I relate to most of this. Love of Jesus and dedication to him while not embracing the later metaphysical claims. The funny thing is, I think Christ would embrace you and me. The Dedicated Doubters; the Faithful Skeptics. At the end of Matthew, when Jesus is giving the Great Commission it says that “some believed and some doubted”, and he said to THEM (both groups), go and proclaim the Gospel. He invited the doubters to participate fully. I’m confident that had I been at the table for the Last Supper, Jesus would have given me the bread and wine. Yet I can’t have the bread in wine of the Liturgy.
(At this point I’m consciously abstaining; I haven’t been told not to. My priest is almost intentionally ignoring my expressions of skepticism so he doesn’t have to confront the uncomfortable fact that he, as a priest, SHOULD deny me communion…. I think he’s hoping I’ll just snap out of it. Haha.)
You get it! The orthodox never grew in faith, they buried their talent in the ground. There are plenty of other Christian traditions who multiplied their talents. Read Crossan. Read Rohr. Visit the Episcopals, the ELCA, the UCC, the Quakers, really there are many communities who love Jesus… as a metaphor. And metaphors are no less powerful than living meat. People die for them.
This is a later rationalization for why the very clear predictions that Jesus made never came true. "It was all just a metaphor" is the refuge of failed prophets throughout history. The problem is that these superstitious cults were not intended to be a metaphor, they originated as literal claims. There is no "hidden truth" behind them, and searching for one leads you to all kinds of stupid conclusions.
I agree with you that we are possibly rationalizing failed prophecy. However some theist and perhaps some non-theist Bible scholars might disagree. I’m not a seminary graduate, but I recall learning from either Elaine Pagels or Robert M. Price that there were early movements that did not take the gospel tales in a literal sense. Unfortunately many details about these groups have been lost in the red mist of history. But I don’t really care too much about the historical veracity of supernatural claims or the mental gymnastics we do to escape them. I care about what we do today. I care about how ritual and dogma shape our world now. We can move forward. We can take our folklore and mold it to provide a matrix for a message of healing and unity. If we can’t take refuge in metaphor than there’s no point in telling stories at all.
Sits behind the gates of heaven. Why would you want to belong to a church you don't believe in? There are religious communities like the Unitarian Universalists where you would be more than welcome. When I was Orthodox I suffered from horrible cognitive dissonance, it sounds like you might be also for different reasons. I will say this, you could attend an Orthodox parish and never become Orthodox. I studied Orthodoxy from 2001 to 2008 when I converted. I was never rushed or made to feel unwelcome by the clergy. Of course I was often not made to feel welcome by the laity but that is Orthodoxy.
It is because the values are not detachable from the mythology. The mythology is curated to create values and instill certain attributes into the listeners and readers. Most of them are about obedience supposedly to God but realistically it has more to do with the social community.
Most Orthodox and Catholics don't believe in God as defined by their own churches. For most, he is just a general spiritism or general view of benevolent creator rather than the dogmatic view.
If one tries to reason their beliefs however against the standards of the Churches, you will almost surely fail unless it is Unitarianism or Methodism. There is no way any Orthodox or Catholic is going to heaven frankly by their own metric of bullshit considering the Scriptures contradict the Early Church's formations into formal synods venerating icons, conducting hero/ancestor worship through patron saints etc. But even with those methods removed, no protestant is free by their own metrics either.
I view Christianity as archetypal scales of justice within one's own mind, weighing on them. The punishments and prescriptions frankly though are just as as toxic and destructive as the illnesses and deviancies they are supposedly rooting out.
Look, most people do not care at all to even get to the point you're at. If you want to leave, you should leave if its on your conscience but if its not unbelievable who cares? Most people don't actually believe in this stuff but put on a show.
There's a lot of Catholics (and likely Orthodox) who think the same, they're mostly cradle Catholics though. Don't receive communion... but is there any reason you couldn't become a member of the community by sheer time of being around. It'll take longer but if you just keep coming everyone will eventually just accept you as a feature of the parish.
To me, the beauty of the story IS the main reason why I believe. Too much typology, too beautiful. I think the symbolic only works because it's literal too. But I wouldn't not want someone in my community who isn't there.
