Talking to deceased loved ones

[Quid est Veritas?]

O.k. I didn't want to derail into definitions of atheism and agnosticism, but I guess I will address that. There are a variety of different definitions of atheism and agnosticism. 99% of atheists do not believe that God is an impossibility - they simply do not believe that there is enough evidence to believe in God. So the definitions of atheism and agnosticism overlap, and the people who choose these labels might have varying degrees of certainty about them. Agnosticism is often portrayed as "undecided", but there are definitions of agnosticism that claim to know that it is impossible to have a rational opinion for or against God's existence. The most popular definition of "atheist" among atheists is "a person who hasn't yet been presented with a version of god that he/she can believe in" (paraphrasing by me - I can't remember how they state it exactly)

Besides, assuming probabilities remain assumptions as there is no verifiable way to test the hypothesis that God exists. Therefore, it really changes nothing to anything I have said.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thanks, @ViaCrucis , I am always surprised at how different Catholicism is from some of the other denominations. Every "i" is dotted and every "t" is crossed in the Catholic theology. Catholicism doesn't appeal to me at all, but I must respect their achievement in creating such a comprehensive set of practices and beliefs. I don't know much about Lutheranism, but it must have seemed fun for those early reformers to have a clean slate.

It wasn't really a clean slate, the Reformers were fully engaged with the history of Christendom that came before them. Much of what was rejected were things which were seen as rather recent innovation from the scholastic period of the high middle ages.

The methodologies between the Lutheran reformers and the Reformed reformers is sometimes described as when cleaning out the dresser drawer Luther carefully sought to only remove that which simply could not be retained, Calvin and Zwingli emptied the drawer completely and only put back which was seen as absolutely necessary. This can be seen simply by how close Lutheranism looks like medieval Catholicism in terms of liturgy and practice. The Lutheran Mass (as an example) looks a lot like what the Catholic pre-Tridentine Mass looked like (with a number of key differences). Lutherans who retained the Hail Mary have preserved the older form that lacks the Petition.

The older form of the Hail Mary is as follows:

"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus."

The Petition was added later, and only became official really during and after the Council of Trent, the Petition being:

"Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen."

The Lutheran form of the Rosary (yes, that's a thing actually) retains the older form of the Hail Mary excluding the Petition. Significant is that the older form is, verbatim, the words of Holy Scripture (combining the angelic greeting with Elizabeth's declaration"

"Hail [Mary], full of grace, the Lord is with you!" (Luke 1:28)

"Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb [Jesus]!" (Luke 1:42)

-CryptoLutheran

 

[cloudyday2]

Yes, people can make up any definition they want. I can call myself a Christian Atheist if I want, that doesn't make it a real meaning of the term. Language is about agreed definitions by the two parties.
The Oxford Dictionary of the English Language defines Atheism as "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existences of deities". It defines Agnosticism as "a belief that nothing is known or can be known regarding the existence of deities". There is no overlap.
So those people who call themselves atheists while holding clear agnostic views need a lesson in English. They are cheapening the term atheism into non-meaning while a better term exists.

I totally agree with you about the importance of agreeing on clear definitions before trying to communicate with others. A lot of disagreements result unnecessarily from subtle differences in definitions. As I look at those Oxford definitions, there is an obvious overlap. As I think about the Oxford definition of agnosticism, I see a lot of sloppiness. Do agnostics claim that I cannot know anything about the Christian God? If I find evidence that Jesus was actually an android, wouldn't that be important to know? Would an agnostic accept that I knew something about the Christian God? Obviously the definition of agnostic is more complicated than it seems at first. But basically I agree with you.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I totally agree with you about the importance of agreeing on clear definitions before trying to communicate with others. A lot of disagreements result unnecessarily from subtle differences in definitions. As I look at those Oxford definitions, there is an obvious overlap. As I think about the Oxford definition of agnosticism, I see a lot of sloppiness. Do agnostics claim that I cannot know anything about the Christian God? If I find evidence that Jesus was actually an android, wouldn't that be important to know? Would an agnostic accept that I knew something about the Christian God? Obviously the definition of agnostic is more complicated than it seems at first. But basically I agree with you.

I don't consider it a sloppy definition at all. It doesn't say about deities, but about the existence of deities. Therefore your reductio ad absurdam does not apply, as that is related to the nature of God, not to the question of his existence. Atheists who speak of 'probabilities' acknowledge that nothing definite can be said by that very word and are therefore Agnostic.

