Sin, sins, and knowing one's sins

[Jason Adams]

Hello,

Sorry if this shouldn't be a new thread. Point me to correct one if it is not.

Having visited several Christian web sites and different churches I must say that the concept of sin is still vague to me.
Sin as "missing the target" - what is the target practically?
Particular sins - how do we know whether certain thought, word, action is sinful?

Eg practically:
Is admiring a beautiful women a sin if lust is not involved?
Is even looking at a women sinful if she catches your eye?

Or:
Is being angry at the door when you hit it with your head sinful?
Is beaing angry with a careless driver sinful?

Sometimes i have an impression that basically everything in sin unless I am deeply in prayer/meditation and forget about the whole world.

Any comments, guidances, links to sites will be deeply appreciated

Jason

[Alice]

Dear Jason,

Admiring beauty without lust may not be particularly sinful, (who knows, maybe it is?), but I do it all the time--I admire beautiful women, men, children, women, art, nature, antiques, architecture...Infact I have a degree in the history of art.

As for feeling that one is in sin except when in prayerful meditation, I know what you mean...especially with what the Fathers call 'logismoi'--thoughts. I struggle with them. Doesn't everyone? (or is it just me who has an overactive mind with fleeting moments of judging, critiquing, anger, revenge, frivolities, ego, vanity, etc.) Does anyone human have a blank mind, like dogs and babies do?!?

In Christ,
Alice

[Effie Ganatsios]

Jason, I have always believed that those with sinful minds see sin everywhere. I have already mentioned that Elder Paisios told us this in simple words. A fly will find filth and a bee will find flowers in the exact same place.

I have also known people, who because they had unclean minds, saw this uncleanliness in every person they came into contact with.

Only God is perfect. We are not. One day we come close to being saints, and the next, we are very happy wallowing in what we know is wrong. BUT God has given us the gift of choice, so we pick ourselves up and start again, anew, each morning.

You can be locked in a room, with a bible and your thoughts, and sin will find its way to your heart. You can be in a crowd of people and find beauty in all things around you.

We all sin, but we all also see beauty in the things around us, especially in nature.

Having said all the above, we should also remember that a lot of our saints chose to live as hermits in order to avoid temptation and to come closer to God. Each individual must find his or her own path. But one thing is certain, we are all sinners. Some people even enjoy listing their sins and concentrating all their God given energy on their wretched state. This is a form of pride and just as deadly as any other.

Love yourself. Start each morning with a prayer to God, giving your life into His hands. At the end of the day ask forgiveness for all your sins, those you know about and those you don't. I always read St. Ephrem the Syrian's prayer to the Most Holy Spirit.

Effie

[Alice]

Jason, I have always believed that those with sinful minds see sin everywhere. I have already mentioned that Elder Paisios told us this in simple words. A fly will find filth and a bee will find flowers in the exact same place.

I have also known people, who because they had unclean minds, saw this uncleanliness in every person they came into contact with.

Dear Effie,

What you say is so true! I have also realized that those who do harm to others are often quite paranoid that those people are going to do the same back to them. A soul which maliciously and intentionally sins cannot understand that others are not like them.

In Christ,
Alice

[Effie Ganatsios]

Yes, Alice, this has also been my experience. The sad fact is that when you are young it is hard to realize the true character of some people. It becomes easier as you grow older and acquire experience. It's sad that wise old grandmothers are no longer part of every household. They had no illusions about life and could advise the younger generation - of course young people never listen when experience speaks...................

[Effie Ganatsios]

Hello,

Sorry if this shouldn't be a new thread. Point me to correct one if it is not.

Having visited several Christian web sites and different churches I must say that the concept of sin is still vague to me.
Sin as "missing the target" - what is the target practically?
Particular sins - how do we know whether certain thought, word, action is sinful?

Eg practically:
Is admiring a beautiful women a sin if lust is not involved?
Is even looking at a women sinful if she catches your eye?

Or:
Is being angry at the door when you hit it with your head sinful?
Is beaing angry with a careless driver sinful?

Sometimes i have an impression that basically everything in sin unless I am deeply in prayer/meditation and forget about the whole world.

Any comments, guidances, links to sites will be deeply appreciated

Jason

Jason, you don't tell us what religion you are. The Orthodox have spiritual fathers or priests that they can turn to. Do you have a pastor or someone you can talk to?

We can give you some personal advice from an Orthodox viewpoint.

God has given us the 10 commandments. Going against any of these is considered to be a sin. Christ elaborated on this theme and gave us instructions that we need to follow to avoid sin.

The above are the "big ones".

But, there are lots and lots of other, small, dirty, little sins that we all commit each and every day.

In general, anything that harms our souls is considered a sin. Anything that separates us from God is considered a sin. For example : pride is considered one of the worst sins because so many more sins are committed because of pride. Our believing that we know it all, that we are better than other people, that we have nothing more to learn. From this pride, we are led to pampering our bodies because they are so precious to us. Pampering means overeating, laziness, spending enormous amounts of money on clothes and other things whose only purpose is our personal gratification.

An analogy that I have always loved is the following :

Imagine God is the sun. You are sitting in a small, closed room and the only opening is a small window. The sun is trying to shine through this window and reach you and warm you and give you life. But the window is sometimes really dark and filthy and the sun cannot reach you. The dirt on the window is made up of all your sins. If you try and get rid of your sins, one by one, then the glass will be clean and God, who is the sun, will be able to reach you and love you.

Very simplistic, but isn't everything that is important simple?
Christ's words and teachings were also very simple. He did not believe in quantity but in quality. Each of his sayings needs a lifetime of meditation to understand.

Let me find some links to sites that go into more detail.

The following is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_view_of_sin

"The Fathers of the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church do not generally take a legalistic or juridical approach in their views of sin. For them, sin does not exist as an abstract and must be approached on an individual basis. Likewise, the prescription for sin must be filtered through human understanding in order to be effective. There is nothing within the Church that is automatic. Though some acts are clearly always sinful (e.g., adultery), what is a sin for one man may not be for another; neither does the Orthodox Church see all sin as being the same.

The traditional practice of the Orthodox is to have a confessor, sometimes referred to as a spiritual father, to whom one confesses and who treats the sin on an individual basis. Thus, to make a blanket statement about any sin and how to deal with it would be inappropriate for the Orthodox Church. At best a generalized guideline may be stated with the knowledge that an experienced confessor will know when to effectively "bend the rules"."

[Herman Blaydoe]

The Orthodox Church has a vast treasury of information on the sickness of sin and its treatment. The Fathers write extensively about what sin is, how to recognize and combat it.

When you fail to accomplish what you set out to do, like an archer aiming to hit a target and missing, you also "miss the mark". You fall short. You are not the person Christ intends for you to be. The Apostle Paul says "be perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect." THAT is the "target", PERFECTION. That which keeps you from being perfected is sin. Understand that sin is a sickness to be healed, not a crime to be punished, and then act accordingly. Be healed. Get well. Be perfected.

The problem then becomes less about what sin is, and more about how to deal with it. That is what the Church is for. The Church is the Spiritual Hospital through which the Heavenly Physician heals. Sin used to be a terminal disease, but now it doesn't have to be. The cost for the cure has been paid in full by Christ our Lord. You have to accept the Doctor's ordered prescriptions and treatment, of course.

Beyond that, there is so much information available it is hard to know where to begin. So I would recommend you talk with an Orthodox priest who can get to know you and your particular circomstances on a personal level. A physician cannot treat a patient until he knows the symptoms and something about the patient to be treated. Otherwise it is like telling perfect strangers on the internet about a cough you have and them trying to tell you how to "cure" it. They might have you trying all kinds of crazy things, but it requires a personal examination to determine if it is a simple virus or a malignant tumor causing it.

Herman

[Jason Adams]

Thank you dear people for all your replies.

I consider myself as a "non-affiliated" Christian.
I was born in a (sort of) Catholic family but never really followed.
When I was about 30 I converted to Christianity on the influence of my friends from the Baptist Church and got baptised (by immersion, for the remission of my sins). I attended Baptist services for several years but gradually became spiritually starved. I think I know why but it is probably irrelevant here.

I like the notion that sin is rather a disease than a crime but if this is the case, why are people condemned when they die "in sin"? To make it clear I don't feel I am attached to any particular sin like alcoholism, adultery, pride etc. Why I started this thread is, that the more I read the more actions and thoughts seemed to be sinful(eg sleeping long when you are tired). It is just overwhelming.

Eg: Is a doubtful mind sinful? If I have doubts about God's existence and His goodness is it sin?

It will be hard for me to get an Orthodox "spiritual father" although I would like to. I feel that much Orthodox clergy are involved in nationalistic politics especially the Russian and Serbian ones. Forgive me if i am wrong but this is from reading news. Also, there is no Greek Orthodox church in my country that I could get in touch with not knowing Greek. I would love to learn the language but at the moment the only thing that I couldn say is: Christos anesti! Alithos anesti!

Thank you again and keep posting please.

Jason

[Maria Murray]

Jason,
Whereabouts are you in NZ? I know of some parishes that have services in English there. Our former pastor (protestant) lives in NZ.

What do you mean by "people are condemned" - who condemns them?

I also feel that it can be hard to know what is sin and what is not but the advice I was given is that if it promotes the love of God and neighbor, then it is probably not a sin. Somewhere in scripture is the phrase that anything that is not of faith is sin, I think it makes a similar point. So the answer might be it depends on the situation and the motives. The best thing is to speak to a father-confessor.
Maria

[Jason Adams]

Jason,
Whereabouts are you in NZ? I know of some parishes that have services in English there. Our former pastor (protestant) lives in NZ.

What do you mean by "people are condemned" - who condemns them?

I also feel that it can be hard to know what is sin and what is not but the advice I was given is that if it promotes the love of God and neighbor, then it is probably not a sin. Somewhere in scripture is the phrase that anything that is not of faith is sin, I think it makes a similar point. So the answer might be it depends on the situation and the motives. The best thing is to speak to a father-confessor.
Maria

Whether God condems them or they condemn themselves? Anyway they are condemned to everlasting suffering aren't they? This is what I don't get: We might not know whether we sinned or not but we are still in sin?