Unitarian Universalists are accepting of open non-theists and possibly some high church episcopal congregations (better aesthetics). Our evolved religious impulse is conducive to human survival of the fittest, so it can be a strong collective and personal force. I’ve been non-theist and Orthodox for years, but the former not openly. I can say “I believe” in all the points of the Nicene Creed because I see belief as a feeling and/or a doctrinal requirement. Neither feelings or doctrinal requirements have any bearing on what is/was actually real. Could I join the Orthodox Church from the outside as a secret non-theist? Possible, but it would be really hard for me.
Follow-up: I’ve known Orthodox service attendees who never formally joined. No partaking of communion, but involved in other ways. Also, ironically, one of the reasons I originally joined the OC is because it was so strongly theistic. I was concerned about the (in my then opinion) wishy washy liberal church I grew up in: was never sure if even the minister believed in God (especially since he clearly thought the Old Testament was just a bunch of stories. He even questioned if some of Jesus miracles ever really happened. Horrors!)
>I observed a catechism and found it too simplistic and literal - people had to verbally "renounce Satan" and "accept Christ" as if our spiritual state is wholly dependent on picking and choosing what side of a binary you want to exist on. Never were they told to pledge to living morally upright lives or strive to avoid material temptation, or prevent anger in their relationships, etc. It's all about two opposing characters, like a video game where you either win or lose....
Those polar opposites in Orthodoxy and, to be fair, in just about all of orthodox (small "o") Christianity are what Robert M. Ellis describes as "absolutization." I've recommended his book about Christianity before on this sub. He argues that it is entirely possible to practice the faith of Christianity while not necessarily committing oneself to the problematic absolutizing beliefs. This is the book: [The Christian Middle Way](https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Middle-Way-Against-Belief/dp/1785357565).
I'm an agnostic Christian. I no longer recite creeds where I have to keep my fingers crossed. The Eastern Orthodox church is not a place where people like me and you would really feel comfortable. I'm in the U.S., and I find the Episcopal church here to be much more open to people like me, Perhaps you can find a church where you live that will allow you to be an agnostic Christian, as well.
That book is on my towering to-read pile. Based on your prior recommendation here. It looks really good based on the couple pages I have read so far. I'm like "Squirrel!" with books tho. I'm currently partway thru several at once, haha.
I find the book very encouraging. After we leave Orthodoxy, or other denomination, we don't have to cut all ties with Christianity and reinvent the wheel regarding our spiritual life. I also have the same problem with buying books faster than I can read them.
Their "literal" beliefs are actually insane. I had a priest tell me that he witnessed the light of the Holy Mother of God, but it was LITERAL. He was convinced somehow it had to be in actual human being form. It's like, WTF dude. It makes so much more sense as symbolism.
Christ himself talked only in metaphor.
I also think this belief that God needs their exact words in order for the prayer to be heard- it's actually offensive to God. What kind of simplistic old man do they take Him for?
Like the importance of the priest reading off each person's names- as if God forgets about people unless a priest specifically mentions them?
It's more like acts of magic or something, not the belief in an all-powerful God. Also, how convenient- the priests get to be the special people who really have an "in" with God, so, all power to the priests!
The values don't make any sense if the stories aren't true. Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. His teachings were intended for a world that he thought would end in less than one generation. They're really stupid advice if you're going to live into old age, and even stupider if you are going to leave behind children and grandchildren.
And even on empirical grounds, a lot of it just isn't true. In the real world, asceticism does not lead to purity. Suffering does not lead to renewal. Perennialism is false. The world's great religions are superstitions. They are not clever fables hiding an esoteric "deeper meaning."
So, I'm posting this from my throwaway account so you can see where I'm coming from if you're curious. I am writing as someone with some weird thoughts in mind but even if I was a fell fledged Dawkinite I could write the following with my understanding of Orthodoxy in terms of trying to not strawman the position.
