New Posts

seeking.IAM · 2025-11-17T07:23:53-0600

Paidiske said:
All because he couldn't figure out how to cope with not liking the colour of paint that parish council chose!

There are some problems improved communication is not going to solve. Things like this may be one of them.

d taylor · 2025-11-17T06:58:57-0600

ChubbyCherub said:
Yes, 100%.

It is this scripture that worried me: 1 John 3:6-10, 'No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are,'

-

Do Born Again People Sin? – 1 John 3:9 – Grace Evangelical Society

fhansen · 2025-11-17T06:56:46-0600

Dan1988 said:
Matthew 25:31-46: The parable of the sheep and the goats, which results in the goats being sent into "eternal punishment" and the sheep into "eternal life".

Revelation 20:12-15: Describes the final judgment where the dead are judged and those not found in the book of life are cast into the lake of fire.

Matthew 13:42 and 25:30: Speak of "weeping and gnashing of teeth".

Mark 9:43-48: Refers to "unquenchable fire" and the "worm that does not die".

Isaiah 66:24: Mentions the "worm" and the "fire" in a way that is used to describe the eternal nature of punishment.

Luke 16:23-24: Describes Lazarus and the rich man in Hades, with the rich man crying out in "torment" and begging for water.

Matthew 10:28: States that God can "destroy both soul and body in hell".

So, are you just avoiding the question here, or what? Does hell involve the absence of God’s presence, as maintained in 2 Thess, or not?

Lost4words · 2025-11-17T06:46:56-0600

Keras, you have got it all wrong. Your 'interpretation' of scripture is extremely wide of the mark....

Job 33:6 · 2025-11-17T06:34:11-0600

Always in His Presence said:
I didn't say he coined the name only that he distanced himself because not one of his promises about the ACA came true

You can keep you plan - wrong

You can keep your doctor - Wrong

Health insurance cost will go down - Wrong

Here is the truth:

Premiums have increased by 80%.

From 2010 to 2023, the average premium for family coverage increased 80%, from just over $13,000 to nearly $24,000.

Total healthcare costs for a family of four now exceed $30,000 per year—increasing from $18,000 per year when Obamacare was passed.

Deductibles have increased over 50% since Obamacare was implemented in 2013.

Remember this beauty?

Boston on October 30, 2013, President Obama promoted the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and emphasized its affordability. He stated that “for many Americans, health insurance will cost less than the cost of your cell phone bill or cable bill.”

The ACA has decreased costs for million of Americans. The job is simply incomplete.

Universal healthcare is the best system because it ensures that everyone, regardless of income, job status, or health history, can access essential medical care without facing financial ruin, leading to earlier treatment, fewer preventable deaths, and a healthier overall population. Countries with universal systems consistently achieve longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, and lower per-capita costs than nations without it, because universal coverage emphasizes preventive care, cost control, and streamlined administration instead of expensive emergency-only treatment. It also strengthens the workforce and economy by keeping people healthier, reducing medical bankruptcy, and giving employers relief from rising insurance burdens. In short, universal healthcare delivers better health outcomes, more fairness, and greater economic efficiency than systems that tie care to ability to pay.

Every major country that uses universal healthcare, France, Germany, Canada, Japan etc. All receive healthcare at a fraction of the cost that we do, and they all have better health outcomes and in most, if not all cases, longer average lifespans.

Country - per capita healthcare cost, and whether or not they use universal healthcare:

United States~ $14,880 per person
No — the U.S. does not have universal health care coverage

Germany~ $8,000
Yes — universal, multi-payer system with statutory insurance.

Switzerland~ $8,000
Yes — mandatory private insurance for all residents.

Norway~ $9,300–10,000
Yes — tax-funded universal coverage.

France~ $6,900
Yes — universal health insurance plus complementary private insurance.

Canada~ $6,800–6,900
Yes — government-funded universal coverage for medically necessary services.

Australia~ $6,800 (2022)
Yes — Medicare system provides universal access.

United Kingdom~ $5,000–5,500 (2022) (OECD mid‑range)
Yes — National Health Service (NHS) provides universal care.

