Deep theological question

[TranquilMind]

All great questions and not one single good answer in this thread. My faith has been evaporating for a couple of years now. The silence has always bothered me, and the typical Christian response that he speaks to our hearts just doesn't cut it for me anymore. My husband, who was a Christian for 40 years but is now an anti-theist, said, "The problem with the relationship (with God) is that there is no interaction with Him in a shared reality. All of our experiences with Him are indistinguishable from efforts of our own imagination. "

 

This just isn't true.  It always amazes me that people think that it was ANY different for people in biblical times than it is today.   Do you think the Egyptians actually believed that "God" parted the Red Sea for the Israelites to escape, even if they were standing there watching it happen?    I guarantee that even looking right at it, they would assume it was some natural phenomenon, just like today.   Same with Jesus performing miracles.  Believers knew He did it; unbelievers would say - just like today -well, the guy wasn't really sick, or it was some manipulative trick.  And they plotted against Him and tried to kill Him regularly. 

 

Things are no different than they ever were.  You either see it, or you don't.  It's just that simple. 

[Lady Florida.]

Nevertheless there are, I can only believe, people reading this who are struggling with this very idea, and in the same vain you offered your church as a haven of comfort and safety for those who receive a conflicting message here, I would like the opportunity to do the same. I would like to offer the points to which I contribute here to be indicative of the existence of a safe haven of sorts.

 

I would like them to hear an alternative voice to one that invites them to yet another community of faith, a community where reason will hold a second fiddle to emotions. I'd like for people to hear a voice that says It's okay to recognize the logical holes, the unreasonable offers, the irrational arguments of a faith-based system, and conclude these are leftover arguments from a time where the world was best explained through local mythology and superstition. It's okay to recognize that ancient beliefs, coupled with emotional comforts, do not answer certain questions because they cannot do so. It's okay to stop believing in a god who seems impervious to your pleas. It is possible to be good without god. It is possible to find community support, even if you must remain in the atheistic closet for practical reasons.

 

In case you ever wonder if there really are people reading the kinds of stuff you're posting, yes there are. I was once one of those people. I frequented a number of both religion and atheist forums and blogs when I was questioning my faith. It was posts like yours that showed me 1) I wasn't alone in questioning. 2) It's okay to use logic and reason. 3) I should continue my searching and questioning. And finally, they showed me that it was absolutely positively okay to come to the conclusion that there are no gods.

[TranquilMind]

I may be wrong here, but I think we're strayed a bit from the original question, so let me see if I can put it somewhat more bluntly.  If miracles are happening even now today, why are we not hearing about them, say in the media?  If the Red Sea parted so a group of people could pass safely through, I imagine Good Morning America would be all over that.  If someone actually rose from the dead, CNN would be telling us all about it.  If a single loaf of bread somehow fed an entire starving village in Africa, Associated Press would be reporting it.  And yet we're not hearing anything of the sort (in recent memory, to be the best of my recollection, etc.) being reported through any major media.  Why not?  If true miracles were happening in this day and age, they would be big news.

I completely disagree. 

 

If the Red Sea parted, and the Israelites (or insert another group) said GOD did it for them, it would be roundly mocked and they would trot out all kinds of high caliber scientists to tell us that it just isn't possible, and these people had actually experienced some natural phenomenon.  If they had it on video, it would be either not released, or released in conjunction with noted scientist explaining how it was actually some natural phenomenon.

 

If someone rose from the dead on camera, same result.  They would trot out experts to explain that he wasn't really dead, and explain how it was actually some process that slows the body to the point that this error could be made, but of course he wasn't dead. 

 

If a loaf of bread fed a village, no one would ever know, but the people involved.  If they happened to tell anyone, it would gain no traction at all, because it would be dismissed as impossible. 

[Joanne]

I can give you personal examples, but I do not believe that they will be of any help or insight. Because they are of a personal nature and not of use to others as 'evidence.'

The way that a Christian can tell if something is from God or not is that it has to line up with the word of God, the bible. Too many Christians today are trusting other spirits to guide and direct them.

 

The bible clearly tells us that we have to test all things (1 Th 5:21).  And in regards to spiritual things, we are to compare spiritual with spiritual (1 Cor 2:13).