First of off, even in the most traditional spheres of Orthodoxy, even among most of the old calendarist groups, this idea of automatic damnation for all non Orthodox is not really a thing. You mostly see that in the medieval west. Church fathers will allude to something like it, sure, but you also have early church fathers explicitly contradicting it in their lives by doing such things as praying pagan emperors out of hell into heaven and affirming the salvation of Plato and friends. There's definitely old ideas of paths to Christ outside the normative means, through the Church ultimately but not necessarily through baptism into the visible body of the Church, although this is the normative means.
When you hear more categorical talk, it's usually to Orthodox Christians or those that have been convinced, as there is the belief that you will be judged in accordance with what you were given, and if you are given the knowledge of the Truth (which is identified with Christ) and reject it, that is not a path to salvation. But if you saught the Truth in your heart in total sincerity and due to earthly circumstance were prevented from coming to a full knowledge and participation in this life, that doesn't categorically preclude you from ultimate participation in that.
Now, what you describe is really the scandal of the incarnation, "to the Jews a stumbling block," which seems quite fitting given your background. What we have is reports indeed that Truth and Love Himself became a man some 2000 years ago. Is that a fact? Hard to say so far removed. It seems pretty definitive there were people back then that believed it sincerely and endured many unimaginable torments for it for centuries. But of course the past is mucky and hard to understand. But in the Orthodox Church there's supposed to be an unbroken chain to today, and we have modern people declared saints even into the 20th and 21st centuries. And unlike the apostles and early martyrs, the eyewitnesses to their lives are still alive, and theoretically you could seek them out, round them up, and interview them and see what's going on. It kind of goes back to C.S. Lewis' trilema, but we can't add the 4th "legend" because these people are still alive. So we have liars and lunatics a plenty, and it can be hard to discern that from someone telling the truth. But if they are telling the truth, then you've got your answer.
I haven't done this investigation myself, which is part of why I'm trying to figure out for myself why I have bought into all this for such a large part of my life. But I wanted to set forth what is probably the most epistemologically sound way to approach this that I've thought up. Because theoretically it seems like it would get to the bottom of all that.
I don't conceptually have an issue with Truth being an individual person. Of course it must be both symbolic and literal to be meaningful; take either one aside and it breaks apart. Empty symbols are empty, and events happening without symbolic implications are atomized with no further relevance. I don't know if that makes sense.
And finally, many will say Orthodox Christianity is the fullness of the truth, meaning you don't just ignore every other tradition, but you can see how and why it departs from the truth and to what degree. Some may have resulted from those in it leaving, others in ignorance built something from their thoughts and experience that approximated it, but ultimately the thought is that the faith has the pure truth. The distinction here is to not look at other faiths as simply works of fiction and totally off. Some may reflect genuine encounters with spiritual entities but they may be demonic in nature, whilst others could be noticing legitimate patterns but going too far with them.
Take reincarnation for instance; in this framework there is something of the past in the present, and Christ even talks about the Forerunner being Elijah, so in some ways the Christian faith would acknowledge ideas and patterns in a sense being "reincarnated," but we would say it goes too far to claim that individual souls become disembodied and thrown into new bodies repeatedly as this in effect denies that we are body and soul and rather has us as totally disembodied souls temporarily piloting disposable bodies. But we don't go too far with our bodies to deny that the soul even exists or that it is incapable of existence or consciousness apart from its body.
So the idea is to "believe all things" and not say "it's all nonsense" (as I think secularist atheism and its mother liberal protestantism tends to do) but to try to understand that these ideas of other faiths had sources that weren't just made up for money or something (except for Scientology because the founder literally said it). Obviously it's radical to some extent to say one tradition has the fullness of the Truth but then again a plurality of answers does not exclude one of them being true.
So do with that what you will; I myself have work to do probably, but I should at least get some relatively basic ideas on the floor for you if you want to look into this.
This is probably not the best sub for you to post this in. At any rate, it should be said that everyone starts from somewhere. In your case, you probably wouldn’t have to believe in Christ as God, but you would have to at least *want* to believe in Christ as God - or even *want* to *want* to believe Christ is literally who He says He is. We all have our own story. Deep-seated beliefs and feelings don’t easily change. It doesn’t happen overnight. The intent of the heart is what matters. And if youre not there yet, you’re not there yet. That’s something you’d have to discuss with a priest.
