Not sure what to believe

So it's been nearly 6 months since my last update.  I spent most of my blogging time on my secular blog, and I have 'fallen away' from God.

I haven't been to Mass in a long time, nor have I updated this blog for a while mostly because I'm questioning everything.  I have no idea what to believe at this point.

I've been dabbling in a little bit of everything - reading all sorts of interesting literature specifically from Eastern spiritual traditions, including new age stuff.  What I find fascinating are the parallels I see in all of these traditions including Eastern Christianity. 

In addition, I'm asking questions that I should have asked a long time ago:  How can I know that Christianity is really the 'true religion'?  How do I know to trust the Church's teachings are really the truth?  How do I know that Islam (or Buddhism/Hinduism/Judaism) isn't the 'true religion'?

I am just confused out of my mind.  Many would say 'test the fruits', and I see lots of good fruit in EVERY religion.  Holy men and miracles exist in every spiritual tradition.  One only has to take an honest look and see a lot of good fruit.

In other words, I know for a fact that I would be considered a heretic for some of the beliefs that I now hold.  I still love much of the wisdom from the New Testament especially Jesus's teachings on loving one's enemies.

I do believe that there is a God and that he loves mankind, but this idea that Jesus is the only way is something that I don't know I believe in anymore.  This is obviously heresy in the eyes of many Christians, but I'm not afraid to question. 

So I guess I am something like an agnostic, yet at the same time, I love much of the spiritual teachings in the New Testament.  I used to be so gung-ho about being dogmatically Catholic, but now I'm more interested in living a spiritual life.  The Orthodox Church is looking more and more interesting, though I do realize I would be at odds with any Christian tradition by denying that Jesus truly is only way to the Father.

Then again, I sometimes wonder if much of what Christianity teaches is one huge lie.

I've come across so many people from other religious traditions who have such strong convictions on what they claim to be the truth, like Mormons, Baptists, Muslims, Jews, etc.  What if the Catholic Church is no different?

And what if none of this even mattered? 

Am I confused?  Absolutely. 

I'm questioning everything, including my own confusion ;)

-=The importance of healing in Christianity=-

Fr. John Romanides quoted by Bishop of Nafpaktos Hierotheos Vlachos (bold is my emphasis):

Having faith in Christ without undergoing healing in Christ is not faith at all. Here is the same contradiction that we find when a sick person who has great confidence in his doctor never carries out the treatment which he recommends. If Judaism and its successor, Christianity, had appeared in the twentieth century for the first time, they would most likely have been characterised not as religions but as medical sciences related to psychiatry. They would have a wide influence on society owing to their considerable successes in healing the ills of the partially functioning personality. In no way can prophetic Judaism and Christianity be construed as religions that use various magical methods and beliefs to promise escape from a supposed world of matter and evil or hypocrisy into a supposed spiritual world of security and success.

The patristic tradition is neither a social philosophy nor an ethical system, nor is it religious dogmatism: it is a therapeutic treatment. In this respect it closely resembles medicine, especially psychiatry. The spiritual energy of the soul that prays unceasingly in the heart is a physiological instrument which everyone has and which requires healing. Neither philosophy nor any of the known positive or social sciences is capable of healing this instrument. That can only be done through the Fathers' neptic and ascetic teaching. Therefore those who are not healed usually do not even know of the existence of this instrument.

The Fathers do not categorise people as moral and immoral or good and bad on the basis of moral laws. This division is superficial. At depth humanity is differentiated into the sick in soul, those being healed and those healed. All who are not in a state of illumination are sick in soul...It is not only good will, good resolve, moral practice and devotion to the Orthodox Tradition which make an Orthodox, but also purification, illumination and deification. These stages of healing are the purpose of the mystical life of the Church, as the liturgical texts bear witness.

This is something I find absolutely fascinating!  The more I dig into Eastern Christianity, the more I am drawn to it.  I love the idea that the Church exists to provide therapeutic treament for the sick.  Sin is not so much a moral failure as it is an illness.  And the term 'metanoia' in Greek (which is often translated as repentance) literally means to change one's mind.  Wikipedia says this regarding this word:  The Greek term for repentance, metanoia, denotes a change of mind, a reorientation, a fundamental transformation of outlook, of an individual's vision of the world and of her/himself, and a new way of loving others and the Universe. According to the Greek lexicon, it also says "to change one's mind for better"

Thus, when Jesus said: "Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." He is saying, "Transform your mind".  This fits neatly with St. Paul's words, "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind" (Romans 12:2).  Healing is most definitely an integral part of the Christian faith.