 

Seriously, the bold makes me - a few years POST Christian - so frustrated.

 

It's so vague and judgmental. What is "too many"? How would you know that a CHRISTIAN are trusting "other spirits"?

[fraidycat]

In case you ever wonder if there really are people reading the kinds of stuff you're posting, yes there are. I was once one of those people. I frequented a number of both religion and atheist forums and blogs when I was questioning my faith. It was posts like yours that showed me 1) I wasn't alone in questioning. 2) It's okay to use logic and reason. 3) I should continue my searching and questioning. And finally, they showed me that it was absolutely positively okay to come to the conclusion that there are no gods.

Yep. This. I've already told albeto this, but it bears repeating.

[JenniferB]

I'll try to hit as many as I can while my kids are doing piano lessons.  I'll put my responses in blue below.

 

What makes you say I will just "make fun" of your example? If you think a particular example might not illustrate your point, then why not provide one that does?

 

There is a risk to posting a miracle story that it will get ridiculed or dissected.  I don't think one example would illustrate my point, because my point is that the miracles are vast over time and space from BCE to now from Israel to Alaska, and it is the vastness, consistency in Orthodoxy, consistency with the Scriptures, and organic nature of the "fame" associated with the Saint and the miracle that illustrates my point.  My point being that there is  not radio silence, in the corporate Orthodox community.  In the Orthodox community as a whole, God did not stop doing miracles after the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd century but they were present then, and they are present now, and they have been present in-between.

You seem to want to assure the reader that God is not silent, and yet you offer no assurance other than your own belief that God is not silent.

 

No, I offered that it is the experience of millions over time and space from 1,000's BCE to now from Alaska to Israel and everywhere in-between where Orthodox Christianity has penetrated the society:  shelves of books with stories.

 

Is that so surprising to see requests for elaboration?

 

Yes, because how else is history made and written?  History books are written on the basis of eye witnesses in agreement on what happened and at what time and what place with whom.  It is surprising to me that it makes no difference to you and at least one other who said it didn't make a lick of difference if these stories number in the 1,000's, and there are shelves and shelves of books with these stories and that they are consistent, that the character of the Saints is consistent with each other and with the Biblical narrative.

 

It's surprising to me that "one legitimate miracle story" would convince you, but shelves and shelves of them across cultures and times doesn't make a lick of difference.  I'm quite sure if I linked one it wouldn't make a difference, especially when you can just click on Google and type in "miracles of Elder Paisios" and read them for yourself.  Why would it make a difference to you if I Googled that and copied/pasted the links that came up?  Does my copy/paste make it legitimate?  I don't know how to legitimatize it for you.  I already told you I don't have a personal story.  I don't think it would make a difference if I did.  Why would you believe my word over some other stranger and/or over 1,000's of other stories over 1,000's of years and many cultures?

 

On a personal note, I'm awfully curious how your faith works. On the one hand, you identified yourself as a witness,

 

From the very beginning I qualified my statements as "I don't know if I'm objective or not" and also that I had not actually heard the voice of God myself.  I don't think I misrepresented that I actually witnessed a miracle.  I am a witness of Jesus Christ and the Orthodox Christian faith, maybe that is what you are referring to?

 

You later suggest organic stories are indicative of God's presence, but completely ignore the organic stories shared.

 

I'm not aware of completely ignoring the Saints stories.  I just refused to copy/paste links.  It seems trivial when I know it won't convince you and you can do it yourself if you want to.

 

You finally admit that you don't hear God's voice, but you do feel a sense of community and fullness of your faith in your faith community.

 

Yes.

 

Finally, you leave me with these vague, "signing off" comments (may the best of the universe be upon me?), as if you've got nothing more to add but want to offer some kind of blessing over me.

 

If you don't want my good wishes, I'm sorry. 

 

I can't help but wonder if this is the point that differentiates your walk of faith from the OP's.

 

I'm not familiar with the OP's walk of faith.  I responded because I thought I had something to contribute regarding the radio silence issue.  In my own walk of faith this was a question I often pondered and even asked my former pastor about.  I never had a satisfying answer until I encountered the Orthodox Christian faith.  This is because in my human experience, I'm not speaking for anyone else, I perceive that there is a God and the stories of the Bible ring true to me.  They speak to my soul.  Christianity speaks to my soul.  The incarnation of Jesus Christ, his destroying death by death, his resurrection and ascension, the Eucharist, Holy Confession, the calendar and the life of the Church through the people makes perfect sense to me and completes me as a human being.  I realize it's not the same for everyone. 