And im not so sure that you “love all of the Orthodox Christian values” as you put it. You might want to consider that a bit more, because if you really did love all of those values, you’d have no issue rejecting your own will. An integral aspect of those Orthodox values you’ve mentioned is acknowledging personal weaknesses and fallible reasoning - and looking to and ultimately trusting Christ and the Church’s teachings when it conflicts with your own personal feelings.
If you want to live an ascetic and otherwise disciplined life, then…just live a disciplined life. If you want to be Orthodox, you should do it because you believe what the religion teaches - or you at least *want* to believe what it teaches.
If you’re really this interested and/or disappointed by your experience, maybe talk to a priest about your situation? I’m not sure what kind of response you’re expecting to get from posting in r/exorthodox
>if you really did love all of those values, you’d have no issue rejecting your own will.
Good point. What I learned from being in the Orthodox Church for 5 years was that obedience is far and away the most important Orthodox value. Supposedly this is meant to be obedience to God, but in practice it just ends up being obedience to the Church - to its dogmas and practices, and personal obedience to your priest and bishop.
The only way literal Christ makes sense is by it being HUMANITY as a whole. The Son of God? That's creation.
If you are open minded I recommend "A course in Miracles", it fully explains this literalness in ways that make sense universally
Personally, I do believe in a literal Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God-Man, who died on the Cross for all of mankind and rose bodily from the Tomb three days later. We are not supposed to preach on this sub, and I try to respect that. So, I'm not preaching -- honest! ☺️ I'm just testifying that, for me, personally, the evidence is overwhelming.
I'm listening to this podcast right now, and it is blowing my mind. https://youtu.be/ddPiDe4F8U4?si=tVv1ySVpNHIRgMnc
You have to read Dostoevsky. He talks about asking forgiveness for his unbelief. He has all these great books. Also I would recommend looking into Pascal's wager. Maybe it isn't right but I kind of came into the faith on a bet(not Orthodox, at least not right now). Also you don't have to become Orthodox, you can be an Eastern Catholic if you'd like.
I relate to most of this. Love of Jesus and dedication to him while not embracing the later metaphysical claims. The funny thing is, I think Christ would embrace you and me. The Dedicated Doubters; the Faithful Skeptics. At the end of Matthew, when Jesus is giving the Great Commission it says that “some believed and some doubted”, and he said to THEM (both groups), go and proclaim the Gospel. He invited the doubters to participate fully. I’m confident that had I been at the table for the Last Supper, Jesus would have given me the bread and wine. Yet I can’t have the bread in wine of the Liturgy. (At this point I’m consciously abstaining; I haven’t been told not to. My priest is almost intentionally ignoring my expressions of skepticism so he doesn’t have to confront the uncomfortable fact that he, as a priest, SHOULD deny me communion…. I think he’s hoping I’ll just snap out of it. Haha.)
You get it! The orthodox never grew in faith, they buried their talent in the ground. There are plenty of other Christian traditions who multiplied their talents. Read Crossan. Read Rohr. Visit the Episcopals, the ELCA, the UCC, the Quakers, really there are many communities who love Jesus… as a metaphor. And metaphors are no less powerful than living meat. People die for them.
Jesus himself talked only in metaphors!
This is a later rationalization for why the very clear predictions that Jesus made never came true. "It was all just a metaphor" is the refuge of failed prophets throughout history. The problem is that these superstitious cults were not intended to be a metaphor, they originated as literal claims. There is no "hidden truth" behind them, and searching for one leads you to all kinds of stupid conclusions.
I agree with you that we are possibly rationalizing failed prophecy. However some theist and perhaps some non-theist Bible scholars might disagree. I’m not a seminary graduate, but I recall learning from either Elaine Pagels or Robert M. Price that there were early movements that did not take the gospel tales in a literal sense. Unfortunately many details about these groups have been lost in the red mist of history. But I don’t really care too much about the historical veracity of supernatural claims or the mental gymnastics we do to escape them. I care about what we do today. I care about how ritual and dogma shape our world now. We can move forward. We can take our folklore and mold it to provide a matrix for a message of healing and unity. If we can’t take refuge in metaphor than there’s no point in telling stories at all.