I think we are drifting from the topic of the thread though.

 

[cloudyday2]

It wasn't really a clean slate, the Reformers were fully engaged with the history of Christendom that came before them. Much of what was rejected were things which were seen as rather recent innovation from the scholastic period of the high middle ages.

The methodologies between the Lutheran reformers and the Reformed reformers is sometimes described as when cleaning out the dresser drawer Luther carefully sought to only remove that which simply could not be retained, Calvin and Zwingli emptied the drawer completely and only put back which was seen as absolutely necessary. This can be seen simply by how close Lutheranism looks like medieval Catholicism in terms of liturgy and practice. The Lutheran Mass (as an example) looks a lot like what the Catholic pre-Tridentine Mass looked like (with a number of key differences). Lutherans who retained the Hail Mary have preserved the older form that lacks the Petition.

The older form of the Hail Mary is as follows:

"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus."

The Petition was added later, and only became official really during and after the Council of Trent, the Petition being:

"Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen."

The Lutheran form of the Rosary (yes, that's a thing actually) retains the older form of the Hail Mary excluding the Petition. Significant is that the older form is, verbatim, the words of Holy Scripture (combining the angelic greeting with Elizabeth's declaration"

"Hail [Mary], full of grace, the Lord is with you!" (Luke 1:28)

"Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb [Jesus]!" (Luke 1:42)

-CryptoLutheran

Interesting... I didn't know that about the rosary.

 

[cloudyday2]

I don't consider it a sloppy definition at all. It doesn't say about deities, but about the existence of deities. Therefore your reductio ad absurdam does not apply, as that is related to the nature of God, not to the question of his existence. Atheists who speak of 'probabilities' acknowledge that nothing definite can be said by that very word and are therefore Agnostic.

I think we are drifting from the topic of the thread though.

I guess we have to agree to disagree on the definitions. The distinction between agnostic and atheist seems to be a lot more important to theists than it is to non-theists. I remember that I felt that way when I used to be a Christian. I could not imagine that there were people who didn't acknowledge the probability of a higher power of some kind, so I had a lot more respect for agnostics than I did for atheists. Now that I have gone over to the dark side, I don't see as much difference. But like you say, it is going off topic. No big deal either way.

 

[SeraphimSarov]

The whole of the Christian Gospel rests on the idea that Jesus defeated death (at least from the point of view of the Orthodox Church, which I was a part of). Those who died in faith would live on in the presence of God forever, as a part of one Church united in heaven and on earth, and as such, it was possible to petition them for their intercessions before the throne of God, even publicly if the person in question was recognized as a Saint (capital "s") by the Church. I have schizoaffective disorder, so I often asked my uncle, who had paranoid schizophrenia, to pray for me. It was very comforting to think that those who had gone before me weren't really gone at all. I simply cannot understand why anyone would accept any form of Christianity without this type of theology.

 

[cloudyday2]

The whole of the Christian Gospel rests on the idea that Jesus defeated death (at least from the point of view of the Orthodox Church, which I was a part of). Those who died in faith would live on in the presence of God forever, as a part of one Church united in heaven and on earth, and as such, it was possible to petition them for their intercessions before the throne of God, even publicly if the person in question was recognized as a Saint (capital "s") by the Church. I have schizoaffective disorder, so I often asked my uncle, who had paranoid schizophrenia, to pray for me. It was very comforting to think that those who had gone before me weren't really gone at all. I simply cannot understand why anyone would accept any form of Christianity without this type of theology.

That's how I feel too. I used to be Orthodox, but I was a not a cradle Orthodox. According to my mother, the priest gave a sermon once arguing that the dead do not exist until the Resurrection at the return of Jesus (i.e. Soul Sleep). I don't know if Soul Sleep is standard Orthodox theology, or if this priest was in the fringes. I assume this argument may have been based on the idea that physical and spiritual go together. As I understand it, a prayer should consist of physical actions such as prostrations along with the spiritual actions, because humans are both physical and spiritual. So a human cannot exist without a physical body. On the other hand, I don't know how a Christian could ascribe to the idea that humans are dead until the Resurrection while also believing in Saints. I suppose a Christian might believe that the Holy Spirit listens and acts through the symbolism of Saints. If the Holy Spirit is trying to communicate a certain concept He might cause the believer to visualize interacting with a Saint whose life symbolized some important idea.