 

In your walk (as I see it, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), you do see the lack of reason when pressed, but then decide it's not important enough to pursue the answers to these questions.

 

My human experience is not based solely on reason.  Reason, for me, is a good tool to function in this world and to help make ends meet, etc. but it is not part of my deepest human need, which is for communion with God, reconciliation with him, restoration and healing so that my true humanity can function in harmony with God.

 

You'll stop asking questions and simply accept these claims, and likely fall back on the emotional experiences that seem to confirm the validity, or at least usefulness of these rituals and ceremonies.

 

Yes, there is a point at which I stop asking questions.  The Sacraments for example, there is mystery and I don't need to define it or understand it completely.  There are many other examples of mystery and they are best left undissected.

 

The OP isn't stopping her questions just yet. She's not quite ready to suppress her curiosity and accept these claims as legitimate (and she will, I trust, correct me if I'm wrong). Perhaps it's fair to mention this because this was my own path. It makes it hard for me to see another alternative, but I'm willing to try and consider one if it's offered.

 

That is why I responded, was to give my "take" or experience with the radio silence question she posted.  It's a good question.  Don't stop seeking or asking questions. 

 

I wouldn't dare to suggest that you try anything that didn't sit well with you.  Each of us has to pursue satisfaction of our deepest human needs as we see fit.

 

 

[Tanaqui]

I completely disagree. 

 

If the Red Sea parted, and the Israelites (or insert another group) said GOD did it for them, it would be roundly mocked and they would trot out all kinds of high caliber scientists to tell us that it just isn't possible, and these people had actually experienced some natural phenomenon.  If they had it on video, it would be either not released, or released in conjunction with noted scientist explaining how it was actually some natural phenomenon.

 

If someone rose from the dead on camera, same result.  They would trot out experts to explain that he wasn't really dead, and explain how it was actually some process that slows the body to the point that this error could be made, but of course he wasn't dead. 

 

If a loaf of bread fed a village, no one would ever know, but the people involved.  If they happened to tell anyone, it would gain no traction at all, because it would be dismissed as impossible. 

If, if, if. TM*, do you have any evidence that any of these things have happened in... say, since the advent of widespread video recording? You're asserting that IF this happened, nobody would believe it, but you're not giving us a chance to prove this untrue.

 

Do you think the Egyptians actually believed that "God" parted the Red Sea for the Israelites to escape, even if they were standing there watching it happen?

 

I don't believe any of that story actually happened, because there's no evidence that it did happen and considerable evidence that it did not.

 

However, in the context of the story, given that the omniscient (you do believe this one, right?) deity purposely "hardened Pharaoh's heart" so as to spread his signs and wonders through the area, I'm guessing that a non-zero number of Egyptians did, in fact, believe something was up.

 

* As recent comments show, people get confused enough by our names. If you object very strongly, I'll spell it out, but so long as you don't mind I prefer not to create more surrealness around the idea that I'm arguing with myself.

[JenniferB]

I just didn't feel I had more to offer you in responding to a topic that we seemed to be at an impasse about.  You replied that we were not at an impasse if I could offer examples of "legitimate" miracles.  I will try to do that...

 

I'm responding to my own post here to give an update that I do not intend to link "legitimate" miracles.  I don't know how to legitimatize them.  There are countless stories, but obviously I can't personally vouch for them.  I can say that Elder Paisios was recently canonized a Saint in the Orthodox Church.  This legitimatizes him as an ambassador for Christ, as all Christians are called to be, in my book.  But, I can't give more assurance than that.  Sorry.

[JenniferB]

Totally a side note:

 

 Wouldn't it make sense to either prevent or condone Islam, the Great Schism, the Protestant Revolution?

 

We learned about this when we studied Astronomy last year.  I thought it was curious that it was observed in 1054, the year of the Great Schism.