I am tired now, I'll better stop here. Have a really good weekend and God bless

Jason

[Antonios]

Dear Jason,

If you believe the words 'Christos anesti! Alithos anesti!', then you have no further need to know the Greek language. :)

Although it must be said that there is a more appropriate and useful Greek phrase which exists, and it is "Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, Υἱέ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐλέησόν με τὸν ἁμαρτωλόν" which is translated "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner". This is also called the Jesus Prayer within the Church.

The reason for this being termed a 'more appropriate' phrase is because you are a Christian and believer in the Risen Lord. The reason for this being termed 'more useful' is because it grows the Holy Spirit within us, which is the aim of the Christian life.

Much like watering and trimming a garden, the beauty of the garden will only reflect the work that has been applied. The light of the sun will feed it, the water will supply it, and the ground of the earth will maintain it. And for all these we thank the Lord.

Within the dirt, however, grow weeds and these weeds seek to tangle and devour the garden. And the light of the sun will feed them, the water will supply them, and the ground of the earth will maintain them. And for these we thank the Lord, for if He allows weeds and thorns and thistles to grow, than perhaps He will allow our poor excuse of a garden as well.

To glorify the Lord our God with this garden, (for even the flowers repay the sun with a beautiful bouquet of various colors and shapes), we must root out these weeds which only aim to feed.

And the weeds are everywhere- amongst the flowers, within the shrubbery, between the cracks of the pavement. Wherever it can find, it will try to grow. This is beyond our power.

So what we must do is root out these weeds which tangle and devour. To do so would mean we must first actually see them so that we might remove them. And for this we need watchfulness and herein lies our human power.

Temptations will always confront us and this is due to demonic provocation. In other words, man cannot prevent provocations from assailing him. For as St. Mark the Ascetic said, even in Paradise Adam was assailed by the devil's provocations. These initial inticements to evil act on us from the outside, independant of our free will, and so we are not morally responsible for them. When we assent to them, however, is another story...

What does lie in our power, however, is to maintain constant watchfulness, and so to reject each provocation as soon as it emerges in our consciousness. Here the weed is removed at the root and can no longer grow.

I highly recommend to you the Philokalia, Volume 1. You will find a treasure trove of information about this related topic.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Jonathan Michael]

I like the notion that sin is rather a disease than a crime but if this is the case, why are people condemned when they die "in sin"?

Hello Jason,

I don't think it is that people are condemned "in sin" but that if they are not released from sin - as a disease - then they remain unhealed. Condemnation is talked about in Christianity, but the condemnation is our own, based on who we are. I have an ikon of Jesus Christ in my home, that I found online, printed onto photographic paper, and then framed. So, this ikon is nothing "special" compared to any other ikon, especially the hand painted ones that are written with prayer and fasting, and are blessed by a priest. But even though the ikon doesn't stream with myhrr, or cure illness, there is one thing it does: the person of Christ in the ikon changes! You will think I'm mad, but I tell you, if I am feeling peaceful then I will stand before that ikon and Jesus will look at me with such gentle, loving eyes that it stirs my soul. But if I have knowingly sinned (i.e the majority of the time), then I go before that ikon to pray and Jesus' face has changed: He's angry with me! There's no doubt that when I am feeling guilt, then Christ's expression changes to one of reproach and from that I am spurred to repentance.

Now, I know full well that not a single pixel of that printed ikon changes, whether I'm happy, sad, guilt-ridden, or angry. It's just a piece of paper with coloured ink that always remains the same. But I change; and how I perceive this unchangeable ikon depends entirely upon who I am. This example using an religious picture is of course just a pale comparison to how a human stands before the Living God. However, the principle is the same - how we see God, and whether we feel that we are condemned or loved, will depend upon who we are as a person. If there is still sin within our hearts, then by the measure of that sin we see ourselves as condemned. If we are pure, then God we will see God as our loving Father; if we are "in sin", we will see God as a frightening Judge. This is why the disease of sin needs to be utterly rooted out.

It's interesting that you say you are more comfortable with the notion of sin as disease, and then in the next sentence say:



To make it clear I don't feel I am attached to any particular sin like alcoholism, adultery, pride etc.

At least one of the sins you listed above, alcoholism, is widely accepted as an actual, medical, disease. We don't need to talk about "condemnation" here; if someone remains an alcholic then the disease will kill him. If sin is a disease then the same can be said - every last spot of sin must be removed, otherwise it will kill us. Even if we only have "small" sins, if they remain untreated then they will metastasize and finally take us over.

Well, if you think this is overwhelming then you're absolutely right. How can anyone clean away every last spot of sin from their souls, no matter how necessary? It is impossible by ourselves. But with God, all things are possible. And being part of a Christian community is one of the ways that God works among his people, and in you as an individual.

I think the important thing is that one step towards God without knowing how far we'll ultimately get is better than no steps towards God knowing we'll never be with Him.

As for doubting - I don't know if it is sinful or not, but I do know that satan is very happy when we do.

[Jonathan Michael]

Oh, and on the subject of fighting sin being overwhelming, perhaps this might help:

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/lesser_good_j_shahovskoy.htm

God doesn't want, or need, another John the Baptist, St. Paul, or Mary of Egypt. He just wants you, as you were made to be.

[Antonios]

Dear Jason,

Below is an excerpt taken out of the glossary of the Philokalia regarding the stages of temptation which lead to sin:


There is a basic distinction between the demonic provocation and man's assent: the first lies outside man's control, while for the second he is morally responsible. These are staged as follows (as taken directly from the Philokalia):

1) Provocation: the initial incitement to evil, as defined by St. Mark the Ascetic as an 'image-free stimulation in the heart'; so long as the provocation is not accompanied by images, it does not involve man in any guilt. Man cannot prevent provocations from assailing him as they originate from the devil and assail man from the outside independently of his free will. Thus, he is not moraly responsible for them. Man must in his power maintain constant watchfulness so to reject each provocation as soon as it emerges into his consciousness. If he does reject it, the sequence is cut off and the process of temptation is terminated.

2) Momentary disturbance of the intellect, occurring 'without any movement or working of bodily passions'. This seems to be more than the 'first appearance' of a provocation described above; for, at a certain point of spiritual growth in this life, it is possible to be totally released from such 'momentary disturbance', whereas no one can expect to be altogether free from demonic provocations.

3) Communion or coupling: Without as yet entirely assenting to the demonic provocation, a man may begin to 'entertain' it, to converse or parley with it, turning it over in his mind pleasurably, yet still hesitating whether or not to act upon it. At this point, the provocation is no longer 'image-free' but has become a logismos or thought; a man is morally responsible for having allowed this to happen.

4) Assent: This is a step beyond mere 'communion' or 'coupling'. A man now resolves to act upon it. There is now no doubt as to his moral culpability, even if circumstances prevent him from sinning outwardly, he is judged by God according to the intention in his heart.

5) Prepossesion: 'The involuntary presence of former sins in the memory'. This results from repeated acts of sin which predisposes a man to yield to particular temptations. In principal, he retains his free choice and can reject demonic provocations; but in practice, the force of habit makes it more and more difficult for him to resist.

6) Passion: If man does not fight strenously against a prepossesion, it will develop into an evil passion.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Peter S.]

Hello Jason,

I don't think it is that people are condemned "in sin" but that if they are not released from sin - as a disease - then they remain unhealed. Condemnation is talked about in Christianity, but the condemnation is our own, based on who we are. I have an ikon of Jesus Christ in my home, that I found online, printed onto photographic paper, and then framed. So, this ikon is nothing "special" compared to any other ikon, especially the hand painted ones that are written with prayer and fasting, and are blessed by a priest. But even though the ikon doesn't stream with myhrr, or cure illness, there is one thing it does: the person of Christ in the ikon changes! You will think I'm mad, but I tell you, if I am feeling peaceful then I will stand before that ikon and Jesus will look at me with such gentle, loving eyes that it stirs my soul. But if I have knowingly sinned (i.e the majority of the time), then I go before that ikon to pray and Jesus' face has changed: He's angry with me! There's no doubt that when I am feeling guilt, then Christ's expression changes to one of reproach and from that I am spurred to repentance.

Now, I know full well that not a single pixel of that printed ikon changes, whether I'm happy, sad, guilt-ridden, or angry. It's just a piece of paper with coloured ink that always remains the same. But I change; and how I perceive this unchangeable ikon depends entirely upon who I am. This example using an religious picture is of course just a pale comparison to how a human stands before the Living God. However, the principle is the same - how we see God, and whether we feel that we are condemned or loved, will depend upon who we are as a person. If there is still sin within our hearts, then by the measure of that sin we see ourselves as condemned. If we are pure, then God we will see God as our loving Father; if we are "in sin", we will see God as a frightening Judge. This is why the disease of sin needs to be utterly rooted out.



Dear Jonathan and others.

The same thing as you tell about Christ smiling, is happening to me too, and many others I believe, and my icons at home and in Church of Mother of God and holy persons also tell me things because I see them changing. So you are not mad. Maybe we both are mad? :)

However one day I was expecting and angry or dissapointed face, and guess what: Christ was smiling. I was a bit shocked over Christ's love. But he forgives as no one else. Usually he is not smiling in these cases thogh. Christ and the holy assembly wants to help, and often the help is not like what we expect. And I am happy for that, because it tells me that I must change my ways/repent, and at least I find meaning in life because of this. I must change my ways of thinking, (and expecting). (But I m not often repenting though.) There is a meaning of life: To become like Christ. Christ that is without sin.

Their help is sometimes not as I expect, and: "who knows the ways of Christ?"

I have an icon of St. Seraphim that gives me "expressions". Its just on a paper-folder. And a paper iconcard of Jesus Christ that I got for my nameday some years ago that is doing the same thing. And the real icon of Christ at the iconostasis in our Church is sweating oil. Why it does that I dont know. It started one Pascha some years ago. Maybe to remind us of the heavenly world, and to tell us that this world we think we know, we dont fully know. Now even the icon of St. Sava is doing the same, but lesser. Maybe because of Kosovo? I dont know. We can not know everything.