 

[SeraphimSarov]

Man, I knew I liked your posts, but you were Orthodox? We are kindred spirits! I too was a convert. I came from a Roman Catholic/evangelical background. (Very long story that I'm sure nobody cares about...)

According to my mother, the priest gave a sermon once arguing that the dead do not exist until the Resurrection at the return of Jesus (i.e. Soul Sleep). I don't know if Soul Sleep is standard Orthodox theology, or if this priest was in the fringes.

I consider myself reasonably well-versed in Orthodox theology. I was considering the priesthood for awhile. That said, the priest was off his rocker. So-called "soul sleep" is by no means Orthodox.

I assume this argument may have been based on the idea that physical and spiritual go together. As I understand it, a prayer should consist of physical actions such as prostrations along with the spiritual actions, because humans are both physical and spiritual. So a human cannot exist without a physical body.

This is precisely why death is considered so unnatural. As is understood by Orthodoxy, the human's physical body was never meant to be separated from the soul, and the wrenching apart of the two at death is thus horrible. This is why the Orthodox are constantly crossing themselves and bowing and kissing icons and lighting incense; prayer is achieved using all five senses. Because Jesus resurrected, the saints will one day be re-united with their physical bodies. (I don't know how that would work, but that's the belief.)

On the other hand, I don't know how a Christian could ascribe to the idea that humans are dead until the Resurrection while also believing in Saints. I suppose a Christian might believe that the Holy Spirit listens and acts through the symbolism of Saints. If the Holy Spirit is trying to communicate a certain concept He might cause the believer to visualize interacting with a Saint whose life symbolized some important idea.

I don't know if it's necessarily an either/or situation. Orthodox Christians are encouraged to immerse themselves in the lives of the Saints through reading and veneration of icons. I don't know about interaction beyond that and the invocation of the Saints for their intercessions, though; it seems to me more of a Roman Catholic thing to see visions and the like. In Orthodoxy, visions and dreams and other assorted "spiritual experiences" are considered potentially demonic in origin and not to be trusted.

EDIT: corrected grammar. This is what happens when you attempt to write while sleep deprived...

 

[cloudyday2]

Man, I knew I liked your posts, but you were Orthodox? We are kindred spirits! I too was a convert. I came from a Roman Catholic/evangelical background. (Very long story that I'm sure nobody cares about...)



I consider myself reasonably well-versed in Orthodox theology. I was considering the priesthood for awhile. That said, the priest was off his rocker. So-called "soul sleep" is by no means Orthodox.



This is precisely why death is considered so unnatural. As is understood by Orthodoxy, the humans physical body was never meant to be separated from the soul, and the wrenching apart of the two at death is thus horrible. This is why the Orthodox are constantly crossing themselves and bowing and kissing icons and lighting incense; prayer is achieved using all five senses. Because Jesus resurrected, the saints will one day be re-united with their physical bodies. (I don't know how that would work, but that's the belief.)



I don't know if it's necessarily an either/or situation. Orthodox Christians are encouraged to immerse themselves in the lives of the Saints through reading and veneration of icons. I don't know about interaction beyond that and the invocation of the Saints for their intercessions, though; it seems to me more of a Roman Catholic thing to see visions and the like. In Orthodoxy, visions and dreams and other assorted "spiritual experiences" are potentially demonic in origin and not to be trusted.

Thanks, @MentalHolocaust , I was hoping to get an Orthodox or Catholic perspective. I have an idea for a thread that I hope to create in the apologetics sub-forum this evening after work. If a Christian believes in "soul sleep", then there is no need to believe in souls. A human might be simply a collection of natural materials as many atheists believe. The apologetics forum allows non-Christian to contribute ideas. This sub-forum only allows non-Christians to ask questions, so it isn't the right place to discuss my idea. So keep an eye-out in the apologetics forum. Hopefully I will be able to write a decent opening post that will make sense and generate a fun discussion. (Writing is not my forte unfortunately.)

 

[SeraphimSarov]

Thanks, @MentalHolocaust , I was hoping to get an Orthodox or Catholic perspective. I have an idea for a thread that I hope to create in the apologetics sub-forum this evening after work. If a Christian believes in "soul sleep", then there is no need to believe in souls. A human might be simply a collection of natural materials as many atheists believe. The apologetics forum allows non-Christian to contribute ideas. This sub-forum only allows non-Christians to ask questions, so it isn't the right place to discuss my idea. So keep an eye-out in the apologetics forum. Hopefully I will be able to write a decent opening post that will make sense and generate a fun discussion. (Writing is not my forte unfortunately.)