 

I don't know that anyone Orthodox or Catholic considers this significant, but when we encountered this in our studies I was like, "woah!"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1054

 

 

[creekmom]

 

 

I don't believe any of that story actually happened, because there's no evidence that it did happen and considerable evidence that it did not.

 

 

 

I think you'll find this article interesting. Israel and the University of Tel Aviv archeology dept have been trying to prove the justification of Zionism. They had every incentive to interpret the evidence favorably for the Torah. After decades of digging this is what they announced. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/575168.stm

 

BBC News | MIDDLE EAST | Israel digs into the past

Digging for Biblical evidence to justify Jewish claims...

NEWS.BBC.CO.UK

 

 

[DragonFaerie]

I completely disagree. 

 

If the Red Sea parted, and the Israelites (or insert another group) said GOD did it for them, it would be roundly mocked and they would trot out all kinds of high caliber scientists to tell us that it just isn't possible, and these people had actually experienced some natural phenomenon.  If they had it on video, it would be either not released, or released in conjunction with noted scientist explaining how it was actually some natural phenomenon.

 

If someone rose from the dead on camera, same result.  They would trot out experts to explain that he wasn't really dead, and explain how it was actually some process that slows the body to the point that this error could be made, but of course he wasn't dead. 

 

If a loaf of bread fed a village, no one would ever know, but the people involved.  If they happened to tell anyone, it would gain no traction at all, because it would be dismissed as impossible. 

 

I didn't say it would be accepted as miraculous.  I said the event would be reported via the media.  People would know about it. 

[albeto.]

My point being that there is  not radio silence, in the corporate Orthodox community.  In the Orthodox community as a whole, God did not stop doing miracles after the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd century but they were present then, and they are present now, and they have been present in-between.

 

Unsurprisingly, this is in direct conflict with what Teannika says. She references the bible, which illustrates the impossibility of this text as a source of reliable information.

 

Yes, because how else is history made and written?  History books are written on the basis of eye witnesses in agreement on what happened and at what time and what place with whom.  It is surprising to me that it makes no difference to you and at least one other who said it didn't make a lick of difference if these stories number in the 1,000's, and there are shelves and shelves of books with these stories and that they are consistent, that the character of the Saints is consistent with each other and with the Biblical narrative.

 

History may be written on the basis of eye witnesses in agreement on what happened, but it's not corroborated or confirmed or accepted by historians or in any meaningful way that way at all. It is corroborated with unbiased, objective evidence, primary evidence being the most valued of course. Ultimately, the more extraordinary the claim, the more imperative the evidence needs to be. As Christopher Hitches used to say, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You're asserting some fantastic "history," and seem to suggest that because many people corroborate stories, because they warm your own heart, they must be true. This is a fascinating comment for me to see coming from an educator.

 

Tanaqui asked this earlier and I'm sorry if it's been answered already, but do you also assume that alien abduction stories or eye witnesses to Big Foot are accurate accounts of real historical events? The previously mentioned society in India with bodies of men and heads of dogs was accepted on the credibility of eyewitnesses and the growth of the story "organically." As an educator, do you teach your children that the study of history is to accept all accounts that have been made to be accurate so long as they were written as eye witness accounts and believed by others? Or do you apply a more skeptical method of criticism when teaching history as an academic subject? Do you think people who wonder about miracles today should apply a critical analysis with regard to what constitutes as a miracle, or should they just accept someone's word for it? But then this brings us back to thee original question that got you and I into this - how would that person know whose stories to accept?

 

It's surprising to me that "one legitimate miracle story" would convince you, but shelves and shelves of them across cultures and times doesn't make a lick of difference.  I'm quite sure if I linked one it wouldn't make a difference, especially when you can just click on Google and type in "miracles of Elder Paisios" and read them for yourself.  Why would it make a difference to you if I Googled that and copied/pasted the links that came up?  Does my copy/paste make it legitimate?  I don't know how to legitimatize it for you.  I already told you I don't have a personal story.  I don't think it would make a difference if I did.  Why would you believe my word over some other stranger and/or over 1,000's of other stories over 1,000's of years and many cultures?

 

Forget it. I don't want an example any more.

 

From the very beginning I qualified my statements as "I don't know if I'm objective or not" and also that I had not actually heard the voice of God myself.  I don't think I misrepresented that I actually witnessed a miracle.  I am a witness of Jesus Christ and the Orthodox Christian faith, maybe that is what you are referring to?