One person I know said to me about the smiling icons something like: "Usually they are sad". Maybe they are so to him, because he can stand it. The expressions depends on the persons who see them.

The Mother of God came to St. Silouan and said she couldnt stand his ways, because he was strong enough to hear it, and it was time for him to hear it.

Today I saw in the calendar, its the day of the appearance of the Mother of God to Sergey Radonesh btw.

Peter

[Herman Blaydoe]

As we see in the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, even doing the right thing can lead to sin. The Pharisee did the right things, he prayed, he tithed, he did not cause scandal. But he was proud of what he did, and thought himself better than others. The Publican was aware of his sinfulness, even all he could do about it was pray "Lord have mercy!" Which one went home justified?

Like so aptly said earlier, sin is like weeds, they pop up where we least expect or desire and require constant work to keep under control. The guidance from the Philokalia is a good place to start for the beginning spiritual gardener.

Herman the gardening Pooh

[Peter S.]

Oh, and on the subject of fighting sin being overwhelming, perhaps this might help:

http://www.fatheralexander.org/bookl...shahovskoy.htm (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/lesser_good_j_shahovskoy.htm)

Jonathan Michael
Thanks for linking to this sermon about the lesser good. Is it by St. John Maximowitch? It was fantastic! Something everyone should read if they have not.

Here are some lines from it:


"...Verily, verily I say unto you that whosoever offers one of the least of these but a cup of cold water, in the name of a disciple, shall not lose his reward." In this saying of the Lord is the highest expression of the smallness of the good. "A glass of water" — this is not much...
...In every communication between people there must without fail be a good spirit. This spirit is Christ, openly manifest or hidden.


Peter

[Father David Moser]

Thanks for linking to this sermon about the lesser good. Is it by St. John Maximowitch? It was fantastic! Something everyone should read if they have not.

Here are some lines from it:



Peter

From the title, I would have to say no it is not by St John, but rather by a different (OCA) Bishop John (Shahavskoy) of San Francisco

Fr David Moser

[Peter S.]

From the title, I would have to say no it is not by St John, but rather by a different (OCA) Bishop John (Shahavskoy) of San Francisco

Fr David Moser

Yes. stupid mistake. I was so sure it was him. It could have been.

Peter

[Jason Adams]

Hello Antonios and other kind people,

Thank you for all your advice. Yes, Antonios I actually forgot to write that I have learned Jesus Prayer and am trying to say it as often as possible. However I've heard that praying this prayer can be dangerous if one doesn't have a guidance. Is that correct? What kind of danger can it be?

Also thank you for the stages of submitting to a sin. How can I get Philokalia?

I've read the Bishop John Shahavskoy sermon and I totally agree with him.
I think this is what is lacking from our world in general and it has always been. Even in ages and places where Christianity was supposed to be ruling people were usually not kind to one another.
And one of the main sources of this un-kindeness (to put it mildly) were rulers - both ecclesiastical and secular. So, it was a big surprise to me to learn that the Orthodox Church decided to canonise Nicholas II - the last tsar of Russia. I can remember from what I read how authocratic the last tsar was and how he failed to address the burning social problems of the early 20th century Russia. If I remember correctly he was even blamed for letting the social discontent to grow so rampant that the bolshevik revolution had been made possible. Can anyone give me answers please? (I can remeber that Theodora, wife of Justinian was canonised too and it's also hard for me to understand why).

Let us trust Jesus

Jason

[Herman Blaydoe]

However I've heard that praying this prayer can be dangerous if one doesn't have a guidance. Is that correct? What kind of danger can it be?

There are a couple of schools of thought on this. The Prayer of Jesus is very powerful. Many monastics say this prayer with certain breathing and concentration techniques. Doing so without proper guidance can cause spiritual, mental, and even physical harm. Others teach that this prayer is for everyone, as long as we simply say it often but not to the extent of the Hesychasts. But as with many things, it is generally best to discuss these things with one's spiritual advisor/priest. As with any form of exercise, it is best to consult a coach before attempting any heavy lifting.

Herman the Pooh

[Paul Cowan]

There are a couple of schools of thought on this. The Prayer of Jesus is very powerful. Many monastics say this prayer with certain breathing and concentration techniques. Doing so without proper guidance can cause spiritual, mental, and even physical harm. Others teach that this prayer is for everyone, as long as we simply say it often but not to the extent of the Hesychasts. But as with many things, it is generally best to discuss these things with one's spiritual advisor/priest. As with any form of exercise, it is best to consult a coach before attempting any heavy lifting.

Herman the Pooh

This is especially true in reading works such as the Philokalia which can be purchased here (http://www.amazon.com/Philokalia-Complete-Compiled-Nikodimos-Markarios/dp/0571130135).

My priest told me NOT to read past the second volume. (there are 4) I had to put the first volume down before I had read 1/4 of it. I was falling into despondency. I guess I still need milk rather than solid food. How sad for me after 7 years as an Orthodox Christian to not have progressed further in my spiritual walk.

Paul

[Jason Adams]

Is it better to start Philokalia reading the below book or the original volume 1 text?

http://image.fishpond.co.nz/1594731039-crop-325x325.jpg
(http://javascript<b></b>:popupWindow('http://www.fishpond.co.nz/popup_image.php?pID=2692120'))

Please wait, the system is processing.
http://image.fishpond.co.nz/progress.gif

Format:Paperback, 221 pagesPublished In: United States, August 2006Quantity Available: 28Other Editions:Paperback, USA $46.99 View (http://www.fishpond.co.nz/Books/Religion/Christianity/Christian_Life/product_info/11487824/)Ships within 6-10 days
This book is the first approachable introduction to the wisdom of the Philokalia (also known as ?The Prayer of the Heart?), which is the classic text of Eastern Christian spirituality. An entirely new translation by Allyne Levoit Smith of significant sections of the five-volume work, which was written by monks from the fourth to the fifteenth centuries, the texts are clearly explained and set in historical and spiritual context in the readable commentary on each facing page. The Philokalia until now has been somewhat intimidating to the general reader in its scholarly translations from Greek and Russian, yet there is great spiritual wisdom in this beloved writing, for readers of all faiths who are interested in prayer, contemplation, and living a life closer to God.
Publisher: Skylight Paths Publishing

Jason

[Paul Cowan]

I would say your spiritual father would have to determine your spiritual food. My parents put training wheels on my first bicycle when I was young and it was they who took them off when they felt I no longer needed them.

Get a list of books you would like to read compiled and give them to him for review. Also be prepared to have them all stricken for another list of his choosing.

[Effie Ganatsios]

And one of the main sources of this un-kindeness (to put it mildly) were rulers - both ecclesiastical and secular. So, it was a big surprise to me to learn that the Orthodox Church decided to canonise Nicholas II - the last tsar of Russia. I can remember from what I read how authocratic the last tsar was and how he failed to address the burning social problems of the early 20th century Russia. If I remember correctly he was even blamed for letting the social discontent to grow so rampant that the bolshevik revolution had been made possible. Can anyone give me answers please? (I can remeber that Theodora, wife of Justinian was canonised too and it's also hard for me to understand why).

Let us trust Jesus

Jason

Jason, I also have a hard time understanding why this Nicholas II was canonised. The only explanation I can come up with is that he was an Orthodox Christian and was killed by the communists. Even so, he was not exactly martyred for Christianity, and this is why it is so hard for me to understand.

Perhaps someone who is more familiar with this subject can help us.

Effie

http://www.serfes.org/royal/saintscanonized.htm

[Alice]

Jason, I also have a hard time understanding why this Nicholas II was canonised. The only explanation I can come up with is that he was an Orthodox Christian and was killed by the communists. Even so, he was not exactly martyred for Christianity, and this is why it is so hard for me to understand.

Perhaps someone who is more familiar with this subject can help us.

Effie

http://www.serfes.org/royal/saintscanonized.htm

Dear Effie and Jason,

I suggest that you read this lovely book:
An Englishman in the Court of the Tsar: The Spiritual Journey of Charles Syndney Gibbes (Hardcover)

by Christine Benagh (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/104-7558600-9938334?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Christine%20Benagh) (Author)

I promise you that when you read it, you will actually feel the holiness of the Holy Royal Martyr, Tsar Nicholas II. This is an amazing book and the real life story of the tutor to the tsarevich Alexei. He closely lived and experienced the realities of this family. Infact, so moved was he by the witness of their entire lives, both when they were in power and when they were in exile, that after their death, he converted to Orthodoxy.

According to this and other sources, the Tsar did what he could politically. Do not forget that being a leader is basically a situation of 'you are damned if you do and damned if you don't'. All that a leader of any place, church or country, can do is try their best. The Church and God know the truth of their intentions, and those who will want to judge negatively always will and those who want to know differently will read through the propoganda.

This Tsar and his wife had the most ideal Orthodox religious family life one could possibly imagine. The women ministered to the sick and dying in hospitals, and the family enjoyed spending time with each other rather than courtiers and the trappings of their opulent surroundings.

All I can say is that as I was finishing this book I actually felt the holy presence of the Tsar and his family and it brought me to tears. Although I had no problem accepting the decision of the Russian Orthodox Church, because of that experience I had after reading this book, I now know in my heart and soul with all conviction, that he is indeed a saint of the Church. (In any case, we are told not to question the judgement of the Church, but sinful humans that we are, sometimes we do)

As for the book, it is not that lengthy and it is the kind of book you do not want to put down! Good reading!! :-)

Holy Royal Martyrs, pray unto God for us!

In Christ,
Alice

[Antonios]

Dear Jason,

I am not familiar with the book you posted so I am sorry I cannot comment on it. I think Volume I of the Philokalia is a great place to start and should be available on the internet. As stated by the other members here, studying the Philokalia is best done under the guidance and supervision of a spiritual father if possible since this is a very powerful book. The Philokalia is not a book to read through like a story or an instruction manual. It contains some of the deepest spiritual treasures ever written down and therefore is best done with someone who can help guide you. If you cannot find such a person to guide you, than that shouldn't preclude you from reading it. However, history has proven it to be the best way to study it. Are there any orthodox churches or monastaries in your part of the world?

