@philokalia saidBecause they are far-fetched yarns about supernatural beings coming down to the Earth and taking "bad" monks away from here and moving them to some supernatural place where they are rewarded and these fables are being told in order to conjure up some sort of doctrinal point that supports certain religious beliefs and which people like you internalize and regurgitate as if factual ~ citing "very authoritative" sources. Why do you think the words of St. Paisios and St. Nikolai are supposedly historical accounts? Or do people just have to take your word for it?
Why are the words of St. Paisios & St. Nikolai "folk tales?"
@philokalia saidThis is a non-sequitur.
So accepting the veracity of other people's stories makes you narrow?
@philokalia saidThe "angels" came? And took the naughty monks to "Heaven"? And in so doing gave the very, very senior and powerful Church figures some awfully convenient 'teaching points' that set them apart from people like you who don't "know" who is "judged" one way or the other? Blah blah blah ... "the second largest church and oldest continual church tradition within all of Christianity" and so on and so forth.
They seem to actually just try to be personal accounts of things that had happened, and that also have religious significance.
@philokalia saidIt's you who started talking about "monks" and "Turkish soldiers" and "Saints" and "Heaven" and spluttering some sort of thumbnail corporate profile of your religious denomination as if it's somehow corroborating what you're saying. If it's "incredibly off the topic", then why did you introduce it?
This is incredibly off the topic of what the "narrow path" is
@philokalia saidIt must be true because it's the same as something else that must be true?
It has clear ramifications with Church doctrine, and it is also obviously consistent with Church doctrine.
Honestly, your criticism hasn't really changed form, tone, or level of depth. You have repeated the same talking points that you did back on page 2 or 3.
I think it'd be best to wrap this up, then, so I will give a few bullet points...
- The stories were initially shared to illuminate some aspects of Christian theology; they further emphasize the inability of man to judge the heart of another, and how non-judgment is a virtue. Not only is this theologically proper, it is a particularly good message that normally more liberal adherents and non-adherents of Christianity like to tout.
- Orthodox Saints are outstanding figures. These are recent Saints that are not so much concealed in the mists of history like other Saints. I believe their stories, and I believe that they saw these things with their own eyes, and that they were given unique gifts from God for their purity. John 14:12 talks about the concept of Saints receiving miraculous gifts -- at least, that is the popular interpretation among Catholic & Orthodox believers.
If we deny that there are miraculous events and occurrences, we are denying to some degree the very words of the Bible.
- Even if you disagree with the accuracy of these things, I'd like people to not use blatantly derogatory terms to refer to them because I find it to be generally disrespectful.
- We should ask honest questions always, sure, and we should confront the claims of others, but when we do so we should strive to not be repetitive, or at least to bring something new into the dialog, and to resolve the discussion.
I think FMF absolutely needs to have the last word, so I will give it to him.
@philokalia saidYou are entitled to make whatever assertions you like. The folktales fitted in with what the "Saints" wanted to say. Hey presto!
- The stories were initially shared to illuminate some aspects of Christian theology; they further emphasize the inability of man to judge the heart of another, and how non-judgment is a virtue. Not only is this theologically proper, it is a particularly good message that normally more liberal adherents and non-adherents of Christianity like to tout.
- Orthodox Saints ...[text shortened]... iraculous gifts -- at least, that is the popular interpretation among Catholic & Orthodox believers.
So, if one has a story about Jesus coming to and visiting a Muslim, as a Prophet of course and not a Messiah, to remind the believer that "This world is the field for the crop of the Hereafter", and that the Christian notion that there is no real concept of accountability [that is to say, their concept of being forgiven simply for a belief in Jesus atoning for sins absolves such believers of personal responsibility both here and in the hereafter] is a corruption of the true significance of Jesus' life and a misunderstanding of who He was... a story like that from a respected teacher and leader is, what... a historical account and not a folktale?
@philokalia saidYou actually think your belief in the Bible - by extension - renders any and all other superstitious or credulous beliefs that you happen to have in magical or miraculous stories [set in, say, the 19th and 20th centuries] as self-evidently "true" and "historical accounts" too?
If we deny that there are miraculous events and occurrences, we are denying to some degree the very words of the Bible.
@philokalia said"Folktales" seems to me to be the correct English language vocabulary for the stories you have presented.
Even if you disagree with the accuracy of these things, I'd like people to not use blatantly derogatory terms to refer to them because I find it to be generally disrespectful.
@philokalia saidYour repeated use of Appeal to Authority is not contributing "depth", regardless of what you may think.
Honestly, your criticism hasn't really changed form, tone, or level of depth.
Just as a side note, I offered to give you the final word on this, and generally, in that case, it is appropriate to just make some statements on the topic that you feel are important and just draw it all to an end, right?
You keep asking things in question form like this should continue.
I think that isn't good etiquette for our discussion, and I recommend that if you want the discussion to continue further you directly say so and try to be cooperative in the way that we handle it, you know what I mean?
@philokalia saidDressing up a basic stance of 'I believe what I am told' with some kind of pseudo-intellectual "historical" material and defending the stance with logical fallacies is always going to get called out.
I think that isn't good etiquette for our discussion, and I recommend that if you want the discussion to continue further you directly say so and try to be cooperative in the way that we handle it, you know what I mean?
OK, I see your point with that, FMF, and that should always be the case. i am not asking for discussion to be stymied at all.
But I feel like our discussion is going in circles, thus I provided what amounted to a final statement.
That was an invitation for you to make a final statement, or to explicitly say you want this to continue, and clarify that you want this discussion to contineu ro some such, but instead you just pressed ahead with these questions that were bringing us in a similar direction.
Do you see my point?
@philokalia saidYou can skulk off at any moment of your choosing. So ~ to revisit something you have blanked out ~ a story about Jesus visiting a Muslim to explain He was a Prophet and not a Messiah and to warn that the true story of God has been misunderstood and misdirected, would that be an "historical account"?
You keep asking things in question form like this should continue.
@philokalia saidYou've offered an Appeal to Authority. That's it, is it? I don't see this as a circle we're moving in. It seems more like a straight line into an 'it's true because I say it's true [and others agree with me]' cul-de-sac.
But I feel like our discussion is going in circles, thus I provided what amounted to a final statement.