 

No, I'm referring to the comment that started this entire side-conversation. It was in reply to my question about how an unbiased, objective observer would discern who really heard the words of God right:

 

Being an observer myself,

 

You did mention you were not unbiased, but you claimed to be an observer. You haven't mentioned a thing you observed other than what other people have told you. If you mean to say you are an "observer of Jesus Christ," or something to that effect, that would simply beg the question, what does that even mean? If you mean you have faith that the Jesus you believe is real is real, it doesn't apply to the OP or the question about miracles at. all. It's just another testimony of your personal faith. If that's what you meant this whole time and I thought you actually observed an event, then my apologies. I wouldn't have engaged had I known that was just lingo for "I believe."

 

I'm not aware of completely ignoring the Saints stories.  I just refused to copy/paste links.  It seems trivial when I know it won't convince you and you can do it yourself if you want to.

 

I'm not asking for links. An even such as "The time when the Saint carried his detached head, preaching the gospel the entire way for six miles into the city of Paris" would be enough for me to go on.

 

If you don't want my good wishes, I'm sorry. 

 

This entirely misses the point of that comment.

 

My human experience is not based solely on reason.  Reason, for me, is a good tool to function in this world and to help make ends meet, etc. but it is not part of my deepest human need, which is for communion with God, reconciliation with him, restoration and healing so that my true humanity can function in harmony with God.

 

No one's experiences are based solely on reason.

 

[albeto.]

It seems like from my correspondence with you on this thread is that we come from different places as to what satisfies us as human beings.  I don't mean to misrepresent you, but you seem to be satisfied with rational and scientific reasoning.  For me, rational and scientific reasoning doesn't satisfy me.  I need more.  I need God.  I need the spiritual.  So, we may continue to end  up at an impasse because I will continue to mention what satisfies me and you will continue to ask for data that satisfies you, which I may try to supply but since my human experience wants more I don't really know how to think like that.  But, I will engage again and try to be more detailed and direct when I have more time and a computer to type on.

 

Regardless from where we each come or what our personal opinions are, the OPs questions would ideally be answered with concrete information or reasoned arguments. Otherwise, there's nothing left but personal opinions, personal assurances, appeals to emotion, history, authority, and everyone's favorite foundation, no true scotsman. It's not what satisfies you or me, but what satisfies the question. Can you imagine if you asked your doctor about a new medicine s/he is prescribing, and you want to know about possible interactions with other medicines, and they say, "I don't know. No one can know. It just feels right to me."? If these questions impact the experience of a sentient being (us), isn't the answer all that much more important to find out?

[JenniferB]

Same with Jesus performing miracles.  Believers knew He did it; unbelievers would say - just like today -well, the guy wasn't really sick, or it was some manipulative trick.  

 

They even said it was from the devil.  

[JenniferB]

Can you imagine if you asked your doctor about a new medicine s/he is prescribing, and you want to know about possible interactions with other medicines, and they say, "I don't know. No one can know. It just feels right to me."? 

 

Two different kinds of questions, albeto.  One is about medical issues, one is about God.  It's wholly appropriate to mention the 1,000's of years over the globe of consistent stories when one asks a question about God's radio silence. 

[albeto.]

Two different kinds of questions, albeto.  One is about medical issues, one is about God.  It's wholly appropriate to mention the 1,000's of years over the globe of consistent stories when one asks a question about God's radio silence. 

 

The questions are different, but finding accurate answers to questions relies on the same techniques regardless of the the question - familiarizing oneself with the facts.

[JenniferB]

Unsurprisingly, this is in direct conflict with what Teannika says. She references the bible, which illustrates the impossibility of this text as a source of reliable information.

 

Teannika is not Orthodox nor are her opinions.

 

History may be written on the basis of eye witnesses in agreement on what happened, but it's not corroborated or confirmed or accepted by historians or in any meaningful way that way at all. It is corroborated with unbiased, objective evidence, primary evidence being the most valued of course. Ultimately, the more extraordinary the claim, the more imperative the evidence needs to be. As Christopher Hitches used to say, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You're asserting some fantastic "history," and seem to suggest that because many people corroborate stories, because they warm your own heart, they must be true. This is a fascinating comment for me to see coming from an educator.