Japan~ $5,400–5,500 (2022)
Yes — universal coverage via mandatory statutory insurance.

Netherlands~ $7,300 (2022)
Yes — universal system, mostly via regulated private insurance.

Collectively it's much cheaper to have taxes fund a streamlined and efficient universal option, over us paying directly into expensive and disjointed private health insurers.

Normandt · 2025-11-17T05:55:51-0600

Homily Tuesday, November 18 2025

33rd OT

2M 6:18-31

"I’m suffering it with joy in my soul because of my devotion to the Lord."

Let us live each day in joy. This is a good practice for the more difficult, painful moments.

Lk 19:1-10

Jesus says: "Zacchaeus, come down quickly; for today I must stay at your house."

Let us replace Zacchaeus's name with our own:

"(Name), come down quickly; today I must stay at your house."

Jesus is really saying: (Name), come down quickly within yourself, in peace and joy; I am in your house, in your heart.

With this joy and peace, my Love will touch the hearts of those around you.

Biblical texts: NAB-RE

Normand Thomas.

RainySunflower · 2025-11-17T05:14:02-0600

No you don't.

After seeing current status of Israel, I doubt this war will last next ~ 120 years.

That 7 year peace agreement from Daniel is going to be sign very very soon - and that means we are out of this planet. ^^

So : agree to dissagree. ^^

.

BelieveItOarKnot · 2025-11-17T04:59:18-0600

eleos1954 said:
2 Thessalonians 2:8

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

I think we can be reasonably assured that Jesus wasn't and isn't a SUNSPOT, don't you?

Christsfreeservant · 2025-11-17T04:09:16-0600

CoreyD · 2025-11-17T03:46:12-0600

childeye 2 said:
NOT giving in to wrong desires requires knowing they are wrong desires and why. So now knowledge comes into play, not subjectively but objectively true information. And it's true that knowledge makes us more responsible in the sense we know better. But wouldn't it be better said that we make our own decisions to NOT DO what is wrong because we Love others? Wouldn't it be better to thank God for the brotherly love that causes us to act responsibly without deliberating <-- Here is where the will/way/want is not manifested by the ability to choose otherwise, but through brotherly Love <--God's Way.

Would you say one's conscience gives them subjective knowledge?
How does one gain objective knowledge?

childeye 2 said:
First off, when Paul says Adam was not deceived, I don't think Paul is meaning to point out that Adam knew what he was doing because Adam knew God told him not to eat because he would surely die. I say that because Paul would have known that the woman also knew that too, because she said, "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die".

What we think isn't relevant.
Paul made a contrast between one person being deceived, and the other not.
That points out that one person - Adam - made a choice to do what was wrong, without being misled.
When someone is not misled into doing something wrong, but they do it, is it deliberate - done with or marked by full consciousness of the nature and effects; intentional, and willful - done in a manner which was intended?

The choice to do what is wrong without being misled
Choosing to do what is wrong while fully aware of its moral implications—knowing it is wrong and still proceeding—is a deliberate act of moral failure. This choice is often described as a conscious violation of one's own ethical standards or principles, and it reflects a decision made despite knowing the correct course of action. In ethical frameworks, such a decision may be analyzed through the lens of consequences, rules, or character. For instance, someone might refrain from lying because they believe it leads to bad outcomes , or because they follow a rule that demands honesty , or because they identify as an honest person. Choosing to act wrongly in spite of these considerations indicates a prioritization of personal interest, emotion, or bias over moral duty.

The decision to do wrong is not merely a mistake or a lapse in judgment; it is a choice made with full knowledge of the right alternative. This awareness can intensify the moral weight of the action, as it involves a willful disregard for truth, fairness, or the well-being of others.

childeye 2 said:
So some theologians tend to take it out of context and think Paul is saying Adam deliberately, willfully disobeyed of his own initiative (which is a different sentiment than Adam knew God told him not to eat or he would surely die), in other words they suggest that Paul is inferring rebellion by saying Adam was not deceived.