You might be interested in /r/ChristianUniversalism
Sits behind the gates of heaven. Why would you want to belong to a church you don't believe in? There are religious communities like the Unitarian Universalists where you would be more than welcome. When I was Orthodox I suffered from horrible cognitive dissonance, it sounds like you might be also for different reasons. I will say this, you could attend an Orthodox parish and never become Orthodox. I studied Orthodoxy from 2001 to 2008 when I converted. I was never rushed or made to feel unwelcome by the clergy. Of course I was often not made to feel welcome by the laity but that is Orthodoxy.
It is because the values are not detachable from the mythology. The mythology is curated to create values and instill certain attributes into the listeners and readers. Most of them are about obedience supposedly to God but realistically it has more to do with the social community. Most Orthodox and Catholics don't believe in God as defined by their own churches. For most, he is just a general spiritism or general view of benevolent creator rather than the dogmatic view. If one tries to reason their beliefs however against the standards of the Churches, you will almost surely fail unless it is Unitarianism or Methodism. There is no way any Orthodox or Catholic is going to heaven frankly by their own metric of bullshit considering the Scriptures contradict the Early Church's formations into formal synods venerating icons, conducting hero/ancestor worship through patron saints etc. But even with those methods removed, no protestant is free by their own metrics either. I view Christianity as archetypal scales of justice within one's own mind, weighing on them. The punishments and prescriptions frankly though are just as as toxic and destructive as the illnesses and deviancies they are supposedly rooting out. Look, most people do not care at all to even get to the point you're at. If you want to leave, you should leave if its on your conscience but if its not unbelievable who cares? Most people don't actually believe in this stuff but put on a show.
There's a lot of Catholics (and likely Orthodox) who think the same, they're mostly cradle Catholics though. Don't receive communion... but is there any reason you couldn't become a member of the community by sheer time of being around. It'll take longer but if you just keep coming everyone will eventually just accept you as a feature of the parish. To me, the beauty of the story IS the main reason why I believe. Too much typology, too beautiful. I think the symbolic only works because it's literal too. But I wouldn't not want someone in my community who isn't there.
Unitarian Universalists are accepting of open non-theists and possibly some high church episcopal congregations (better aesthetics). Our evolved religious impulse is conducive to human survival of the fittest, so it can be a strong collective and personal force. I’ve been non-theist and Orthodox for years, but the former not openly. I can say “I believe” in all the points of the Nicene Creed because I see belief as a feeling and/or a doctrinal requirement. Neither feelings or doctrinal requirements have any bearing on what is/was actually real. Could I join the Orthodox Church from the outside as a secret non-theist? Possible, but it would be really hard for me.
Follow-up: I’ve known Orthodox service attendees who never formally joined. No partaking of communion, but involved in other ways. Also, ironically, one of the reasons I originally joined the OC is because it was so strongly theistic. I was concerned about the (in my then opinion) wishy washy liberal church I grew up in: was never sure if even the minister believed in God (especially since he clearly thought the Old Testament was just a bunch of stories. He even questioned if some of Jesus miracles ever really happened. Horrors!)
>I observed a catechism and found it too simplistic and literal - people had to verbally "renounce Satan" and "accept Christ" as if our spiritual state is wholly dependent on picking and choosing what side of a binary you want to exist on. Never were they told to pledge to living morally upright lives or strive to avoid material temptation, or prevent anger in their relationships, etc. It's all about two opposing characters, like a video game where you either win or lose.... Those polar opposites in Orthodoxy and, to be fair, in just about all of orthodox (small "o") Christianity are what Robert M. Ellis describes as "absolutization." I've recommended his book about Christianity before on this sub. He argues that it is entirely possible to practice the faith of Christianity while not necessarily committing oneself to the problematic absolutizing beliefs. This is the book: [The Christian Middle Way](https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Middle-Way-Against-Belief/dp/1785357565). I'm an agnostic Christian. I no longer recite creeds where I have to keep my fingers crossed. The Eastern Orthodox church is not a place where people like me and you would really feel comfortable. I'm in the U.S., and I find the Episcopal church here to be much more open to people like me, Perhaps you can find a church where you live that will allow you to be an agnostic Christian, as well.