-=How do I know?=-

Over the past few weeks, I've been seriously questioning some things.  I have kept a relatively open mind with regards to other religious/spiritual traditions, particularly Buddhism.  Over the years, I've constantly been hearing ideas from people that Buddhism is logical and whatnot.  I don't plan to be one, but I have kept an open mind to a lot of ideas rather than blindly avoiding them.  My cousin even calls me a Catholic Buddhist. ;)

Anyway, I figured it never hurts to question, as I assume there is truth out there, and that the truth is worth seeking regardless of how I feel about it.

Well, I've come to wonder whether or not nonduality may be the truth, in some strange and unexplainable way.  I won't get into the details, but basically, they say that there is no separation from "I" and "You", and that all is one.  Well, my mom and my aunts have been practicing meditation for years and they firmly believe this as do some relatives and friends.  They are not officially Buddhist, but they do Buddhist practices.

Over the years, I've helped people clear all sorts of stress related issues (i.e. smoking, phobias, anger issues, cult trauma, relationship trauma, etc).  And the result is that these people naturally have more "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control" which are the fruit of the spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), yet they do not necessarily believe in God.  In fact, I have come across people who have a lot of these qualities, yet are undoubtably non-Christian which really makes me wonder whether one needs the holy spirit in order to have all of those qualities.  Interestingly, based on my conversations with my relatives, I have discovered that one of the methods I've used to help people heal their emotions is strikingly similar to what Buddhists do inside their minds to clear away negative emotions.  As a result, my cousin thinks I'm going to become a Buddhist.

Christianity unfortunately says nothing about enlightenment.  Not too long ago, I discovered that someone I know had done his graduate studies in Eastern religions.  It turns out he is also a Christian, yet he is very open to Eastern spirituality.  He thinks Buddhism and it's teachings on enlightenment is logical and fantastic, but he professes belief in the resurrection (of Jesus) so he is clearly a very open-minded Christian who has deep respect for Buddhism.  When I asked how he reconciled Christianity and Buddhism, he couldn't, except for the fact that he merely meditates and believes in Jesus's resurrection.

As for me, I haven't the slightest idea of what to make of this.  I know what I've been told to believe as I have thoroughly learned my faith, but I am questioning Christianity altogether.  Fortunately, I am not troubled by this questioning.

Currently, I am looking at things in this manner:

"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things." (Philippians 4:8)

So far, I have gained a tremendous amount of wisdom from nondualistic teachings.  The most interesting to me is the notion that desire equals suffering.  If you are wanting something, you are lacking, and it implies duality or separation.  Thus, wanting is the exact opposite of having, and desire equals suffering since it presupposes not having.  The end of suffering begins by the end of wanting things.  Interestingly, this reminds me of Psalm 23:  "The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want."  The rest of that Psalm goes on to say how he is blessed with all sorts of things by being with God (i.e. no separation from God).

This is very similar to what the Orthodox Church says with their practice of Hesychasm (i.e. stillness) to deal with the ego which does the wanting, but clearly it is taught within a dualistic context.

I sometimes wonder whether or not we may actually be living in a dream or illusion as nondualism teaches.  I am willing to question and see whether or not nondualism may or may not be the truth (that I am not separate from the all).  I know I am stepping into heretical territory, but what if Christianity is true but only to a certain point?  I've listened to a lot of Catholic radio broadcasts talking about how New Age writers claim we are living in one big illusion and that we have to wake up from it, but what if they may be right?  Clearly, my attitude towards the New Age has changed quite a bit, seeing how many of their ideas stem directly from Buddhism and other nondualistic philosophies.

One of the big realisations I've had over the years is that I am not my emotions, nor am I my thoughts.  My emotional healing work has made that abundantly clear.  Thus, I've been asking myself, "Who am I?" which is precisely what some nondualistic teachers say is the best question to ask on the path to enlightenment.  This notion that one is not separate from the all simply doesn't make sense until it is realised (or perhaps experienced?).  The implications of this is clearly a big no-no in Christianity, but I recall one 'awakened' gentleman who said, "Don't believe a word I say, just take it for checking, and prove it to yourself".  And I'm willing to go down that path and see for myself, because if this is the truth, then it is worth pursuing.