If you cannot find it online, than please PM me your contact information so that I can send you one.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Andreas Moran]

The book about Gibbes is fascinating. What's more, he was from Rotherham!
As to the canonisation of Nicholas II, this has puzzled many Russians including my wife and in-laws. Now they are realising why. Much more information is coming about the tsar and his life. It is already well known that St Seraphim of Sarov wrote a letter to the tsar who would glorify him, and this letter was given to the tsar by Elena Motovilova, wife of Nikolai Motovilov. No one knows what the letter said but the tsar read it at Sarov in 1903 and was deeply shaken by it. The Diveyevo fool for Christ Blessed Paraskeva revered the tsar and met him and told him much about the future. They corresponded by special messenger from 1903 until her repose in 1915. She crossed herself before his picture and said he would be 'higher than all the tsars'. She advised him to abdicate when the time came but knew he would be martyred. The portrayal of Nicholas as weak, under the influence of his wife (who was thought to be a bit unstable), and heedless of events is really, so Russians say now, a picture coloured early by anti-monarchist views (propoganda if you will). What is now emerging is that he was betrayed by everyone around him - grand dukes, generals, and intellectuals. Since the days of the Decembrists in the 1820s, Russian intellectuals had been infected by western 'Elightenment' and republican ideas. The tsar's attempted reforms for the people, especially through his prime minister Stolypin, were actually deliberately thwarted so as not to make radical reform and even revolution more difficult. Stolypin himself was assassinated. As more information about all this emerges, the more Nicholas can be seen as the sacrificial victim of of those around him.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Jason, I also have a hard time understanding why this Nicholas II was canonised. The only explanation I can come up with is that he was an Orthodox Christian and was killed by the communists. Even so, he was not exactly martyred for Christianity, and this is why it is so hard for me to understand.

Perhaps someone who is more familiar with this subject can help us.

Effie

http://www.serfes.org/royal/saintscanonized.htm

Dear Effie,

In some sense the martyrdom of the Royal Family was different from the openly confessional martyrdoms of Roman times. However the slaying of the Royal family is considered martyric due to the innocent behaviour of the whole family through their whole ordeal. They could have after all fled or actively resisted what occurred but they did not. Instead with great meekness on their part as well as without agitation or over riding fear, they went forward towards what was being prepared for them and allowed by God. The grace with which this occurred included the children of the family some of whom were teenagers and some younger than this. All of the Tsar's children were by common report normal and active given to joy and love of others. But yet they gave their lives not only at the time of their slaying but also previously in the continual humiliation they underwent due to the increasing and frightening instabilty of social circumstances.

It is for this reason then that in the minds of the Orthodox Church in Russia, the Royal family (in this we also include the Grand Duchess Elizabeth, the nun Barbara and those slain at Alapayevsk) are as well as being martyrs also passion bearers, a category much beloved by Russian Orthodox and which is often exemplified in various rulers (Boris & Gleb, Alexander Nevsky) who gave their lives in Christ for the sake of their people.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Andreas Moran]

I would echo Fr Raphael's mention of SS Boris and Gleb and Russians' attachment to such saints. We have a few such saints here in England, notably St Edward, king and martyr (+978). He too was devout and supported the Church and monasteries thus arousing the jealousy and anger of the more secular powers around him.

[Peter S.]

I have a short version of Philokalia/about whats written in Philokalia (in norwegian by my parish priest) One part is called "Sayings of the holy fathers about the Prayer of the heart" and divided into:
1:Symeon the New Theologian
2: Gregory of Sinai
3: Nikophoros the monk
4: Ignatios and Kallistos.

There are also other parts about the Jesusprayer in it with the writings of:
Gregory Palamas,
John Cassian,
presbyter Hesykhios of Bathos,
Philotheos of Sinai, and
metropolitan Thelepthos of Philadelphia, and
a story about abba Philemon.

Its also a chapter about Greory Palamas on Gods essence and energies, and about the development of the Jesusprayer.

The part of Nikophoros the monk's writings containing his collections of sayings by different abbas and saints: (abba Antonios, Arsenios the Great, John Climacus, Makarios the Great, John of Carpathos, Isaac the Syrian and some others), and 4 pages of Nikophoros own sayings.

But the book is only about 200 pages.

As Herman writes its maybe best to avoid the breathing techniques when praying the prayer as the heart maybe can stop, but I know little about this.

[Jason Adams]

I ordered a beforementioned book and will let you know wha's inside as soon as I get it.

As for Nicholas II, there are several dark misteries involved not the least one being the role of Rasputin at the court.

Another ruler whose canonisation I can't understand is Theodora (Justinian's wife).

I am wondering why The Orthodox Church assigns such a prominent role to kings, caesars, tsars etc?
There were many lay people that were martyrs during solial upheavals and they went unnoticed.
The authocrat role is always controversial and his dealing with lower classes is almost always harsh if not cruel.


Jason

[Peter S.]

I

I am wondering why The Orthodox Church assigns such a prominent role to kings, caesars, tsars etc?
There were many lay people that were martyrs during solial upheavals and they went unnoticed.
The authocrat role is always controversial and his dealing with lower classes is almost always harsh if not cruel.


Jason

I agree. It is easier for a king to be canonized.

Peter

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

In fact however by far the most numerous category of saints on the calendar are first martyrs, then venerable ascetics (ie monastics). Even many royal saints actually are part of the category of martyr or at times ascetic.

It would be interesting to work out a percent of each category. But if it was the royal figures just on their own it would be very low indeed.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Peter S.]

There are only one king that rules a country at a time, and few nobles so that is also a reason why they are few in numbers indeed. And the king represents the people and everybody knows him, and relates to him, and can be interested in him canonized on that reason. At least in earlier years it was so I believe.

There are hundreds of people that are saints, I believe, but die "unnoticed", and they are not famous. Their great efforts are "unnoticed" -by humans.

But there are many nobles that have had good advisers, and some are martyrs.

(I dont like the glorification of the royal family. I am a royalist btw).

Peter

[Alice]

It has been said that although Rasputin put on a completely different face to the Royal Family than he did elsewhere. Such evil con artists exist everywhere and in every time, and with their humble affectations, can often fool even the 'best' among us...when they are in the Church, they are generally doing the evil one's doings to bring down something or someone holy.

Rasputin made himself irreplaceable by his apparent 'healings' of the tsarevich. What parent would not be desperate for help in such a situation of seeing their child suffer with such pain which had no remedy or cure?

On the other hand, it has also been said by eyewitnesses to the court that the Tsar did not particularly like Rasputin and probably saw through him. Yet, if we be honest, what husband can stand up to a hysterical wife's pleas and desperations concerning a suffering child?

Let's try to see the human side of all this...and let's not think that we would not fall prey to such deceivers. The Bible tells us that even the very 'elect' will fall for the Anti-Christ. May our Lord have mercy on us, and may His grace open our eyes to see.

In Christ,
Alice

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

It's important I think to know that within the church in Russia at the time there was the same division of opinion about Rasputin as we see now. After all the person who most warned the Royal family about Rasputin was the Grand Duchess Elizabeth.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Ken McRae]

The Bible tells us that even the very 'elect' will fall for the Anti-Christ.

Does it really? If you can remember where you read that, I'd like to see it, please; and thank you.

[Alice]

Does it really? If you can remember where you read that, I'd like to see it, please; and thank you.

Dear Brother in Christ, Ken,

I can't tell exactly how you are asking; with sarcasm or with honest curiousity...but the answer is:

Doesn't Matthew 24:25 say:

For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand.(Matthew 24:24-25, NKJV).

Also, doesn't Revelation say that 'many will be deceived by the anti-Christ'...I think it does.

Anyway, please take the spirit of what I was posting and not the law...Thanks! :)

In Christ our Lord,
Alice, admittedly not a Bible scholar, but one who thinks that she has, or atleast hopes that she has, retained a little bit through the years. *wink* :)

[Ken McRae]

For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect ... (Matthew 24:24-25, NKJV).

Thanks, Alice. Yes, you are quite right about the masses who will be deceived; but I have been a long time under the impression that the elect will not be among those. When I read your thought(s) about that, I thought that perhaps I have misunderstood. The way I read the above, though, the expression "if possible" would seem to imply that he will not deceive the elect. This is not to say, though, that the elect cannot be "temporarily" deceived, at some times, and in some ways; but if they are truly among the elect, and both hear and know the Word of God speaking and guiding them from within, then they will, in the end, overcome the Great Deceiver. Regarding the rest of your post, though, I did like what you had to say, and thought you made a lot of good sense saying it. ~ Ken

[Jason Adams]

"From those who have been given much, much will be required". This is a free transcription of one fragment of the Scripture (I can't check it now).
I think rulers had been given much especially in the past. Thus, they are always judged more harshly than the rest of us commoners.

Several articles that I've read express opinion that Nicholas II was stubborn and really addicted to his "God-given" rights as an autocrat. He was a weak ruler that should have abdicated or never accepted the role. He even replaced competent Grand Duke Nicholas with himself as an incompetent chief army commander which contributed to the final collapse and the troops joining workers and peasants in revolution.

He caused a lot of suffering and is judged as such. I know that the emperor's family shouldn't be killed like bunch of animals but on the other hand I can't accept that this was enought to make them saints.

This is just my opinion
How does it fit into the thread? Loosely, and sorry about that but I still think that causing so much suffering and so many deaths is greater sin than killing one person.

Correct me if I am wrong

[Herman Blaydoe]

We are getting very off-topic here. I think the subject is more about defining and recognizing our own sins, not the sins of others in general or the Tzar in particular.

[Jason Adams]

We are getting very off-topic here. I think the subject is more about defining and recognizing our own sins, not the sins of others in general or the Tzar in particular.

If the saints are to be perfect examples of godly life to me, I will need to understand why they were made saints and whether their good deeds overcame their bad deeds and their sins.

Let's say I am in a position of authority(which most of us are to a degree). If I follow Nicholas II in his stubborn adherence to the autocrat's rights I could well adhere to my "husband and father rights" and stop listening to my wife and children if I feel that I am right.