Can you provide a reference where some theologians take this out of context.

childeye 2 said:
I have already shown how that mischaracterization of Paul's intended sentiments ends in a contradiction of reasoning. Here it is-> It would mean that Paul is saying that the woman, who was deceived/tricked into disobeying God, should follow the lead of the man who knowingly and deliberately rebelled against God. That would be like saying we should follow those leaders who knowingly and willfully rebel against God.

Tricked into disobeying God?
How was Eve tricked?

Deceived does not necessarily mean tricked.
For example,, one who deceives their own mind, does not trick their mind.
They just convince themselves of something they believe... or want to believe.
Deceiving one's own mind refers to the psychological process of self-deception, where an individual convinces themselves of a belief they know or believe to be false, often to avoid discomfort, maintain self-esteem, or rationalize behavior.

It wasn't like Eve didn't know what God told her. She knew.
When Satan said, “Did God really say you must not eat the fruit from any of the trees in the garden?” Insinuating that God was wickedly withholding something good from them.
Eve responded... “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”
Satan's approach was deceptive... a cunning way to sow suspicion and doubt.

Eve believed the lie. She believed what was false, to be true. The Bible doesn't say she was tricked into believing.
A person can chew over doubts and fatten suspicion, by entertaining a thought.

However, it was Satan's intent to mislead her, so I am not going to make this a subject of argument, as it's "small potatoes" and would detract from the main point... which is, that Adam was not misled into believing the lie.
That's what it means to be deceived. Deceive - To cause to believe what is not true; mislead

childeye 2 said:
Given that the Genesis account does not depict the serpent talking to Adam, Paul is probably simply inferring that the woman was the one deceived by the serpent, not the man. It is remarkable that nowhere else in scripture that I know of, is it mentioned or implied that Adam was not deceived or not misled in some way by the woman and that he willfully rebelled against God.

Probably?

Remarkable? Why... because you think something you believe is probably true?

childeye 2 said:
On the other hand, it's possible that Adam knew what he was doing and was NOT deceived, because he could have wanted to die with Eve rather than live without her which would not mean he had a rebellious spirit against God.

Could have?
Let's be clear... If you think you are not speculating, please check the dictionary for the word speculate.
Then let's end this conversation, if speculation is all you think we have to go on, because it's no use using the scriptures if nothing can be established from them.

childeye 2 said:
It's possible he could have decided to die with Eve rather than live without her. Assuming he wouldn't choose to eat and die had she not eaten in the first place, the circumstances would qualify as an antecedent event, wherein he might have felt forced to volunteer to die with her,

Possible?
Assuming?
Might have?
Okay, moving on.

childeye 2 said:
This is an adjective not a noun. It's talking about a voluntarily action i.e. "acting on one's own accord" I'm not saying such willful sinful actions can't occur like in Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26. I would note that these scriptures are speaking more rhetorical, as warnings. I won't call such a will that wants to be ruled by sin a free will, because I want to show free as objectively positive in God's Way. The bible also shows actions that occur NOT of one's own accord. Primarily through believing things that are untrue and reasoning upon them as if they were true.

You just said

This is an adjective not a noun. It's talking about a voluntarily action i.e. "acting on one's own accord" I'm not saying such willful sinful actions can't occur

Then you, in the same breath, turn around and say

I won't call such a will that wants to be ruled by sin a free will

"Such a will" is a noun, which I don't see mentioned in Hebrews 6:4-6
Unless you are referring to "sinning willfully" mentioned in Hebrews 10:26, which is describing having the ability to willingly sin or not - that is choosing of one's own accord, or one's own free will, either to refrain from practicing sin, or practicing sin... is actually free will.

It's not describing a will. It's not a noun. It's describing a voluntary action, which is exactly an adjective. Which is exactly what I started with.
The Greek word hekousios - meaning free will, is the neuter of a derivative from hekon; voluntariness -- willingly, which is (an adjective, a primitive term) – properly, willing; "unforced, of one's own will, voluntary" (J. Thayer), i.e. acting on one's own accord. The root (hek-) emphasizes intentional, deliberate action (choice), i.e. "of free-will" (J. Thayer).

If a person can refrain from sinning willfully or give into sinning willfully - one or the other, that person has free will.
Why do you not accept that?

zoidar · 2025-11-17T03:38:34-0600

Dikaioumenoi said:
So you're conflating two different elements of the Greek pointed out in what you yourself quoted. The corporate plural is in reference to sins, not to the scope of the saved. The future indicative σώσει guarantees that all individuals encompassed by "His people" are saved, not merely that the group as a collective survives in some abstract sense. The grammar does not allow partial fulfillment here. The corporate plural of the sins only tells us how the sins are counted; it does not redefine the scope of the salvation promised.

Like I argued in my recent post it has nothing to do with "abstract sense", it's prophetic promise to the covenant Jewish Israel. We see this language in the OT. We understand sematically, it's the faithful among the covenant Israel that will be saved from sin, but it's not explictly stated in Matt 1:21.

Dikaioumenoi said:
Even if the phrase historically refers to Israel, that does not determine what Matthews means in context.

I don't see how you get the context to mean the elect among Jews and Gentiles. I see nothing like that, quite the opposite.

Dikaioumenoi said:
Matt. 1:21 defines the referent by the nature of the salvation promised. The angel promises redemptive salvation from sin, not national deliverance. You've conceded that much, but that concession eliminates an ethnic reading. Once the salvation is spiritual and effectual, the referent cannot remain merely national. A nation can experience political or covenantal privilege, but it cannot, as a collective entity, be forgiven of sin apart from the individuals who compose it.

You seem totally disregard the OT covenant language. Of course the nation Israel can't be forgiven apart from the individuals it's composed of. But we see from OT covenant language, it does not mean all people of the Covenant Israel are effected by the statement "save from sin".

Christsfreeservant · 2025-11-17T03:30:05-0600

“Your word is a lamp to my feet

And a light to my path.

I have sworn and I will confirm it,

That I will keep Your righteous ordinances.” (Psalm 119:105-106 NASB1995)

If we believe in Jesus Christ to be Lord and Savior of our lives, this is what our faith should look like. The Word of God (the Scriptures) should be our delight. The Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit living with us, should be what are guiding our lives, giving us direction, and showing us the way in which we are to walk (in conduct, in practice). They should be our daily “bread and butter,” i.e. our daily sustenance for living. We cannot live without them.

Sadly, that is not being taught much these days. So many have reduced the gospel message to a mere verbal confession of faith in Jesus Christ which does not put sin to death in the life of the sinner, and which makes no requirements for obedience to our Lord’s commands in holy living. Thus, the teachings of the Scriptures are often being taught out of context to make them say what they do not say in context, and many are being led astray.

Therefore, a daily digest of the Scriptures, taught in context, is not being stressed much, either. Too many people are relying on the teachings of other humans in place of the teachings of Christ and his New Testament apostles. Too many are relying upon short little devotions often taught from Scriptures out of context to be their “daily bread,” i.e. their daily sustenance for living, and they are not being taught the importance of studying the Scriptures.

But reading the Scriptures ourselves is also not to be just a daily ritual we go through so that we can say that we read them. But we must be putting what we are reading into daily practice, providing that what we are reading is intended of God for us who believe in Jesus Christ. For example, we are not under the Old Covenant liturgical, ceremonial, sacrificial, purification, circumcision, dietary, and Sabbath laws. But we are still under God’s laws.

The New Covenant God has with us who believe in Jesus Christ is not lawless. His commands to us who believe in Jesus are all throughout the New Testament writings. And we are taught under the New Covenant that if we do not make obedience to God our practice, but if sin is still our practice, that, unless we repent (turn from our sin to obey God) we will not inherit eternal life with God, regardless of what professions of faith we make.

