Jump to content


Regular Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Myrkhoos last won the day on June 11

Myrkhoos had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

78 Good

About Myrkhoos

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Interests
    reading, philosophy, foreign languages
  • More About Me
    Film school graduate from Romania, wandered through monasteries, had and have some psychological problems.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    I have no idea

Recent Profile Visitors

249 profile views
  1. Was reading somethings about spiritual experiences with visions, figures etc and was pondering . Is it just like when people think with words , as in concepts and sounds , it is just thinking with images? And in severe trauma cases it might seem like it is not yours? I am not even eliminating the possibility of supernatural here but saying there might also this. Like dreams. It is the mind working, possibly in another state. It has been shown that dreams are not meaningless gibberish , most of them have meaning.and sleep is not passivity. So it would not be freak occurences, just normal workings of the mind. Nobody freaks out while hearing language thoughts. Why should we freak out in seeing visual thoughts? Like some people say I dreamt I was sick or getting healthy and I was. So what? It might be just the visual representation of a biological fact that the mind creates. I think we tend to devalue our mind/body in thinking this is just pure bogus. In therapy these kind of states are often used in healing traumas. This ability.
  2. Delving into concepts removed from their specific framework can be confusing. These words , love, nothingness, oneness , get thrown a lot around, but one should be careful, lest they become little more than new age slogans. I mean they can refer to a lot of experiences, from drugged out to psychotic to certain deep insights. I mean certain people say, NAMBLA , that paedophilia is love. That word is too used too loosely in plain language.
  3. Maybe debate was not the best word, then. I used in the sense of a prolonged somwhat contradictory discussion. But thinking about it in the last hours I realised even more I have serious gaps in my knowledge, about this topic so I will refrain now from saying anything on this subject covering church history and the broader problems of history at hand. Well this has been at least a further motivation for my already building interest in these areas. I mean I have not even read the Old testament cover to cover. In my days in the church it was not recomended to read it lightly as it might confuse the begginer. I took that to heart and mostly read the NT through the lens of the Holy Fathers approved by the Eastern Orthodox Church. For example I am realy interested in reading muslim and jewish criticisms of the NT.
  4. This I highly disagree with, but this is turning into a full debate to which I am not prepared as much as I would want and this is not the place. For now, I wil leave it at that.
  5. Hmm I know those ideas that come with full force. Most of time however it seems to that they are empty phrases filled with fear, shame, guilt etc . Senseless like some advertising slogans. We cannot judge God in human terms. What does it mean to judge, anyway? What does God mean what does human mean what human terms mean? For exemple is judging saying attributes, etc words , ideas about God? That is what all the Scripture and theology is about. And it is absurd because because we are humans. In order to understand anything whatsoever about God even divine revelation we do it AS humans. I mean the Bible is written in human language. Trust like a child This one is contradicted by the man himself Jesus when he says to be pure as a dove and wise as a snake and the Apostle Paul when he says that cgristians should not be childish, but mature and children only in regards to doing evil. Threat of hell. Yes, like you may know this is one of the biggest for me and for most. First there is a tradition of universalism within the church. Modern proponents are illaria ramelli and david bentley hart, both scholars one in ancient graeco roman history the other in philosophy. And again doest not make any sense whatsoever. This is something I observe about these thoughts. Extreme power, little to no meaning/ sense. Like some kind of mental bullies. Do not put your lord to the test. A tricky one, but I actually asked this one, I did not get a goid answer, but anyway. The context, with the trials of Jesus in the desert at least, means being wicked with God. Like trying to trick him or just do it for fun . Othrwise the Bible is full of tests the prophets and saints people did with God. I mean case in point Elijah and the fire. I dot know exactly how to deal with them. For me EMDR therapy has been of help though. Reading cult manipulation tehniques, effects of trauma and stuff regardung mental health in general is doing si.e good things.
  6. Well Jesus seems to change some things, about that love command, but then again the threat of hell is also there. Plus, in the post NT period, there nunerous stories from the church fathers or lives of saints where God is said to have caused genocide through natural disaster or famine. I mean it is said that God helped Constantine win a war , therefore killing thousands of soldiers and later in 1453 letting Constantinopole be conquered by the ottoman turks because of their sins, causing thousands of deaths, rapes and massive suffering. God the punisher is also very much present in Revelation. Along with stories of a saint who baljed barefoot on one leg for years in repetance for squashing a bird s nest. So...yeah....pretty out there from a point of view.
  7. This is a tricky subject. Interpreting scripture outside its context.
  8. Back on topic. Christianity rewrites one's entire identity . The matrix which you utilise to think the world with. So it hard if you want change.
  9. Well, even hindus believe there also lies and not everything goes.
  10. I disagree. The dictum of love is to be found in the OT that is where Jesus quotes from, and also Jesus has a lot of threats , sometimes violent rebukes and even behaviour like the one where he banished merchants from the temple. Jesus is not more loving then Yahweh IMHO. He even says he has not come to abolish or change the Law but to fulfill it.
  11. Exactly.Well Jesus is the Jewish messiah. If you discard the rest of the Bible then he pretty much does not make any sense anymore. If you do not pay attention yo the official narratives about Jesus or even non official narratives, it just means you invent your own Jesus how you like. So you are making your own private sect of Christianity. You can do that, but be honest about it. As in I cherry picked the Gospels, added my own imagination plus other sources and feel good about believing he was like that.
  12. Well, again, christian orthodoxy, especially monasticism, covers every aspect of life, from diet , with its fasting scheledule, all year round services, the sacraments from baptism, as in birth to confession to the eucharist to prayer to views about every facet of life. The type of christianity you described is a very lax type of christianity, which of course you will see a lot of the time, but it is not what it is in is more strict forms. I mean christian orthodoxy has teachings about thought watching and never ending prayer with layers and levels in its mystical levels. As I said, it really does cover every aspect of life from the intellect to the body. And it does have a very rich tradition in devotion, from spectacular services and chanting in great cathedrals to inner silent prayer in hermits in caves. I mean git to give it the credit fir what it is. I do not deny that hindu concepts are different, but the christian life is all encompassing. One of the reasons it is so hard to leave. And the orthodox do say that the RC and esoecially the protestants have strayed from this understanding. A monk priest from Mt Athos said orthodox theology is ascetic theology, about the real union in experience with the divine energies. He also deplored the highly lax and secularized form christianity even Orthodoxy is in today. Standard definition of modern atheism would be lack of beliefs in certain entities, usually called supernatural. As such any belief that the Vedas were not authored by humans would be rejected. And the materialistic schools of thought and individuals in India who rejected the Vedas, rituals and relied on just natural explanation would no be, in my opinion, even called hindu, or maybe only in the cultural sense. I mean do you believe Shiva exists as a spiritual being? Be it just a manifestation of Brahman? Or do you regard him as a symbol? Do you pray to him/ worship him?
  13. I do not think there is big difference in tolerance between monotheistic and polytheistic society. I mean, Hindus have and had caste systems. Romans and Greek had slaves and were extremely xenophobic in some areas. War like tribes in Africa , Europe and all other countries, tribes as in smaller communities are by the thousands. And by the way, in India there are cases of people converting to Buddhism from Hinduism because it is more egalitarian. And if you want a famous case in history, Socrates was alledgely tried and executed for blasphemy and inciting people to impiety, from what I know. And monotheistic religions like Christianity had something about being universal, which also made it in some areas more tolerant than others.
  14. Actually, as many scholars of religion point out, christianity is pretty exclusive. Bringing Jesus into Hinduism means transforming him in something very different from what the Bible says about him. I mean the evidence from early christianity is pretty clear that christians rejected and denounced polytheism as false wherever they went.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.