Back to square one: How do we recognise that we are on "the right track" in our life with God and our fellow travellers?
What if my conscience tells me I am right and the Church people say I am wrong?
What if my conscience says I am wrong and the Church says I am perfectly OK?

In Christ
Jason

[Herman Blaydoe]

Perhaps you can find something worthy of emulation here:

Tsar Martyr Nicholas and his family (http://www.orthodox.net/russiannm/nicholas-ii-tsar-martyr-and-his-family-01-of-05.html)

or here:

Tsar-Martyr Nicholas II (http://users.sisqtel.net/williams/tsar-martyrology.html)

[Herman Blaydoe]

If the saints are to be perfect examples of godly life to me, I will need to understand why they were made saints and whether their good deeds overcame their bad deeds and their sins.

See above


Let's say I am in a position of authority(which most of us are to a degree). If I follow Nicholas II in his stubborn adherence to the autocrat's rights I could well adhere to my "husband and father rights" and stop listening to my wife and children if I feel that I am right.

Actually, it is more of a responsibility than a "right" in either case. There is a difference.


Back to square one: How do we recognise that we are on "the right track" in our life with God and our fellow travellers?

The Fathers write extensively on this as has already been mentioned.


What if my conscience tells me I am right and the Church people say I am wrong?

Then there is a pretty good chance you might be wrong. Look up the word "prelest". And read Proverbs 9:8-9.


What if my conscience says I am wrong and the Church says I am perfectly OK?

I don't know, I think I am going to need a more specific example to work with.

Herman the Pooh

[Father David Moser]

Herman made a very good point that St Tsar Nicholas regarded his autocracy more as a responsibility than a right. He was given this responsibility by God and therefore took it so seriously that he could not abandon it. If he "insisted" on anything, it was that this was the government so ordained by God for the Russian land and therefore the rest of the nation (including the aristocracy, which failed or even opposed him) was bound by the same responsibility to work in cooperation with himself as he worked with God. He could no more reject the responsibility that God had given him any more than I could walk away from my priesthood or from my family. I "insist" upon the proper order that God has instituted in the Church and in the family not for my own sake, but rather for the good of the parish/family. I "insist" that my children, while living under my roof, obey me - I "insist" that my parishioners conform to the life that is prescribed for us by the Church - I "insist" that my wife submit herself to me - I "insist" that as the good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep, so must I - I "insist" that I love my wife as Christ loved the Church (that is He sacrificed his life for us). All these things are necessary in order to fulfill the apostolic injunction that all things might be done in good order.

Fr David Moser

[Andreas Moran]

I'm afraid Jason is repeating views about St Tsar Nicholas which are increasingly being found to be based on anti-monarchist and Bolshevik propoganda. I recently learned that even his supposed ineptitude as commander is misplaced. In the months before 1917, Russia lost no ground to the enemy, and one reason those who perpetrated the first revolution when they did was because they foresaw Nicholas actually gaining victory, and this would have made the success of their plans much more difficult.


the troops joining workers and peasants in revolution.

The first revolution was engineered by grand dukes, army chiefs and intellectuals aided and abetted by foreign powers, not by workers and peasants. The Bolsheviks then hijacked that revolution which was fiercely opposed by the peasants which is why the Bolsheviks destroyed the peasantry and rural life generally - a catastrophe from Russia has not recovered. Drive around Russia and you see vast areas uncultivated whilst enormous amounts of food are imported.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

If you read history on a regular basis you will notice that most history of the period of WWI has a fairly standard interpretation. Basically this is that all authority of the period was inept while all opposition was correct. This has led to the situation that one hundred years afterwards our view of our past is lacking in sympathy, fairness, and in many cases, a clear assessment of what actually occurred.

One main reason for this is that the period of WWI marks the final rupture with the older & traditional culture which basically was incinerated in the trenches & turmoil of that period. When immediately afterwards the question was asked of how such a traumatic cataclysm could have occurred to such an advanced western culture, the answer was given that it lay with the older tradition.Tradition in this case included everything no longer authoritative in the post WWI period- ruling authorities, a culture of respect & obedience & religion.

Although a few cracks are beginning to appear in this view of our past much of the historical presentation of the present time still works off of what at this point amount to unexamined cliches. This also it seems deeply affects our view of the history of the Church & in turn what we think the Church needs to be now.

By the way I'm not making a modern conservative argument here. Those few sympathetic books on pre-revolutionary Russia such as those by Dominic Lieven (which are very much worth reading) make it clear that the reality of the time was very complex. Many saw the looming trouble ahead and provided prescient and sophisticated analyses of this. But assessments of the causes of the problems (or even what were the problems) along with solutions to these problems were very different and often were contradictory.

Although the Bolsheviks (especially Lenin) had an evil genius for spotting and putting pressure on these contradictory pressure points of the old society, I would say that the most acute tension point of Russia (much discussed at the time) was how to resolve the contradition between the old world and the newer one. Many, many of the elite, even among those who were liberal, recognized good in the older world that should be preserved. But yet the new world seemed an irrepressable force.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Alexander Zhdanov]

Discilpes ask St Anthony the Great: "Why does God punish some people and reward others? Doesn't it mean that he is passionate? " St Anthony answer:
" God doesn't punish and reward, he is passionless but it is a sin that hide God from a human, like a cloud hide Sun ".
:)
Alexander

[Andreas Moran]

The history of the history books is one thing; the history remembered by ordinary people is another. There must be many people in Russia such as my wife whose grandparents, if they were lucky enough to survive, retold what things were really like before 1917. Yes, such people may have had their own prejudices, but what I glean from what my wife tells me her grandfather told her rings more truly than the 'cliches', as Fr Raphael aptly calls them, of received historical wisdom.

[Jason Adams]

I'm afraid Jason is repeating views about St Tsar Nicholas which are increasingly being found to be based on anti-monarchist and Bolshevik propoganda. I recently learned that even his supposed ineptitude as commander is misplaced. In the months before 1917, Russia lost no ground to the enemy, and one reason those who perpetrated the first revolution when they did was because they foresaw Nicholas actually gaining victory, and this would have made the success of their plans much more difficult.



The first revolution was engineered by grand dukes, army chiefs and intellectuals aided and abetted by foreign powers, not by workers and peasants. The Bolsheviks then hijacked that revolution which was fiercely opposed by the peasants which is why the Bolsheviks destroyed the peasantry and rural life generally - a catastrophe from Russia has not recovered. Drive around Russia and you see vast areas uncultivated whilst enormous amounts of food are imported.

Dear all,

I know I am not a historian and I am not able to read all books pertaining to that part of history.
However there is a lot of information available that highlights unrest amongst ordinary people as well as intelligentsia. Also, Russia subdued and oppressed quite a few peoples (Caucasus, Baltic, western neighbours, Cental Asia etc).

There were lots of reasons for revolution and the way the people were treated in 1905 certainly did nothing to prevent the 1917 revolution from happening.

I can't see any reason why monarchs should be excused from their responsibilities.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I can't see any reason why monarchs should be excused from their responsibilities.

And this affects YOUR salvation, um, HOW, exactly? Pray you and your family don't have to suffer for your mistakes like he and his family did for theirs. It is easy to see the sins of others, not so easy to see our own, be we peasants, tzars, or forum participants.

If Tzar Nicholas does not seem worthy of emulation in your opinion, then don't emulate him and look to the many other saints of the Church. There are many saints to choose from.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.
Herman the Pooh

[Jason Adams]

And this affects YOUR salvation, um, HOW, exactly? Pray you and your family don't have to suffer for your mistakes like he and his family did for theirs. It is easy to the sins of others, not so easy to see our own, be we peasants, tzars, or forum participants.

If Tzar Nicholas does not seem worthy of emulation in your opinion, then don't emulate him and look to the many other saints of the Church. There are many saints to choose from.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.
Herman the Pooh

OK, I stop
Christ be with you all

[Andreas Moran]

I don't think anyone would say Nicholas II was an ideal monarch. He himself knew he had limitations. In fact, he proposed at one point to abdicate in favour of his more dynamic brother, Mikhail, and to become patriarch. The Holy Synod opposed this (as it had tried to oppose the glorification of St Seraphim of Sarov but Nicholas insisted on it).

I think we can consider the attributes of saints without necessarily emulating or disparaging them. I don't have any special devotion to Tsar-Martyr Nicholas but I do like to try to see beyond cliches, assumptions, and distortions of history.

[Anthony]

Dear all,

I know I am not a historian and I am not able to read all books pertaining to that part of history.
However there is a lot of information available that highlights unrest amongst ordinary people as well as intelligentsia. Also, Russia subdued and oppressed quite a few peoples (Caucasus, Baltic, western neighbours, Cental Asia etc).

The subduing of these peoples was certainly well before the time of Tsar St Nicholas (or should that be St Tsar Nicholas?). As for the Russian Empire being oppressive, I think it is difficult to find the right balance here.


There were lots of reasons for revolution and the way the people were treated in 1905 certainly did nothing to prevent the 1917 revolution from happening.

As you say, there were lots of reasons. From what I have read, natural disasters excerbated by maladministration was one of the major ones in Tsar Nicholas' reign (I am thinking particularly of the Ukrainian famine). His reign was not unique in this (compare British rule in Ireland) - which is not to whitewash it, just to ask for a sense of perspective.



I can't see any reason why monarchs should be excused from their responsibilities.

He certainly never asked to be excused from his.

[Alexander Zhdanov]

I hasten to act with a refutation of that I wrote last time. St Antony does not tell that.
He says:
"God is good, passionless and invariable. If somebody, recognising as good and true that God does not change, is perplexed, however, as He (being such) rejoices about kind, averts malicious, is angry to sinners, and when they repent, is mercy to them, it is necessary to tell that God does not rejoice and is not angry, since pleasure and anger are passions. It is ridiculous to think, that it is good or bad to the Deity because of human's affairs. God is good and creates only good, does not harm anybody, staying always the identical; and, when we are kind, we enter dialogue with Him, on similarity to Him and when we become malicious we separate from God on a dissimilarity with Him. Living virtuously, we belong to God, and becoming malicious, we become outcast from Him; and it does not mean, that He had anger to us, but that our sins do not allow God to begin to shine in us, connecting us to torturers demons. If then with the help of prayers and good affairs we find leaving of sins, it does not mean that we humoured God and changed Him, but by means of such actions and our reference to God, having cured evil being inside us, we again become capable to taste God's clemency..."
Translation is mine:)
I would ask Brotherhood to pray for me and to inform me on errors in my tranlations. Alexander.