-=Guilt and Original Sin, an Orthodox perspective=-

I came across a very fascinating article regarding guilt:

O Happy Guilt, O Joyful Sorrow: An Orthodox Understanding

Having though about this particular issue for quite some time, it is seriously making me think that perhaps the Catholic and Protestant understanding of Original Sin may be in error.  Here is a blog entry I stumbled upon which discusses this very issue:

Why Ed Became Orthodox, Part Nine: Original Sin without Original Guilt

Here's another link worth looking into:

View of Sin in the Early Church: Ancestral Versus Original Sin: An Overview with Implications for Psychotherapy

And to think that Original Sin may have originated from a Latin mistranslation, since a more appropriate translation would Ancestral Sin.

As someone like me who has helped people clear all sorts of deeply rooted emotional issues, the Eastern view of sin as an illness makes a lot more sense than the Western view of sin as moral failure.  Thus, the Orthodox Church looks at it from a therapeutic perspective, than a juridical one.  For years, I felt there was some sort of disconnect between psychology and Christianity, but now, I see that Orthodox Christianity doesn't divide the two.  In fact, Orthodoxy seems to harmonize the two very neatly.

-=more on Orthodoxy=-

When comparing the Orthodox Church with the Catholic Church (and the rest of western Christianity for the matter), I see a major problem with Original Sin. It seems to naturally lead towards an over emphasis on guilt, which has plagued me for such a long time. The result of such guilt was beating myself up - not a healthy way of changing my life.

I remember when I was a Calvinist, the idea of Total Depravity once had me convinced I was physically impossible of doing any good whatsoever. Western Christianity speaks of guilt inherited through Adam at the moment of conception, yet Eastern Christianity knows nothing of this. Eastern Christianity says we only inherit mortality and that no one is guilty of anything he or she did not personally do.

If this is correct, I wonder what the implications are.

Moreover, I mentioned scholasticism in my previous blog entry. I find it odd how scholasticism seems to be at the forefront of Western Christianity, whereas Orthodoxy emphasizes hesychasm, which is a practical means towards real healing and transformation of the human person.  It's as if the Eastern Christianity functions more like a hospital while Western Christianity functions more like a library.

I think I fully agree with Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos:

When referring to Orthodox theology, we do not simply mean a history of theology. The latter is, of course, a part of this but not absolutely or exclusively. In Patristic tradition, theologians are the God-seers. Saint Gregory Palamas calls Barlaam [who attempted to bring Western scholastic theology into the Orthodox Church] a "theologian," but he clearly emphasises that intellectual theology differs greatly from the experience of the vision of God. According to Saint Gregory Palamas theologians are the God-seers; those who have followed the "method" of the Church and have attained to perfect faith, to the illumination of the nous and to divinisation (theosis). Theology is the fruit of man's cure and the path which leads to cure and the acquisition of the knowledge of God.

Western theology, however, has differentiated itself from Eastern Orthodox theology. Instead of being therapeutic, it is more intellectual and emotional in character. In the West [after the Carolingian "Renaissance"], scholastic theology evolved, which is antithetical to the Orthodox Tradition. Western theology is based on rational thought whereas Orthodoxy is hesychastic. Scholastic theology tried to understand logically the Revelation of God and conform to philosophical methodology. Characteristic of such an approach is the saying of Anselm [Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093-1109, one of the first after the Norman Conquest and destruction of the Old English Orthodox Church]: "I believe so as to understand." The Scholastics acknowledged God at the outset and then endeavoured to prove His existence by logical arguments and rational categories. In the Orthodox Church, as expressed by the Holy Fathers, faith is God revealing Himself to man. We accept faith by hearing it not so that we can understand it rationally, but so that we can cleanse our hearts, attain to faith by theoria* and experience the Revelation of God. (emphasis mine)

(source: The Difference Between Orthodox Spirituality and Other Traditions)

Thus Orthodoxy is more practical, which I value more than logical reasoning.  Emotions almost always triumph over a person's thoughts, and logic therefore does very little to stop a person from procrastinating, or picking up that next cigarette.  Orthodoxy has a viable solution for these ego-driving behaviors.

Later in the article, he goes on to say: