spiritually dead

I am an old lady, I don't run.

You should consider it - if you don’t have any major physical issues. I’m not talking about running a marathon: just 1minte slow jog/1 minute walks for 15 minutes to start with.

That confused me

I’m suggesting running as a means of improving General mood and outline: you don’t have to go out the door and run a marathon. Just do a little more than walk.

I have learned more than I ever wanted to know about fasting, food, diets etc  Mostly what I have learned is they are very individualistic.  I've seen people fast for 40 days under supervision, my wife can easily fast for 48 hours (water only)  I don't think I can, after a period of time I feel shaky and those who talk about fasting say when you feel you need to eat, eat.  There's a lot of science and benefits to fasting not just for religious reasons.  I "fast" usually from 6pm to 10-11 am and it does make a difference biologically.

as far as spirituality goes, can't help you there, I hope there is a creator/designer, whatever, and I hope I get to learn all the secrets of creation and everything, past, present and future.

Perhaps you need to think small and consider some of the wonders and things that science doesn't know or can't be explained.

Recently I was part of a conversation with a neurosurgeon who made the comment. (paraphrasing) When you open someone's head and see the brain and it's design, how it works how can you not believe that there is a God?

The answer is that no god claim has met its burden of proof. Or, you can accept his argument from personal incredulity as convincing. There isn't a reason to look at a human brain and think "how can there be no god if this works as it does!" One does not follow from the other. Also, was he looking at a functioning brain, or was he in there trying to fix something he figured his god screwed up?

My preference would be to think small and ponder the wonders of stuff we HAVE figured out, for the most part. Like the idea that all atoms that make up the stuff we experience come from exploded stars, and that if one single molecule had been different, then I wouldn't have the two kids that I have today. That stuff really helps me keep things in perspective. 

he didn't go into any real detail, but I'm not smarter than a brain surgeon, especially when it comes to the brain.  Knowing everything he does about the brain which isn't everything that could be known, he was still humbled by it's design in function, simplicity and complexity etc.

I don't see it as an affirmative claim as you seem to indicate but rather the only logical explanation or reason for.

it seems there are 2 options for just about everything and the usual questions

random chance

intelligent design

Those are options from ignorance, not valid options.

I'm not entirely convinced these are the only two options, but the argument "well what seems more likely" never leads anywhere because the answer to the lack of demonstration of the intelligent designer is "well, you just don't know HOW to demonstrate him and I can't tell you either." Random chance as it were offers no comfort, no punishment, no reward, no incentive, but it's at least equally as probable as undemonstrated intelligent designer. Things do seem to happen by random chance, right? They're not always though, it's just that we can't tell exactly what the direct cause is for sure yet. 

Practical example: in the ten years I've been a golfer, I have one hole in one. All golfers want one, hope for one, but the second my ball disappeared, I was thrilled but realized quickly, oh, that's really just dumb luck. It's random chance: my ball landed at a spot on the green, with the right spin and line somehow, to get to the hole and drop in. That LOOKS like random chance. It isn't. It's a result of many other demonstrable, measurable factors: swing speed, wind direction, attack angle to the ball, spin rate which is itself is a result of physical factors I can't see and certainly don't know how to affect or repeatbly duplicate. It's not random chance. But Jesus sure didn't hole that shot, right? Because that's really how that argument positions it: either it's random chance, or Jesus did it, not physics and unseen factors that might be mistaken for either chance or Jesus.

perhaps for you it does but for many it does not, which is part of the reason for the keto diet, ketosis.

fasting promotes autophagy or do you deny science?

it's not explaining what we know, we know what a hole in one is and all the things that can make it occur, the beginning of everything isn't so simple.

it's not dumb luck because it is exactly what you were trying to do and you did, you did everything in such a way that you made it happen, there is randomness we call luck sure but that's not on the same scale as the beginning of everything or life.

if you were not there would that hole in one happened?  Nope, perhaps it didn't happen exactly as you wanted, but you started the events that lead to the hole in one, intelligent design.

I got an eagle on a par 4, never got a hole in one.

Presbyters are specifically trained to help you with these things. In a way, like goldtop, I am telling you to go to a doctor. A doctor who specializes in these things.

I think that would be more beneficial than giving you my own advice.

What is a presbyter?

I agree it isn't so simple! But let's say no one knew how a hole in one happened, no one knew anything about golf swings or clubs. Would I then be justified in thinking "Wow, that was random! No way that could ever have happened unless Jesus was with me somewhere, right? Well, better never check and just guess it was Jesus." Or would I be better off thinking "I have no idea how that happened! WOW! Maybe I can study any one of these factors and figure it out eventually, because there are things at play here that I might not be able to see now, but I can discover if I look into them?" Which one of those has a better chance of me eventually understanding the great mystery that is my ever frustrating golf swing?

Congrats, I have two similar eagles, both of which did the same basic thing: dropped in out of what looks like sheer dumb luck but is actually a long combo of physics equations. 

You're not saying a presbyter is a doctor, right? Please clarify for her. A presbyter is NOT a doctor in any sense.

the outcome may have been luck but not what put it in motion, not what started the event, which was you, intelligence.  The ball wouldn't have gone anywhere were it not for you.

so either the beginning was random luck or by an intelligence, there could be other options I just don't know and can't think of any.

What most people call a priest is in fact called a presbyter. This is because technically all orthodox are priests, we are a nation of priests.

A presbyter is an elder priest.

You wouldn't know.

How is the hole exactly the right shape for the puddle? Intelligent design?

Are 'presbyters' licensed by any governing body to give out medical advice, including mental health advice? Or are they just priests by a different name? 

you tell me

A fair point, which makes you a golf deist, then :) ? It's an imperfect analogy, I admit, but the point is that even though we can't see science working all the time, in every case some aspect of it IS working, at least whenever inquired upon. Would you say Jesus or some supernatural force had a hand in either of your eagles? Why or why not? 

Do you not understand the question?

it seems you do not understand.  I have made NO affirmative claims but have brought up possibilities, theories.  If YOU are making affirmative claims then YOU should explain and prove them.

Your religion is secularism, that is why you take secular authority as being the measure.

The therepeutic method of The Church certainly addresses the very real ailment of prelest, which is at the core of mental health.

Incidentally, both the bishop my church is under and the patriarch of the church of Antioch have degrees in psychology. 

IN GENERAL, ARE PRESBYTERS LICENSED BY STATE MEDICAL BOARDS? Your lack of a direct answer to this question seems to indicate the answer is no, they are not.

I don't take 'secular authority' as being the measure. I take proven science. If you're advising someone to talk to a priest about a clinical problem, rather than a properly licensed medical or mental health professional, over the internet without knowing the person, you are being exceptionally irresponsible. I can't stress that enough. You know absolutely nothing about this person you're doling out your trite medical advice to, very likely to her detriment. THe only advice she should be getting here is GO SEE A PRO. Not go talk to a cleric. 

So actually you don't understand the concept of questions, they don't constitute claims. Never mind most godists have trouble with intelligent conversation.

You don't know whether or not what we do is science, because you have not done any real investigation into the matter yourself.

So they are not, in fact, licensed mental health professionals, correct? As a matter of rule, you do not need a medical or mental health professional license in order to achieve the rank of presbyter, is that correct?