I'll be sure to look out for it and chime in. I have a B.A. in journalism, so I like to think that I know a thing or two about writing.

 

[rockytopva]

It is easy for you to talk to deceased loved ones because you have known these people. As you know not the Lord so it would be with great difficulty to talk to him.

 

[SeraphimSarov]

But you know him? How do you know him?

 

[rockytopva]

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. - Revelation 3:20

 

[Hieronymus]

But you know him? How do you know him?

Who knows God?
We only know bits of God i.m.o.
Important bits !
But faith, belief is proof of what is unseen, so it is unseen for now.

 

[JoeP222w]

Sometimes I find myself talking to deceased loves ones. It is a one-way conversation. A few times I might ask for help if that is possible. I don't know if deceased loved ones exist or if they might be too busy with problems of their own or there might be a process. Maybe the deceased person is limited to interceding with God on behalf of the living person. It is all open to speculation.

Anyway, here are my questions:

(1) How is my interaction with deceased loved ones different from prayer?

(2) Catholics and Orthodox and others pray to saints. They consider the deceased people to be awake in heaven, so praying to a deceased person is merely asking that deceased person to pray on your behalf.

(3) There are the Christians that believe in soul sleep. I assume they do not talk to their deceased loved ones.

(4) The OT has the story of Saul using a medium to ask Samuel for advice. Apparently Saul had outlawed mediums.

Sometimes I feel that praying to a deceased loved one is more sensible than praying to God, because I know my loved one existed in the past and I do not know if God ever existed at all.

Any thoughts? I hope to get perspectives from a variety of denominations.

1) Prayer is to one true and living God. God calls communication with the dead an abomination. Leviticus 19:31, Leviticus 20:6, 2 Kings 21:6, 2 Kings 23:24, Isaiah 8:19.

2) And those who do so are walking in contradiction to scripture.

3) What someone believes and what the Bible says are, unfortunately, in disagreement. The Bible is the authority, not what someone believes.

4) And Saul was sinning when he did that.

 

[dqhall]

I prayed for God to assign tasks for me. I could not pray to a dead relative to pass the message to God. I think the dead sleep, like Lazarus slept in the tomb. I would not trust a religious leader to pray for me. I may ask God for my daily bread and to be led away from temptation and evil doing. Jesus taught this in the Lord's prayer. A distant relative was described by another relative as "talking to ants." In other words she was crazy and remains under psychiatric care as she is not a believer. People have voices and writing skills to communicate with each other. It is better to use those than to try to pray to them as such activities are often delusional.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Sometimes I find myself talking to deceased loves ones. It is a one-way conversation. A few times I might ask for help if that is possible. I don't know if deceased loved ones exist or if they might be too busy with problems of their own or there might be a process. Maybe the deceased person is limited to interceding with God on behalf of the living person. It is all open to speculation.

Anyway, here are my questions:

(1) How is my interaction with deceased loved ones different from prayer?

(2) Catholics and Orthodox and others pray to saints. They consider the deceased people to be awake in heaven, so praying to a deceased person is merely asking that deceased person to pray on your behalf.

(3) There are the Christians that believe in soul sleep. I assume they do not talk to their deceased loved ones.

(4) The OT has the story of Saul using a medium to ask Samuel for advice. Apparently Saul had outlawed mediums.
Why ask questions that have no bearing on your atheist beliefs?
Sometimes I feel that praying to a deceased loved one is more sensible than praying to God, because I know my loved one existed in the past and I do not know if God ever existed at all.

Any thoughts? I hope to get perspectives from a variety of denominations.

Why ask questions on things that have no meaning to atheists?

 

[cloudyday2]

Why ask questions on things that have no meaning to atheists?

I ask the questions I feel like asking. Honestly, I don't know how to answer your question. I'm just a person like you - with complicated views that change constantly.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

I ask the questions I feel like asking. Honestly, I don't know how to answer your question. I'm just a person like you - with complicated views that change constantly.

Does the dead ever answer you back so you know they still exist? As to your foolish claim about God not existing and you know your relatives did exist at a point in time there's a prominent problem with that claim and that is, if you never met a person how do you know they ever existed?