Narrow path.....

@whodey

So a narrow focus then?

A definite focus.

The principle of the kingdom people in Matthew is that they are strict towards themselves yet accommodating toward others.

This requires to live by the indwelling Person of Jesus Christ. This is opposite of most people's attitude.

Our way is usually to be merciful towards ourselves yet exacting towards other people.

The narrow way is strict towards yourself and merciful towards others.

@sonship said
This requires to live by the indwelling Person of Jesus Christ. This is opposite of most people's attitude.

Who in this community can be seen to be living "by the indwelling Person of Jesus Christ"? There simply seems to be nobody. Look at you and your character, the noxious Eladar, the incessantly deceitful whodey, the hapless prideful KellyJay, the creepy Romans1008 and dj2becker, ridiculous bovver-boy SecondSon, far-right extremist philokalia, the laugably pretentious and sneering lemon lime, and so on. Where can any observer see any signs whatsoever of people "living by the indwelling Person of Jesus Christ"? Why is it seemingly invisible? Why does it not manifest itself in your behaviour here?

@fmf said
A direct answer to my question would be more interesting.

How was my answer not direct?

Are you suggesting that the only "direct" answer would be one that agrees with the premise that these are folk tales?

@philokalia said
How was my answer not direct?

Are you suggesting that the only "direct" answer would be one that agrees with the premise that these are folk tales?

Are the stories about long dead monks and Turkish soldiers verifiableand are they part of your canon? No. How come a writer of a non-historical account can "know" and "judge" who goes to "Heaven" while nobody else - including you - can?

@philokalia said
the premise that these are folk tales?

One story is about "the angels [who] came to bring him to heaven" and the other is about "the angels [who] also came for him". You seriously believe these are historically accurate accounts and should not be described as folktales?

@philokalia said
How was my answer not direct?

Because my question was specifically about how the writer was able to "know" and "judge" and why someone like you is not able to "know" and "judge". You just sidestepped it.

The source for the man who drank at Mt. Athos was St. Paisios and there is an account here:

https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2012/03/elder-paisios-and-alcoholic-monk.html

And some analysis of it here:

https://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com/2012/03/tragedy-of-untreated-alcoholic-monk.html

St. Paisios is still sometimes referred to as Elder Paisios as he died in 1994 and was only recognzied as a Saint somewhat recently. He is recognized by a Saint in the Greek Orthodox Church now. Recognition of Sainthood can be more informal, though.

The story of the monk who never judged comes from St. Nikolai Velimirovich on his work on the lives of Saints.

https://iconandlight.wordpress.com/2017/03/14/never-condemn-each-otherst-seraphim-of-sarov/

This is perhaps based off of someone that St. Nikolai himself knew. He was a 19th century monk.

These are very authorative stories from Saints. There is no way that I have any insights that go beyond them.

@philokalia said
The source for the man who drank at Mt. Athos was St. Paisios and there is an account here:

https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2012/03/elder-paisios-and-alcoholic-monk.html

And some analysis of it here:

https://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com/2012/03/tragedy-of-untreated-alcoholic-monk.html

St. Paisios is still sometimes referred to as Elder Paisios as he died ...[text shortened]... very authorative stories from Saints. There is no way that I have any insights that go beyond them.

"Very authoritative"? How on earth can anyone know that "Elder Paisios" went to "Heaven"?

@divegeester said
Asked by who?

Obviously my question did not meet with standards laid down by no1marauder and to which philokalia keeps telling us he has signed up to.

It was actually not a story about St. Paisios himself. Rather, it is a story that he recounted.

In regards to your general attitude on this... Sure, you may not accept any of these things as true or having had happened, and as you do not accept the truth value we ascribe to Christ, why would I be surprised that you do not accept the trusworthiness and truth value I give to Sts. Nikolai & Paisios. That's fine.

My only point in doing this is to show you and all of our readers that the stories that I have recounted here are from Orthodox Saints and thus are credible and integral parts of Orthodox thoughts on the topic at hand.

@philokalia said
It was actually not a story about St. Paisios himself. Rather, it is a story that he recounted.

In regards to your general attitude on this... Sure, you may not accept any of these things as true or having had happened, and as you do not accept the truth value we ascribe to Christ, why would I be surprised that you do not accept the trusworthiness and truth val ...[text shortened]... Orthodox Saints and thus are credible and integral parts of Orthodox thoughts on the topic at hand.

What a ridiculous 'appeal to authority'. And here's the unanswered question: How on earth can anyone know that "Elder Paisios" went to "Heaven"?

Or is your answer simply along the lines of 'because you believe it to be so' or because 'you say so and a very authoritative source agrees with you'?

The original relevance of both Saints is found simply in the stories illustrating the importance of forgiveness and the relativity of moral status and accomplishments when we are talking about going to heaven and "the narrow path."

Certainly, Orthodox Saints are relevant to any question of interpreting the Bible and the Christian way of life, and what doing the right thing means, "walking the narrow path," wouldn't you say?

... As for switching topics as to whether or not these people are actually in heaven, well, that actually isn't relevant to this topic exactly, right? That is besides the point.

I didn't actually come to this thread to try to prove that these people literally ascended into heaven -- it would be rather fruitless to try to prove something like that when we cannot evne prove God to those who have hardened their hearts against Him.

@philokalia said
As for switching topics as to whether or not these people are actually in heaven, well, that actually isn't relevant to this topic exactly, right? That is besides the point.

It's the only "point" you tried to make, so if you now seek to declare it "besides the point" that's a bit odd.

Do you think these folktales - for that is clearly what they are - provide evidence or proof of anything?

@philokalia said
I didn't actually come to this thread to try to prove that these people literally ascended into heaven

You declared them to be very authoritative sources supporting the fact that angels came to take the monks to "Heaven".

FMF, does every single thread in Spirituality have to go back to providing basic arguments for the existence of God and the existence of Heaven?

Isn't that a bit tedious?