 

​I may come back to this later, but I don't have time now.  Archaeology and human stories are corroborated in different ways.  (I'm not an expert, but this is just what I gather from my readings.)

 

Tanaqui asked this earlier and I'm sorry if it's been answered already, but do you also assume that alien abduction stories or eye witnesses to Big Foot are accurate accounts of real historical events?

 

I dismissed these because these are modern, mostly American, fascinations and don't have the depth and breadth of the stories I'm talking about.  It's apples and oranges. 

 

The previously mentioned society in India with bodies of men and heads of dogs was accepted on the credibility of eyewitnesses and the growth of the story "organically." As an educator, do you teach your children that the study of history is to accept all accounts that have been made to be accurate so long as they were written as eye witness accounts and believed by others?

 

I teach history by reading history books and source documents.  If a story is from a particular culture I teach it as part of the culture.  I may mention that the story could have come about from something that happened but was elaborated on over time, or tweaked.  I'm not familiar with the story you mention above, so I can't comment on it directly.  I haven't read every post in this thread, though I am trying to keep up, since I commented. 

 

Or do you apply a more skeptical method of criticism when teaching history as an academic subject? Do you think people who wonder about miracles today should apply a critical analysis with regard to what constitutes as a miracle, or should they just accept someone's word for it?

 

I think people should do whatever they are compelled to do when it comes to hearing a story and believing it or not.  I told you the satisfaction I enjoy from the Orthodox Saint stories in their consistency with each other over time and space and with the Bible.

 

But then this brings us back to thee original question that got you and I into this - how would that person know whose stories to accept?

 

Forget it. I don't want an example any more.

 

No, I'm referring to the comment that started this entire side-conversation. It was in reply to my question about how an unbiased, objective observer would discern who really heard the words of God right:

 

You did mention you were not unbiased, but you claimed to be an observer. You haven't mentioned a thing you observed other than what other people have told you. If you mean to say you are an "observer of Jesus Christ," or something to that effect, that would simply beg the question, what does that even mean?

 

I follow the stories, that's what I mean.

 

If you mean you have faith that the Jesus you believe is real is real, it doesn't apply to the OP or the question about miracles at. all. It's just another testimony of your personal faith. If that's what you meant this whole time and I thought you actually observed an event, then my apologies. I wouldn't have engaged had I known that was just lingo for "I believe."

 

I'm not asking for links. An even such as "The time when the Saint carried his detached head, preaching the gospel the entire way for six miles into the city of Paris" would be enough for me to go on.

 

It seems like you know that story very well.  Why should I repeat it?

 

This entirely misses the point of that comment.

 

No one's experiences are based solely on reason.

 

Fair enough.  We differ in the emphasis we place on reason and how we apply it to our lives.

 

 

[Azalea]

JenniferB, I did Google search for the best examples of Orthodox miracles. I got lights in the sky, incorruptible flesh and stigmata. None of these are credible and all seem to have happened some time ago. 

 

[Teannika]

Seriously, the bold makes me - a few years POST Christian - so frustrated.

 

It's so vague and judgmental. What is "too many"? How would you know that a CHRISTIAN are trusting "other spirits"?

Many Christians today lack spiritual discernment, and then easily get carried away with false doctrine and practices. This is why we have so much confusion in the church of today. This accounts for all the variations of beliefs. A Christian is not immune to deception.

 

If something goes against the word of God, then it is not of God. The bible warns us that false prophets would come into the church and that there would be a great apostasy/falling away. Many Christians haven't even been taught how to test the spirits, and aren't even aware that they are being led down wrong paths. My comment may sound judgmental from your perspective, but from my perspective I am to make judgements.

 

What I have said may also sound like sweeping statements, but If I were to back them up with specific examples it would become so off-topic to this thread.

 

To add to this, I freely admit that I am not above been deceived or enticed away from truth myself. However I feel fortunate that I have my eyes open and I am aware of it. And I am aware to prove all things and to not get swept up by the latest fads in the modern churches.

[albeto.]

Fair enough.  We differ in the emphasis we place on reason and how we apply it to our lives.

 

Now we're getting somewhere.