[Matthew 7:13-14,21-23; Luke 9:23-26; John 10:27-30; Acts 26:18; Romans 1:18-32; Romans 2:5-10; Romans 3:23; Romans 6:1-23; Romans 8:1-14; 1 Corinthians 10:1-22; Galatians 5:16-24; Ephesians 2:8-10; Ephesians 4:17-32; Ephesians 5:3-6; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 3:1-19; Hebrews 4:1-13; Hebrews 10:19-39; Hebrews 12:1-2; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 1:1-10; 1 John 2:3-6; 1 John 3:4-10; Revelation 2:1-29; Revelation 3:1-22]

So, this is not something to be taken lightly. The Word of God and the guidance of the Holy Spirit living within us should be what are directing our steps and guiding us in our decision making processes on a day to day basis. They are to be our “GPS,” i.e. our navigation system for daily living so that we walk in the way that is right and so that we do not end up going the wrong direction and getting lost in the cares and the traps of this world.

So, if you believe in Jesus Christ, and you have made him Lord of your life, then make His Word the lamp to your feet and the light for your path. Be dedicated to the study of the Scriptures (taught in the correct biblical context) and to putting the teachings of the Scriptures into daily practice in your lives, guided by the Holy Spirit living within you. And walk in the ways of the Lord in being and in doing what he has for you to be and to do.

His Tender Mercies

An Original Work / January 26, 2014
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

Fear not! I’m with you.
Be not dismayed!
God watches o’er you.
Trust Him today.
He’ll lead and guide you;
Give you His aid.
He’ll love and keep you
With Him always.

Walk in His footsteps.
He’ll lead the way.
Trust in His love;
Believe that He cares.
He will not leave you.
Faithful He’ll be.
His tender mercies
Now you will see.

Fellowship with Him
Throughout the day.
Tell Him your heartaches.
He’ll heal always.
Rest in His comfort.
He is your friend.
Your faith He’ll strengthen,
True to the end.

Login to view embedded media
A Light to My Path
An Original Work / November 17, 2025
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

RamiC · 2025-11-17T03:27:03-0600

Jesus please connect Rescued One with the company of people who need things she can give and can give her the things she needs.

Fervent · 2025-11-17T03:00:00-0600

Mark Quayle said:
So you really can't answer the question, of how anything can come about without God intending it to come about. You've got a bunch of little first causes trotting about the planet, and God being reactionary, instead of God being the source of fact, and humans being some of those facts. The authority of Chance governs your world.

Your strawman is unpersuasive, at the very least. And your question only makes sense in your framework, so there is no need for me to answer it since I reject your framework.

Mark Quayle said:
I am curious to see your logic in the term, "self-contradictory nature of determinism." How is determinism self-contradictory? Try to be careful, for my sake, to give us a consistent definition for 'determinism'.

It is quite simple, if determinism is true then it would be impossible for anyone to come to believe in determinism of their own accord. And the ability to reject determinism is then a demonstration of the falsity of determinism, so by affirming free will I am showing determinism to be false. And I'm not playing your silly semantic games, we both know full well what we mean by free will and determinism.

Servus · 2025-11-17T01:50:30-0600

MarkSB said:
I fail to see how that is a response to what I posted. It’s just more denial an deflection.

Someone being rude to me isn't going to prompt me to have a discussion with them.

biblelesson · 2025-11-17T01:41:41-0600

d taylor said:
-

Well what about you not adding into accounts in The Bible parts that are not actually there. As an example, take you saying the people in Matthew 7:23 had believed in Jesus for eternal life. When there is not a singe sentence saying these people had believed in Jesus for eternal life. The only thing the verses say is they did thing in the name of Jesus and that is not the same as believing in The Name of Jesus for eternal life.

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

An example of a contemporary day Matthew 7, would be people who say they went to church in the name of Jesus, or were baptized in the name of Jesus, or repented of their sins in the name of Jesus, etc.... But never actually did believe in the person Jesus, for Eternal Life.

The people in Matthew did believe they would receive salvation in Christ. This is why Jesus spoke this parable, because a lot of people think they are going to receive eternal life because they say they believe on Jesus. These people were saying to Jesus because of what they did, they should receive eternal life. They think if they feed the poor, give to the needy, keep the sabbath day, and even keep the feast days, as some do, their salvation in Jesus is secure. These people strongly believe that doing those things makes them righteous, and their own righteousness saves them unto eternal life. But without the Holy Spirit in us, we cannot be saved no matter how much we profess to believe in Jesus. It is not of works, but God’s Grace we are saved.