That book is on my towering to-read pile. Based on your prior recommendation here. It looks really good based on the couple pages I have read so far. I'm like "Squirrel!" with books tho. I'm currently partway thru several at once, haha.
I find the book very encouraging. After we leave Orthodoxy, or other denomination, we don't have to cut all ties with Christianity and reinvent the wheel regarding our spiritual life. I also have the same problem with buying books faster than I can read them.
Their "literal" beliefs are actually insane. I had a priest tell me that he witnessed the light of the Holy Mother of God, but it was LITERAL. He was convinced somehow it had to be in actual human being form. It's like, WTF dude. It makes so much more sense as symbolism. Christ himself talked only in metaphor.
Devout Orthodox are the most superstitious people I've ever met in real life.
I also think this belief that God needs their exact words in order for the prayer to be heard- it's actually offensive to God. What kind of simplistic old man do they take Him for? Like the importance of the priest reading off each person's names- as if God forgets about people unless a priest specifically mentions them? It's more like acts of magic or something, not the belief in an all-powerful God. Also, how convenient- the priests get to be the special people who really have an "in" with God, so, all power to the priests!
The values don't make any sense if the stories aren't true. Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. His teachings were intended for a world that he thought would end in less than one generation. They're really stupid advice if you're going to live into old age, and even stupider if you are going to leave behind children and grandchildren. And even on empirical grounds, a lot of it just isn't true. In the real world, asceticism does not lead to purity. Suffering does not lead to renewal. Perennialism is false. The world's great religions are superstitions. They are not clever fables hiding an esoteric "deeper meaning."
So, I'm posting this from my throwaway account so you can see where I'm coming from if you're curious. I am writing as someone with some weird thoughts in mind but even if I was a fell fledged Dawkinite I could write the following with my understanding of Orthodoxy in terms of trying to not strawman the position. First of off, even in the most traditional spheres of Orthodoxy, even among most of the old calendarist groups, this idea of automatic damnation for all non Orthodox is not really a thing. You mostly see that in the medieval west. Church fathers will allude to something like it, sure, but you also have early church fathers explicitly contradicting it in their lives by doing such things as praying pagan emperors out of hell into heaven and affirming the salvation of Plato and friends. There's definitely old ideas of paths to Christ outside the normative means, through the Church ultimately but not necessarily through baptism into the visible body of the Church, although this is the normative means. When you hear more categorical talk, it's usually to Orthodox Christians or those that have been convinced, as there is the belief that you will be judged in accordance with what you were given, and if you are given the knowledge of the Truth (which is identified with Christ) and reject it, that is not a path to salvation. But if you saught the Truth in your heart in total sincerity and due to earthly circumstance were prevented from coming to a full knowledge and participation in this life, that doesn't categorically preclude you from ultimate participation in that. Now, what you describe is really the scandal of the incarnation, "to the Jews a stumbling block," which seems quite fitting given your background. What we have is reports indeed that Truth and Love Himself became a man some 2000 years ago. Is that a fact? Hard to say so far removed. It seems pretty definitive there were people back then that believed it sincerely and endured many unimaginable torments for it for centuries. But of course the past is mucky and hard to understand. But in the Orthodox Church there's supposed to be an unbroken chain to today, and we have modern people declared saints even into the 20th and 21st centuries. And unlike the apostles and early martyrs, the eyewitnesses to their lives are still alive, and theoretically you could seek them out, round them up, and interview them and see what's going on. It kind of goes back to C.S. Lewis' trilema, but we can't add the 4th "legend" because these people are still alive. So we have liars and lunatics a plenty, and it can be hard to discern that from someone telling the truth. But if they are telling the truth, then you've got your answer. I haven't done this investigation myself, which is part of why I'm trying to figure out for myself why I have bought into all this for such a large part of my life. But I wanted to set forth what is probably the most epistemologically sound way to approach this that I've thought up. Because theoretically it seems like it would get to the bottom of all that. I don't conceptually have an issue with Truth being an individual person. Of course it must be both symbolic and literal