 

:)

[JenniferB]

JenniferB, I did Google search for the best examples of Orthodox miracles. I got lights in the sky, incorruptible flesh and stigmata. None of these are credible and all seem to have happened some time ago. 

 

For Elder Paisios?  Stigmata is not Orthodox.  Incorruptible flesh is.  I don't know what lights in the sky is.

 

For the sake of simplicity, I stand corrected.  Don't use Google.

 

You can find Orthodox Saint stories from the official Orthodox websites.

 

Here is a link to the website for my jurisdiction:

 

http://oca.org/saints/lives

[Joanne]

Many Christians today lack spiritual discernment, and then easily get carried away with false doctrine and practices. This is why we have so much confusion in the church of today. This accounts for all the variations of beliefs. A Christian is not immune to deception.

 

If something goes against the word of God, then it is not of God. The bible warns us that false prophets would come into the church and that there would be a great apostasy/falling away. Many Christians haven't even been taught how to test the spirits, and aren't even aware that they are being led down wrong paths. My comment may sound judgmental from your perspective, but from my perspective I am to make judgements.

 

 

 

To add to this, I freely admit that I am not above been deceived or enticed away from truth myself. However I feel fortunate that I have my eyes open and I am aware of it. And I am aware to prove all things and to not get swept up by the latest fads in the modern churches.

I can not describe how inaccurate paragraph one is in terms of denominational differences.

 

The next two paragraphs are very concerning and demonstrate a hubris that seems to create a barrier to fellowship with other Christians.

 

The idea that YOU have the Christian truth while "many others" do not seems, to me, to be the polar opposite of Christ's message.

[JenniferB]

My mention of Google was in reference to Elder Paisios.  If you are getting hits referencing Stigmata, then this was a mistake for me to mention Google.  I just Googled "Miracles on Mt. Athos" and I found a wonderful website with a page on Contemporary Elders of the Orthodoxy and a page dedicated to Elder Paisios.  I clicked on one of the stories and it is a wonderful story.  These are the kinds of stories I'm familiar with, and the kind I'm talking about when I reference Saint stories.

 

http://www.impantokratoros.gr/elder-paisios-student.en.aspx

 

 

[Teannika]

I can not describe how inaccurate paragraph one is in terms of denominational differences.

 

The next two paragraphs are very concerning and demonstrate a hubris that seems to create a barrier to fellowship with other Christians.

 

The idea that YOU have the Christian truth while "many others" do not seems, to me, to be the polar opposite of Christ's message.

 

I don't understand your perspective. Do you believe that opposing beliefs can all be truth and in agreeance?

 

Do you believe that miracles still take place today?

[Joanne]

I don't understand your perspective. Do you believe that opposing beliefs can all be truth and in agreeance?

 

Do you believe that miracles still take place today?

 

 

1. Opposing? No. But I do believe that in figurative, metaphoric Christian belief (the way the Bible, and other ancient literature were written and were supposed to be read) a range of belief can be true. **If** you believe in the God of the NT, it seems to me that He arrives perfectly suiting the seeker.

 

2. No, not in the divine sense. But, then, I don't believe they happened "then", either.

 

3. (although you didn't have a 3) - I do believe that circumstances emerge that can benefit humans. These serendipitous events are explainable by statistics, logic, science, random chance. Maybe karma, but I believe THAT to be more logical consequence and less woo.

 

[Teannika]

1. Opposing? No. But I do believe that in figurative, metaphoric Christian belief (the way the Bible, and other ancient literature were written and were supposed to be read) a range of belief can be true. **If** you believe in the God of the NT, it seems to me that He arrives perfectly suiting the seeker.

 

2. No, not in the divine sense. But, then, I don't believe they happened "then", either.

 

3. (although you didn't have a 3) - I do believe that circumstances emerge that can benefit humans. These serendipitous events are explainable by statistics, logic, science, random chance. Maybe karma, but I believe THAT to be more logical consequence and less woo.

 

Thanks for answering. So if someone told you today that a miracle had occurred would you think that they had been deceived? Would you say as much to them?

[Cottonwood]

FInally got to the end!...for now LOL   Just sharing some info that I had a chance to learn from that answered so many of the questions in this thread for me as well. :)