[Nina]

A brother asked Abba Cronius, “What should I do to correct the forgetfulness which enslaves my spirit, and prevents me from perceiving anything until I am led into sin?” The old man said, “When the foreign people took possession of the ark because of the evil manner of life of the sons of Israel, they drew it until they brought it into the house of Dagon, their god, and then he fell to the ground,” (I Samuel 5). The brother said, “What is the meaning of that?” The old man said, “If the demons attempt to capture a man’s spirit through his own impetus, they draw him in this manner until they lead him to an invisible passion. Then, at that point, if the spirit returns and seeks after God and if it remembers the eternal judgment, immediately the passion falls away and disappears. It is written, “In returning and rest you shall be saved.” (Isaiah 30:15)

[Dori Fazi-D'Italia]

Hello,

The actions are impulsive rather than sinfull when the will is not actively engaged.

Dori

[Herman Blaydoe]

Hello,

The actions are impulsive rather than sinfull when the will is not actively engaged.

Dori

Except that what you say is a Roman Catholic teaching and NOT an Orthodox one. We Orthodox pray for forgiveness of sins, committed in knowledge or in ignorance. Impulsive acts can still be sinful acts according to the Orthodox Church.

Herman

[Paul Cowan]

Yes, I agree. I dare say my sinful impulses were done quite unwillingly most of my life.

[Dori Fazi-D'Italia]

Except that what you say is a Roman Catholic teaching and NOT an Orthodox one. We Orthodox pray for forgiveness of sins, committed in knowledge or in ignorance. Impulsive acts can still be sinful acts according to the Orthodox Church.

Herman
Hi Herman. Sorry I am trying to learn about the Orthodox Faith and assumed that in basic teachings the R C and Orthodox were almost identicle. I assumed that Orthodox belief was that impulsive behavior is concupiscent rather than considered human action. For example if I have a habit of smoking, and light a cigarette, beacause of my habit, it has become an act of man rather than a human act and therefor the culpability is deminished.

Forgive my lack of understanding

Dori

[Peter S.]

The Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church is actually very different. The Roman Catholic Church hasn't got he right understanding.

Peter

[Herman Blaydoe]

Hi Herman. Sorry I am trying to learn about the Orthodox Faith and assumed that in basic teachings the R C and Orthodox were almost identicle. I assumed that Orthodox belief was that impulsive behavior is concupiscent rather than considered human action. For example if I have a habit of smoking, and light a cigarette, beacause of my habit, it has become an act of man rather than a human act and therefor the culpability is deminished.

Forgive my lack of understanding

Dori

The difference comes from our very different understanding of the nature of sin. I would say that the Orthodox Church has never warmed up to the theology of sin as cooked up by the Catholic "A Team" (Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm). We see sin as a sickness to be cured, not a crime to be punished. I find your example most interesting, if somewhat ironic. It is habits that can be the MOST harmful sin, even as the habit of smoking generally leads to death by lung disease or cancer. We don't worry about "culpability" since sin is sin and death is death. We don't want to determine who is "culpable", or what constitutes "culpability", we simply want everyone to be cured.

We are all sick, even unto death. We need to stop doing those things that keep us from being well, especially habits, no matter how "culpable" we may or may not be. We are not "guilty" of cancer, we don't need punishment. We are simply sick and in need of healing.

We don't do "mortal" and "venal" sins. Sins are like holes in a leaky boat. A "big" hole (sin) might sink the boat faster, but enough "little" holes (non-culpable sins?) will sink the boat just as surely, even if it takes a little longer.

Herman

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Herman,

Perhaps you're being a little unfair to Augustine, as he doesn't really see sin in the way you describe. In much of his writing, he emphasises what is (and always has been) a real aspect to sin in all Christian understanding; namely, its universality, its severity, and the real bondage it imposes on its bearer. Where he differs, at times, from more common Orthodox visions is when he considers the specific ways this sin actually holds this power, vis-a-vis the composition of the human person - i.e. the 'anthropology of sin', perhaps. But I don't think he ever represents sin in quite the way you've alluded to.

It is well and good to say that we are sick, rather than 'guilty'. Yes: true. But part of that sickness is an awareness of our guilt. These are not either-or options from which we select one and disbar the other -- there could be no way to argue this with the prayers of the Church in mind.

It is what we are guilty of, and how we are guilty, and what that means for our healing and growth, that are the real questions.

It is well and good to say that someone is not 'guilty of cancer' (to follow with your example): but the Christian testimony to life in this world is that all suffering is in some direct way connected to sin -- and this includes our culpibility for sin.

These things are dynamics of existence, not simple black-and-white alternatives.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Herman Blaydoe]

Dear Herman,

Perhaps you're being a little unfair to Augustine, as he doesn't really see sin in the way you describe. In much of his writing, he emphasises what is (and always has been) a real aspect to sin in all Christian understanding; namely, its universality, its severity, and the real bondage it imposes on its bearer. Where he differs, at times, from more common Orthodox visions is when he considers the specific ways this sin actually holds this power, vis-a-vis the composition of the human person - i.e. the 'anthropology of sin', perhaps. But I don't think he ever represents sin in quite the way you've alluded to.

It is well and good to say that we are sick, rather than 'guilty'. Yes: true. But part of that sickness is an awareness of our guilt. These are not either-or options from which we select one and disbar the other -- there could be no way to argue this with the prayers of the Church in mind.

It is what we are guilty of, and how we are guilty, and what that means for our healing and growth, that are the real questions.

It is well and good to say that someone is not 'guilty of cancer' (to follow with your example): but the Christian testimony to life in this world is that all suffering is in some direct way connected to sin -- and this includes our culpibility for sin.

These things are dynamics of existence, not simple black-and-white alternatives.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

True enough, Augustine is not "guilty" of what the other two and the rest did to his ideas, but his misconceptions got further misconceived later on. And I certainly agree that while we may not be guilty of being sick, it is often our own actions (guilt?) that cause or worsen the sickness, or at the very least can keep us from getting better, so I guess one can say that we are "culpable" in that respect.

Herman the Pooh

[Kusanagi]

Hello,

Sorry if this shouldn't be a new thread. Point me to correct one if it is not.

Having visited several Christian web sites and different churches I must say that the concept of sin is still vague to me.
Sin as "missing the target" - what is the target practically?
Particular sins - how do we know whether certain thought, word, action is sinful?

Eg practically:
Is admiring a beautiful women a sin if lust is not involved?
Is even looking at a women sinful if she catches your eye?

Or:
Is being angry at the door when you hit it with your head sinful?
Is beaing angry with a careless driver sinful?

Sometimes i have an impression that basically everything in sin unless I am deeply in prayer/meditation and forget about the whole world.

Any comments, guidances, links to sites will be deeply appreciated

Jason

a nice simple way of remembering is a sin is anything not done with faith in God.

Hope that helps.......

[Paul Cowan]

a nice simple way of remembering is a sin is anything not done with faith in God.

Hope that helps.......

Can you expound on this a little more? I have faith in God, but that does not mean I do not sin.

[Kusanagi]

Can you expound on this a little more? I have faith in God, but that does not mean I do not sin.

Meaning that you have rememberance of God in all things you do and say and think.

its from St Basil of Poiana Marului.

or like how my friend does is he would imagine how Christ would have dealt with such and such a situation to benefit not just himself but also his fellow man.

Forgot how St Nektarios says it i have to look it up when home.

[Kusanagi]

Forgot how St Nektarios says it i have to look it up when home.


Sorry I forgot how to edit posts that I have already made.
From what I understand from St Nekatrios, sin is anything that is against God's Law and His peace that he gave us. This is found in his book repentance and confession.
Sorry I am paraphrasing so it may not be accurate.

[Peter S.]

Dear Jonathan and others.

The same thing as you tell about Christ smiling, is happening to me too, and many others I believe, and my icons at home and in Church of Mother of God and holy persons also tell me things because I see them changing. So you are not mad. Maybe we both are mad? :)

However one day I was expecting and angry or dissapointed face, and guess what: Christ was smiling. I was a bit shocked over Christ's love. But he forgives as no one else. Usually he is not smiling in these cases thogh. Christ and the holy assembly wants to help, and often the help is not like what we expect. And I am happy for that, because it tells me that I must change my ways/repent, and at least I find meaning in life because of this. I must change my ways of thinking, (and expecting). (But I m not often repenting though.) There is a meaning of life: To become like Christ. Christ that is without sin.

Their help is sometimes not as I expect, and: "who knows the ways of Christ?"

I have an icon of St. Seraphim that gives me "expressions". Its just on a paper-folder. And a paper iconcard of Jesus Christ that I got for my nameday some years ago that is doing the same thing. And the real icon of Christ at the iconostasis in our Church is sweating oil. Why it does that I dont know. It started one Pascha some years ago. Maybe to remind us of the heavenly world, and to tell us that this world we think we know, we dont fully know. Now even the icon of St. Sava is doing the same, but lesser. Maybe because of Kosovo? I dont know. We can not know everything.

One person I know said to me about the smiling icons something like: "Usually they are sad". Maybe they are so to him, because he can stand it. The expressions depends on the persons who see them.

Peter

However I heard from my priest that if the icon smiles or gives you another attitude it is your mind being reflected, so you cant trust it actually.

Peter
In Christ

[Peter S.]

However I heard from my priest that if the icon smiles or gives you another attitude it is your mind being reflected, so you cant trust it actually.

Peter
In Christ

Well well. I am not sure if I understood my priest correctly, so take it with a pinch of salt. But in any case it was not as I first thought relating to the smiles etc from the icons. Indeed it happens. I dont know why, but it is fine. It is not easy to understand what God wants to communicate when you are not experienced.

Christ is born!