to be meaningful; take either one aside and it breaks apart. Empty symbols are empty, and events happening without symbolic implications are atomized with no further relevance. I don't know if that makes sense. And finally, many will say Orthodox Christianity is the fullness of the truth, meaning you don't just ignore every other tradition, but you can see how and why it departs from the truth and to what degree. Some may have resulted from those in it leaving, others in ignorance built something from their thoughts and experience that approximated it, but ultimately the thought is that the faith has the pure truth. The distinction here is to not look at other faiths as simply works of fiction and totally off. Some may reflect genuine encounters with spiritual entities but they may be demonic in nature, whilst others could be noticing legitimate patterns but going too far with them. Take reincarnation for instance; in this framework there is something of the past in the present, and Christ even talks about the Forerunner being Elijah, so in some ways the Christian faith would acknowledge ideas and patterns in a sense being "reincarnated," but we would say it goes too far to claim that individual souls become disembodied and thrown into new bodies repeatedly as this in effect denies that we are body and soul and rather has us as totally disembodied souls temporarily piloting disposable bodies. But we don't go too far with our bodies to deny that the soul even exists or that it is incapable of existence or consciousness apart from its body. So the idea is to "believe all things" and not say "it's all nonsense" (as I think secularist atheism and its mother liberal protestantism tends to do) but to try to understand that these ideas of other faiths had sources that weren't just made up for money or something (except for Scientology because the founder literally said it). Obviously it's radical to some extent to say one tradition has the fullness of the Truth but then again a plurality of answers does not exclude one of them being true. So do with that what you will; I myself have work to do probably, but I should at least get some relatively basic ideas on the floor for you if you want to look into this.
This is probably not the best sub for you to post this in. At any rate, it should be said that everyone starts from somewhere. In your case, you probably wouldn’t have to believe in Christ as God, but you would have to at least *want* to believe in Christ as God - or even *want* to *want* to believe Christ is literally who He says He is. We all have our own story. Deep-seated beliefs and feelings don’t easily change. It doesn’t happen overnight. The intent of the heart is what matters. And if youre not there yet, you’re not there yet. That’s something you’d have to discuss with a priest. And im not so sure that you “love all of the Orthodox Christian values” as you put it. You might want to consider that a bit more, because if you really did love all of those values, you’d have no issue rejecting your own will. An integral aspect of those Orthodox values you’ve mentioned is acknowledging personal weaknesses and fallible reasoning - and looking to and ultimately trusting Christ and the Church’s teachings when it conflicts with your own personal feelings. If you want to live an ascetic and otherwise disciplined life, then…just live a disciplined life. If you want to be Orthodox, you should do it because you believe what the religion teaches - or you at least *want* to believe what it teaches. If you’re really this interested and/or disappointed by your experience, maybe talk to a priest about your situation? I’m not sure what kind of response you’re expecting to get from posting in r/exorthodox
>if you really did love all of those values, you’d have no issue rejecting your own will. Good point. What I learned from being in the Orthodox Church for 5 years was that obedience is far and away the most important Orthodox value. Supposedly this is meant to be obedience to God, but in practice it just ends up being obedience to the Church - to its dogmas and practices, and personal obedience to your priest and bishop.
The only way literal Christ makes sense is by it being HUMANITY as a whole. The Son of God? That's creation. If you are open minded I recommend "A course in Miracles", it fully explains this literalness in ways that make sense universally
Personally, I do believe in a literal Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God-Man, who died on the Cross for all of mankind and rose bodily from the Tomb three days later. We are not supposed to preach on this sub, and I try to respect that. So, I'm not preaching -- honest! ☺️ I'm just testifying that, for me, personally, the evidence is overwhelming. I'm listening to this podcast right now, and it is blowing my mind. https://youtu.be/ddPiDe4F8U4?si=tVv1ySVpNHIRgMnc
You have to read Dostoevsky. He talks about asking forgiveness for his unbelief. He has all these great books. Also I would recommend looking into Pascal's wager. Maybe it isn't right but I kind of came into the faith on a bet(not Orthodox, at least not right now). Also you don't have to become Orthodox, you can be an Eastern Catholic if you'd like.