holy objects. Big difference.

Edit: I am not saying it's immature or silly to kiss their photographs if you're not Orthodox, or whatever. I'm just explaining the difference for you.

And alexander pavlovich, thank you for your kind words.

I understand the difference, but believe it's hypocritical to call one silly and the other okay, whether they're kissing portraits, pictures, icons, etc. To me it doesn't matter why they're doing it, it's the same. Teenagers who kiss pictures shouldn't be considered any sillier than believers who kiss icons. I'm not saying it's silly at all for either to do it, only pointing out why I find it hypocritical. I'm sure those teenagers feel as "good" when they do it as religious followers do.

I agree with you clockworkgirl, it's the same human impulse towards fetishism and idolatry, one "free-range", the other theologically sanctioned. BTW it's never occured to me before that one of the arguments in favour of icons and relics, against iconoclasts, found in St. John of Damascus's "On the Divine Image" is that the invisible God, whose image we are not to reproduce and idolize (I never knew that the Orthodox and Anglican Churches have this as the second commandment, while we Lutherans and Catholics include it in the first one!) revealed himself, becoming flesh, in the incarnation! It makes sense then, that Jews and Muslims are more sceptical to religious iconography. (Plus we are all created in God's image, does that mean we should or shouldn't worship each other..... Ah, the joys of theology!)

Those are all excellent points.  I love a theology talk.

Well, I'm sure a lot of young people kiss pictures of Justin Bieber and Katy Perry  too.

4) I have an anxiety and depression disorder(Olga had some of that).

I hope it's not serious, Lisa.

I'm going into nursing(OT).

Good luck with that, I hope you get in.

I agree with you clockworkgirl, it's the same human impulse towards fetishism and idolatry, one "free-range", the other theologically sanctioned. BTW it's never occured to me before that one of the arguments in favour of icons and relics, against iconoclasts, found in St. John of Damascus's "On the Divine Image" is that the invisible God, whose image we are not to reproduce and idolize (I never knew that the Orthodox and Anglican Churches have this as the second commandment, while we Lutherans and Catholics include it in the first one!) revealed himself, becoming flesh, in the incarnation! It makes sense then, that Jews and Muslims are more sceptical to religious iconography. (Plus we are all created in God's image, does that mean we should or shouldn't worship each other..... Ah, the joys of theology!)

I am not going to dignify either of you with the long-winded response that I could give to hush you. I will only say that Orthodox icons have absolutely nothing to do with fetishism, or idolatry, and that your statement is grossly offensive to anyone of the faith. (Which, isn't that the whole topic of this thread- disrespecting the Romanovs?)

I HIGHLY suggest you research Orthodox Christianity, or talk to an Orthodox priest, to learn the difference in the Holy act of icon veneration, and teenaged girls kissing OTMAA photos.

I understand why they do it, I just don't believe it being a part of your religion makes something different from someone else doing the same thing.

I'm actually trying to not be disrespectful, since I have a very low opinion on religion. But as long as someone isn't hurting anyone, they should be free to believe or follow any way they want.

You said you were agnostic, Lisa.  What does that mean?