[Owen Jones]

Although Orthodoxy has developed a theoretical model of sin, if you will permit me to put it in those terms, that is not the starting point. You don't wait for a theoretical model to get busy and go to work. We don't wait for a theoretical justification to get out of bed in the morning and go to work! Unless we are really really sick either physically or emotionally. And as regards to the latter, it is probably because we have relied too heavily on a theoretical model. They can make us literally crazy. The Pharisees, for example, in the Orthodox sense, are mentally ill, because they are working exclusively from a theoretical model of sin absent any practical experience. So they are quite literally incapable of seeing the true reality of it, whether in themselves or in others. In short, the answer to the question does not lie in a correct theory of it.

[Ronnie Shakespeare]

What i am trying to understand about the bible and Sin!!: In some places you read Jesus saying to Sin no more and Also Sin no more unless worst will come upon you. And also i read he who is born of God does not Sin.

Then i read elsewhere: If we claim to be without Sin, we decieve ourselves and the truth is not in us.
And also i read. Who can say, I have kept my heart pure, I am clean and without Sin.
Why does there seem to be a Contradiction of scripture Here?

[Herman Blaydoe]

No contradiction. There is the ideal and then there is the reality. They are often different things. Salvation is a choice and we always have the ability to make the "wrong" choice, to give into temptation, so the propensity to sin is always in us, whether or not we choose to allow it reign. And in baptism and in confession, our sins are washed away, even though we often choose to sin again, at that point we are "without sin".

Remember, that sin is a disease, not a crime and we are all sick unto death. But there ARE those who have made the right choices consistently, and they are "cured". We call them "saints", and we are all called to be saints.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.
Herman the Pooh

[Father David Moser]

I think perhaps the words of St Basil the great in discussing "image and likeness" might apply here.

Let us make man according to our image and likeness (Gen 1:26). By our creation we have the first and by our free choice we build the second. ... By free choice we are conformed to that which i according to the likeness of God ... I become "according to the likeness" by becoming a Christian

Note that he talks in terms of "building" the likeness and "becoming" a Christian. Our salvation is a process not an accomplished fact. Our sinlessness is an indication of where we are in this process and how well we have utilized the grace of God and incorporated it into our lives so that we might be transformed into His likeness. It is this transformation and the resulting union and communion with Christ which is our salvation.

Fr David Moser

[Evan]

What i am trying to understand about the bible and Sin!!: In some places you read Jesus saying to Sin no more and Also Sin no more unless worst will come upon you. And also i read he who is born of God does not Sin.

Then i read elsewhere: If we claim to be without Sin, we decieve ourselves and the truth is not in us.
And also i read. Who can say, I have kept my heart pure, I am clean and without Sin.
Why does there seem to be a Contradiction of scripture Here?

Because English doesn't capture the nuances of the original Greek.

Since God’s Son came to take away sin (1 John 3:5; John 1:29), the man who continues to commit sin (ho poion, present participle for sustained action) can have no communion with God. Continuance in sin (1 John 3:6, again the present participle) means that the sinner does not really know God.

In effect, St. John is saying that one who has put on Christ does not, insofar as he abides in His life, does not habitually fall into sin. If we are sinning, we can be sure that we are not living in Christ. Fortunately, if we be confessing our sins...

As a footnote: The Scriptures are not, nor were they ever intended to be, self-exegeting. They are part of the witness of the Church. They are texts that need context.

In Christ,
Evan

[Ronnie Shakespeare]

Because English doesn't capture the nuances of the original Greek.

Since God’s Son came to take away sin (1 John 3:5; John 1:29), the man who continues to commit sin (ho poion, present participle for sustained action) can have no communion with God. Continuance in sin (1 John 3:6, again the present participle) means that the sinner does not really know God.

In effect, St. John is saying that one who has put on Christ does not, insofar as he abides in His life, does not habitually fall into sin. If we are sinning, we can be sure that we are not living in Christ. Fortunately, if we be confessing our sins...

As a footnote: The Scriptures are not, nor were they ever intended to be, self-exegeting. They are part of the witness of the Church. They are texts that need context.

In Christ,
Evan

Hi Evan

What do you mean that scriptures are not for self-exegeting. I came to know the bible through evangelical cults
I have only ever know protestant and the Roman catholic church in the last 20 years. I never knew about the Eastern Orthodox church untill very recently after studying the word heresy: Which means a opinion or doctrine that is opposed to the Established Authorised Orthodox Church.
If i had not studied scriptures by myself i would not have ever known anything and Just been blindly following any false teacher. Its not my fault things started this way and i have been bound in heresy. I have never come across a Orthodox christian or church before.

[Ronnie Shakespeare]

I think perhaps the words of St Basil the great in discussing "image and likeness" might apply here.


Note that he talks in terms of "building" the likeness and "becoming" a Christian. Our salvation is a process not an accomplished fact. Our sinlessness is an indication of where we are in this process and how well we have utilized the grace of God and incorporated it into our lives so that we might be transformed into His likeness. It is this transformation and the resulting union and communion with Christ which is our salvation.

Fr David Moser

Hi father David

While we are liveing on this Earth can a christian get to the stage where he is without Sin altogether and does not need to confess his Sins Anymore.

[Antonios]

The scriptures need to read, understood, and interpreted within the lens of the Church because only by the Church are the true meanings, intentions, and soul-profitting teachings expressed, maintained and defended. Just as with the Ethiopia eunuch and St. Phillip, the meanings must be guided lest we make up our own meanings, our own relative interpretations, and stray away from the truth, which is not relative, but one and eternal.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Hi father David

While we are liveing on this Earth can a christian get to the stage where he is without Sin altogether and does not need to confess his Sins Anymore.

The Theotokos did. Why else would the Lord command us to be perfect?

Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5:48).

So unless I want to call Christ Jesus a liar, then yes, I have to believe it is possible.

Herman the not yet perfect Pooh

[Evan]

Ronnie,

Antonios has, to my mind, explained what I meant very succinctly and effectively. Hard though it may be to say it in the modern era, there is an institution, an organization of mere men which is preserved by the Holy Spirit against the gates of hell, which has the authority to forgive sins and which is sustained by the very body and blood of the Risen Lord. It was to that institution that the Scriptures were expounded on the road to Emmaus. In order to understand the Scriptures, one must submit to its authority, that authority being inseparable from that of its Founder.

In Christ,
Evan

[Ronnie Shakespeare]

Hi Evan and Antonios

Thanks for your explaination and Advice. I understand what you mean. I will give it a Go

[Guillermo M.L.]

I really like the notion of treating sin as an illness, rather than a crime or a transgression. Still, it confuses me the idea exposed in the glossary of the Philokalia that, although sin is an illness, we do have certain guilt for allowing it in our soul... How much emphasis must we give to guilt? Because it seems that if we give too much emphasis to the "guilt aspect" of sin, we end up in a legalistic approach again, as exists in the Western mindset, and we get to talk again of "sin as a crime".

Also, if we are to consider God as the Great Healer instead of the Great Judge, how does the concept of Final Judgement fit into all this view? I still don't understand the possibility of being sent to Hell because of an illness...

[Paul Cowan]

We have this life to be cured of our illnesses. Is it better to go to the Judgement with a sniffle or a full blown case the plague? We can seek the Dr. and get cured of our sins, OR we can turn our back on God and be sent to hell. God is with us regardless. But there are plenty of threads expanding on this idea.

[Antonios]

I really like the notion of treating sin as an illness, rather than a crime or a transgression. Still, it confuses me the idea exposed in the glossary of the Philokalia that, although sin is an illness, we do have certain guilt for allowing it in our soul... How much emphasis must we give to guilt? Because it seems that if we give too much emphasis to the "guilt aspect" of sin, we end up in a legalistic approach again, as exists in the Western mindset, and we get to talk again of "sin as a crime".

Also, if we are to consider God as the Great Healer instead of the Great Judge, how does the concept of Final Judgement fit into all this view? I still don't understand the possibility of being sent to Hell because of an illness...

Dear Guillermo,

Jesus Christ is the Great Physician and the Great Judge. He is not one at the expense of the other, but both. He testifies to this in the Holy Scriptures.

Our fallen condition is our illness, and it is how we all are born. As you know, the Lord, in His great love and mercy, assumed our condition so that He might heal us. And those who do His will and follow Him find True Life. Our illness is our starting point, our finish line is in Christ Jesus. We are not at fault for how we begin and where our starting point is. What kind of fair Judge would He be, He Who's Justice proceeds all righteousness?

In the Philokalia, it is taught that our sin is not because we we are fallen, but because we do not rise up toward God. We are not judged by where we started from, but where we end up. The winners of a race are not determined by which lane they are in and what marker they start at, but how they have finished the race. This is why we must all struggle till our last breath and why we must live in a humble state of repentance with the Lord's name in our hearts at all time. Like the publican, falling before Him and praying for mercy.

As you described in the Philokalia, we sin when we allow our fallen passions to have power over us. The stages of sin as described in the glossary does not assign responsibility to us for having thoughts enter into our head, but when we allow them to stay there and begin to entertain them. When our minds assent to the thought or passion, we are now guilty of sin. We have arrows flying at us at all times and in all directions from the enemy and his demons. This is the spiritual battle we fight. There is no sin in being a spiritual warrior and fighting the assent of our thoughts or the suggestions of the demons, in fact, this is the way of the saints! It is a sin rather when we take these very arrows and pierce our own hearts with them by our own will. This is us eating the forbidden fruit and our guilt and cause for our perdition. God is the Judge, but He does not judge us to eternal darkness and condemnation because we have an illness, but because we chose our illness over Life and darkness over Light and our own will above His.

[David Lanier]

Hi Evan

What do you mean that scriptures are not for self-exegeting. I came to know the bible through evangelical cults
I have only ever know protestant and the Roman catholic church in the last 20 years. I never knew about the Eastern Orthodox church untill very recently after studying the word heresy: Which means a opinion or doctrine that is opposed to the Established Authorised Orthodox Church.
If i had not studied scriptures by myself i would not have ever known anything and Just been blindly following any false teacher. Its not my fault things started this way and i have been bound in heresy. I have never come across a Orthodox christian or church before.