I know a person who said they only believe certain things in the Bible because men wrote the Bible - they believe they have the right to dismiss large portions of the Bible, but this person professes to be a Christian and believe in Jesus and goes to church every Sunday. They will argue they should receive eternal life.

ChubbyCherub · 2025-11-17T01:24:13-0600

I needed to read this today. I am having a moment of uncertainty, myself, and came here for assistance.

So many of you sound like me and it's so comforting to know that what I am going through might be a normal part of the journey towards living more like Christ and less like a flawed human.

I was so scared and have found some peacefulness here and I really appreciate the OP for posting their struggle and all the responses.

God bless

bob121 · 2025-11-17T01:14:06-0600

stevevw said:
Yeah I will try and find what I have written or finish it. I lost intereswt for a while but started up again. I think we all need some creative outlet. I always think getting back to nature can also bring that spiritual aspect and gives inspiration.

Nothing like gazing up at the night sky out in the country where there is no light pollution. Then you certainly realise theres something beyond. I think this is our spiritual side or our consciousness of God through phenomenal experiences that takes us to this place where our soul exists.

Steve, keep strumming and keep looking up—those country-night skies are a cathedral without walls.
Every chord you chase and every star you catch is an echo of the same vastness: we can’t bottle God, but we can let art and night-air carry our wonder back to Him.
Press on—your next note might be the one that helps someone else hear the “something beyond.”

GodAndChocolateVanilla · 2025-11-17T01:08:38-0600

I'm so grateful to God that the Library exists!! ^w^

Bradskii · 2025-11-17T00:04:12-0600

rambot said:
"Real American voters"....don't care if Trump raped girls?

What a condemnation this will be to the people who take up this flag and fight the release.

Prepare yourself for the screeching of tyres and the smell of burning rubber as all those who argued against the files being released now read Trump's latest U turn and do a similar 180.

Trump tells Republicans to vote to release Epstein files, in a reversal of his previous stance

The US president has said he backs US lawmakers efforts to release the files, ahead of an expected House vote this week

www.theguardian.com

'The US president has said he backs US lawmakers efforts to release the files, ahead of an expected House vote this week.

US president Donald Trump has urged his fellow Republicans in Congress to vote for the release of files related to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, reversing his earlier resistance to such a move.'

So, do you support the release of the files, or not?
Umm, well...I do. Well, I did. Until I didn't. So now I think I do. Until of course I don't.

Konnie King · 2025-11-16T23:35:49-0600

The Oddball Couple

Hans Blaster · 2025-11-16T23:23:58-0600

stevevw said:
Gee now you spoiled the nice picture I had in my head lol.

Then they are knobs. But then a lot of knobs are coming out of Universities at the moment.

How am I making an excuse when I did not know what it meant lol. I just thought blood and soil means American soil and blood was the fighting for that soil. Which I linked to the American civil war and the fight for establishing the nation as a democracy.

It's literally a thread about Nazis at Harvard. Why are you suprised that Hitler slogans appeared.

stevevw said:
Though there are extremists that doesn't mean they are Hitlers. Its not about Trump but the same MO keeps popping up that everyones a fascists or Nazi. Or white supremacist.

No, just the actual Nazis and fascists.

stevevw said:
Its like a self fullfilling phenomena. Say it enough and it becomes reality.

Thou doth protest too much.

lucypevensie · 2025-11-16T22:24:21-0600

Now I know Rob understands.

ROBIN

The Liturgist · 2025-11-16T21:47:49-0600

jas3 said:
I'm trying to understand how what the Pilgrim engages in isn't imaginative prayer. In chapter 2, when he's spending the summer in the forester's hut, he achieves self-acting prayer in the heart as follows:

"I set about reading The Philokalia in the exact order [my starets] had bidden. I read it once, and again a second time, and this reading kindled in my soul a zealous desire to make what I had read a matter of practical experience. I saw clearly what interior prayer means, how it is to be reached, what the fruits of it are, how it filled one's heart and soul with delight, and how one could tell whether that delight came from God, from nature or from temptation.
"So I began by searching out my heart in the way Simeon the New Theologian teaches. With my eyes shut I gazed in thought, i.e., in imagination, upon my heart. I tried to picture it there in the left side of my breast and to listen carefully to its beating. I started doing this several times a day, for half an hour at a time, and at first I felt nothing but a sense of darkness. But little by little after a fairly short time I was able to picture my heart and to note its movement, and further with the help of my breathing I could put into it and draw from it the Prayer of Jesus in the manner taught by the saints, Gregory of Sinai, Callistus and Ignatius. When drawing the air in I looked in spirit into my heart and said, 'Lord Jesus Christ,' and when breathing out again, I said, 'Have mercy on me.' " (emphasis mine)

This looks to me like he's imagining his heart while praying the Jesus Prayer. However, later in the book, in chapter 4, he cautions a fellow traveler, who has gone blind in his old age, against imaginative prayer, even as he instructs him in how to achieve self-acting interior prayer via imagination:

" '...can you not picture your hand or your foot as clearly as if you were looking at it, can you not turn your eyes to it and fix them upon it, blind as they are?'
" 'Yes, I can,' he answered.
" 'Then picture to yourself your heart in just the same way, turn your eyes to it just as though you were looking at it through your breast, and picture it as clearly as you can. And with your ears listen closely to its beating, beat by beat. When you have got into the way of doing this, begin to fit the words of the Prayer to the beats of the heart one after the other, looking at it all the time. Thus, with the first beat, say or think "Lord," with the second, "Jesus," with the third, "Christ," with the fourth, "have mercy," and with the fifth "on me." And do it over and over again. This will come easily to you, for you already know the groundwork and the first part of praying with the heart. Afterwards, when you have grown used to what I have just told you about, you must begin bringing the whole Prayer of Jesus into and out of your heart in time with your breathing, as the Fathers taught. Thus, as you draw your breath in, say, or imagine yourself saying, "Lord Jesus Christ," and as you breathe out again, "have mercy on me." Do this as often and as much as you can, and in a short space of time you will feel a slight and not unpleasant pain in your heart, followed by a warmth. Thus by God's help you will get the joy of self-acting inward prayer of the heart. But then, whatever you do, be on your guard against imagination and any sort of visions. Don't accept any of them whatever, for the holy Fathers lay down most strongly that inward prayer should be kept free from visions, lest one fall into temptation.' "

How is this picturing of the heart while saying the Jesus Prayer distinct from using imagination in prayer?

Well, that’s a good question, a valid question, and the answer is, its probably not. It should be noted that The Way of the Pilgrim is popular devotional literature, but it never had the official standing of The Philokalia, and concerning it, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware remarked that the protagonist received the gift of unceasing prayer unusually quickly. It has also been recommended by many bishops to laity who wish to pursue hesychasm that they not attempt to do so without direction from a qualified elder, such as an accomplished monastic at a monastery like that of St. Tikhon, the main OCA monastery, or in California, their monastery of St. John Maximovitch or St. Barbara, Abbot Tryphon on Vashon Island, Holy Trinity in Jordanville, St. John the Baptist founded by Elder Sophronius in Essex in the UK, or the Athonite-style monasteries of Elder Ephraim across the US such as St. Anthony’s in Florence, AZ, or the monasteries on the Holy Mountain themselves.

Otherwise regarding the Prayer of Jesus, which can be said without persuing hesychasm, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov wrote a book about it, On The Prayer of Jesus, which should be regarded as an official and legitimate Orthodox document for laity published by the Russian Orthodox Church in the 19th century after the surge in popular interest in Hesychasm engendered by The Way of the Pilgrim.

I have this book, and would encourage any Orthodox laic who wants to practice the Jesus Prayer to obtain it with the blessing of their priest, for it was written specifically with the laity in mind. And also, obviously one should review their prayer rule with their priest, and also find out what their priest thinks about this issue, since between the different Orthodox traditions one might find slight differences of approach, and it makes sense as a general rule to use the one your priest knows.

New Posts

New Posts

2 Thessalonians 2:8​

​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

2 Thessalonians 2:8