Dear Mr. Ronnie:

I don't know what part of the U.K. you are in, but you should try to find an Orthodox Church near you and attend the Divine Liturgy and if they have any study groups, inquirers classes, or catechism classes, go to those as well.

There was so much more that was handed down to us by the Apostles along with the Epistles and the Gospels they left us. As St. Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: "So then brethren, stand fast and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or epistle of ours." And in the Gospel of St. John 21:25: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that should be written."

So there was much that was handed down from Jesus and the Apostles, to their successors and their successors, and so on, right down to today that wasn't in the Epistles or Gospels. We call this Holy Tradition. For the first 3 centuries or so, there wasn't a book (that we know of today) called the Bible. The Apostles had the Septuagint Old Testament, and every reference by the Apostles to Scripture in the New Testament is a reference to the Old Testament Scriptures. What we call the New Testament didn't become canonical text until the fourth century when St. Athanasius (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Athanasius_of_Alexandria) compiled the various texts circulating throughout the Christian world at that time.

So the Church has the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Traditions which were handed down to us from one generation to the next, right down to today. The Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura (http://ancientfaith.com/collections/sola_scriptura) does not keep with the traditions and teachings of the early Church, and interpretation of Scripture should not be left to the individual. The Church (through the teachings of the Saints (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Saint) give us a much deeper understanding of Holy Scripture than (at least most of us) derive on our own.

God poured out His Spirit on Pentecost to the Apostles and multitudes of others since, and it is through the Holy Spirit that we have proper understanding of Scripture, and that same Holy Spirit (and our experience of it) has remained the same for us throughout time. So this is why the way that Christianity was taught, understood, practiced, and lived out from the time of the Apostles down through the ages has been the same. The great Saints of the Church have left us a wealth of knowledge that (together with the Scriptures) helps us to draw closer to God, and if our understanding of Scripture differs from that which has been experienced through the ages, then our understanding is probably flawed, possibly even wrong, and worse yet, heretical. So we (Orthodox) hold fast to the teachings and traditions that have been handed down to us in living continuity with Jesus Christ and the Apostles.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Also, if we are to consider God as the Great Healer instead of the Great Judge, how does the concept of Final Judgement fit into all this view? I still don't understand the possibility of being sent to Hell because of an illness...

If you have a treatable disease, and do not bother to take the steps necessary to treat it, you are going to be "punished" by suffering the consequences, you will grow sicker and die sooner. It is your inaction, as much as the illness itself, that causes this.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[Guillermo M.L.]

Thanks everyone for taking the time to answer me. I'm getting to understand the Eastern approach better =)


An analogy that I have always loved is the following :

Imagine God is the sun. You are sitting in a small, closed room and the only opening is a small window. The sun is trying to shine through this window and reach you and warm you and give you life. But the window is sometimes really dark and filthy and the sun cannot reach you. The dirt on the window is made up of all your sins. If you try and get rid of your sins, one by one, then the glass will be clean and God, who is the sun, will be able to reach you and love you.

Regarding this analogy, can we assume that the sun will reach through the window to any human being, or only to those baptized Orthodox?

[Herman Blaydoe]

Orthodoxy gives us the best and most effective cleaning tools! Beyond that, God knows.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.
Herman the not always so clean Pooh

[Guillermo M.L.]

Thanks for your answer, Herman.

Although I don't like the legalistic approach to sin from Western Christianity, I cannot say it is a wrong approach just because I don't like it. I am wondering what is the OC stance about this... is it an approach considered invalid, or just less appropriate? What are the possible harms of taking such an approach?

Thanks again.

[Paul Cowan]

Did you father beat you? This is how you will see God.
Did your father love on you? This is how you will see God.
Did your father abandon you? This is how you will see God.
Did your father smother you with affection? This is how you will see God.
Did your father tempt you? This is how you will see God.
Did your father hate you? This is how you will see God.

Unfortunatly our earthly fathers are our first "look" at God. How we are treated by them is how we project onto our Lord. How unfortunate. What did Jesus say about fathers giving stones versus bread or snakes versus fish? How much better is our Father than these?

So no, I don't think any sort of legalistic approach to get to know God is valid. He wants us to be perfect as He is perfect. We are called to pray unceasingly. Whether we go to heaven or hell in the end, He will still be with us. We are the ones kicking and pushing back. God is a gentleman, He will not force Himself onto us. And He will never leave us regardless how fast we run away.

Paul

[Antonios]

Thanks for your answer, Herman.

Although I don't like the legalistic approach to sin from Western Christianity, I cannot say it is a wrong approach just because I don't like it. I am wondering what is the OC stance about this... is it an approach considered invalid, or just less appropriate? What are the possible harms of taking such an approach?

Thanks again.

The Lord Jesus Christ has revealed the Name of YWHW and the Name is Father. Not Judge, not Physician, not King, but rather Father. For while the father must be a leader for his children, a source for healing, and a judge of actions and dispositions, to be perfect, he above all must be a source of love, of mercy, and of forgiveness.

[Paul Cowan]

God is Love. Love can hurt, but not eternally.


Proverbs 13:24 He who spares his rod hates his son,
But he who loves him disciplines him promptly.


Hebrews 12:3 For consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself, lest you become weary and discouraged in your souls. 4 You have not yet resisted to bloodshed, striving against sin. 5 And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons:


“ My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD,
Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him;
6 For whom the LORD loves He chastens,
And scourges every son whom He receives.”[a]

7 If[b] you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? 8 But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. 9 Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. 11 Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

[Ronnie Shakespeare]

The Theotokos did. Why else would the Lord command us to be perfect?

Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5:48).

So unless I want to call Christ Jesus a liar, then yes, I have to believe it is possible.

Herman the not yet perfect Pooh


Some Christians that i have come Across claim they are without Sin: These are From the Holiness movemen't
One Christian that i have come Across is Finalcall07 on you tube. He says he is without Sin and this is the stage you have to get to to Enter heaven. He says while you have to keep confessing Sins to God you have not really repented from Sin.
He is preaching that all christians should leave there churches because the leaders say all christians Sin.
He says the bible is not the word of God. It is the word of man. Only Jesus christ himself is the word of God. You need to hear his voice only and that is what you should be following. You have to be without sin to do that. To have a real relationship with God

Some times he gets comments from Christians saying stop confussing things we all Sin and you are deciveing yourself. They use scriptures to support there view.
I Know there are Sins i don't commit period. Especially the big Ones. There are some small Sins that beset me that i have to keep confessing to God. Which i know i need to confess to a priest.
One sin that has came to light lately is heresy: I believe the only way to sort this is through the Orthodox church.
I also seem to think there must be Sins that i don't know about yet because i dont know everything about the christian faith.

I did send Finalcall07 a Email about overcomeing all Sins. I explained what i have been learning about heresy in detail and i think the Orthodox church is the only true Church.
He Replied saying Heresies is not a Sin. That has been Inserted in the bible by Man. He Advised me to only read the words of Jesus in the bible.
I have noticed there are lots of scriptures in the bible that he does not go by and takes no notice of them.
I have been thinking is this a person that is deceiving himself believeing and saying he is without Sin.
If you had somebody in the Orthodox church that says he is without Sin and does not need or uses confession no more.
Would you view that person as deceiving themself??

[Antonios]

If you had somebody in the Orthodox church that says he is without Sin and does not need or uses confession no more.
Would you view that person as deceiving themself??

Yes.

1 John 1:8 "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

You would do better to spend your time reading the father and saints of the Church then the writings of this person you mentioned.

[Herman Blaydoe]

We pray for the forgiveness of sins committed knowingly and UNKNOWINGLY. The YouTube Holiness apostle probably doesn't know it is possible to sin and not realize it. It is not that he is not sinning, it is just that he does not REALIZE he is sinning... Very sad.

Herman

[Father David Moser]

The closer one approaches God - that is the more "holy" one becomes - the bighter the light and the more clearly we see ourselves and our shortcomings. Sin, according to the scripture, is nothing more or less than "falling short of the glory of God". When we are far from God we see only the grossest and most obvious of our own sins. As we draw nearer to God the light gets brighter and we see more clearly and we see with greater and greater clarity how it is we fall short of the glory of God in even the smallest of ways - things that before might have seemed innocent and pure are riddled with our failings on closer inspection. Kind of like those "crime shows" on TV (that was another thread) where the crime scene appears to have cleaned spotlessly by the criminal, but once the CSIs begin to look they find the invisible blood stains and microscopic fibers, hairs and smudges that were left behind. At first the scene looked squeaky clean, but when one looks with clearer (technically enhanced, focused and trained) vision the flaws and dirt are obvious. So it is with our sins. The closer we come to God - the more holy we become - the more we perceive the overwhelming entirety of our sin and how it infests even the smallest atom of our life. Thus it becomes necessary to live our whole lives in repentance, rooting out sins that today we see, but to which yesterday we were blind. Thanks be to God for His great forgiveness and grace and the promise that if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Fr David Moser

[Anna Stickles]

Some Christians that i have come Across claim they are without Sin:

Christians who are not familiar with Tradition often have not really developed a Christian conscience. Their conscience has been formed by worldly values of right and wrong and they think they are doing fine because they compare themselves to the world and see that they are doing better. Anyone who takes a look at something like this preparation for confession (http://www.orthodox.net/confess/confession.rtf) will soon see that to be without sin includes far more then we often think about. J

[Ronnie Shakespeare]

Christians who are not familiar with Tradition often have not really developed a Christian conscience. Their conscience has been formed by worldly values of right and wrong and they think they are doing fine because they compare themselves to the world and see that they are doing better. Anyone who takes a look at something like this preparation for confession (http://www.orthodox.net/confess/confession.rtf) will soon see that to be without sin includes far more then we often think about. J

I thought in my present position i am not far from being Perfect with a few small faults. After reading That lot i am now thinking i have still got a long way to Go.

[Paul Cowan]

Dont we all

[Herman Blaydoe]

The first glimpse of mountains in the distance is often misleading, they seem much closer than they actually are. But as we get closer, we begin to see their true size and we begin to realize how far away they really are. The same is true with our sins.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh who has a very long way to go.