Jump to content

Myrkhoos

Regular Member
  • Content Count

    145
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Myrkhoos

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. This is a tricky subject. Interpreting scripture outside its context.
  7. 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.
  8. Well, even hindus believe there also lies and not everything goes.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Well Well, I come from a backgound in Eastern Orthodoxy, which, if you know about it, shares a lot in style with eastern religions. An entire way of life is what Christianity is described to be, at least in the Orthodox sense. This what religions usually are, ways of life. And western atheism is not a religion , not a school of thought, but just one statement. Not being convinced of the existence of certain kind of entities. That is basically it. Of course, a lot of atheists seem to be also humanists and naturalists/materialist, but that is a different aspect. Mimamsa philosophers believed that the revelation of the Vedas was sacred, authorless (apaurusheyatva) and infallible, and that it was essential to preserve the sanctity of the Vedic ritual to maintain dharma (cosmic order).[16][17]:52–53 As a consequence of the belief in sanctity of the ritual, Mimamsas rejected the notion of God in any form This what what also in that article about Hindu atheism. That just seems like a weird form of extreme Bible fundamentalism. I think no western atheist would ever adhere to those kind of ideas. So the atheism they had was a different form than modern Western atheism. That is why I said one must first show their definitions about what atheist and Hindu means.
  15. Big identity changes are hard to overcome, usually, in general. And being in Euope/America, Christianity is at least the cultural background of it all for so long.
  16. Hi, I have been listening/reading Steven Hassan, Alexandra Stein, Janja Lalich, Christ Shelton. Leah remini, etc, which talk about dangerous cults. Very informative. BUT, when they speak about mainstream religions, like the Catholic Church or Islam, they say, oh no they are very different, they do not check up on you, do not use mind control, etc, no serious abuse, and etc. They seem to know very little actually about the official theology of these religions. I mean I am not saying that arguments in favor of them are not possible, but they are actually wrong in their presupppositions. For example, a lot of mainstream Christianity, whatever part of it, be it protestant, catholic, eastern Orthodox, has the idea of eternal hell. Which could be viewed as phobia indoctrination. The idea tha God is always watching you, so they do not need to watch you as well, which a lot of cults do as well. Unquestioning obedience to its governing body. Extolting the value of suffering as cleansing of sin. It seems to be that they look at the secularized/lax forms of religion and conclude it is not problematic. But I guarantee that if Scientology of Jehovaw Witnesses turned more secular and lax, the outer fringes of them would look quite benign and even entertaining. They should look at the monastic forms of both Catholics and Orthodox, which a lot see as the most perfect forms of the religion and see the principles of isolation, obedience, dependence on the superiors for everything, from water to what and how to think, etc. Again, one can argue endlessly wheter these practices lead to liberation or enslavment, or anything in between, but first they must be known and documented. I think that Marlene Winnell also saw this, as she writes more about religious upbringing in general. Before we can solve a problem, we should SEE that there is one. Alexandra Stein even says that Nazism, and communism in 20 century were state cults. Like North Korea now. Well, maybe she should really look into Christianity and Islam and see if her critarea would not make them look like cults as well. A discussion should be had, and it seems to be brushed aside too easily. Maybe they are right practices, monastic ones I mean, but at least they should be thoroughly overviewed.
  17. Well, hello. I have no real knowledge of Hinduism. More attracted to the teachings of the Buddha, which seem to be a kind of reaction against hindu schools. Now, the problem is how you view truth. You say that one can be both a Hindu and an atheist. Depending on your definitions, that could be true, but it does sound absurd. Atheism usually means one does not accept any supernatural entitites to exist and veers into the direction of materialism. Hinduism seems to have plethora of deities and deity worship. So , it really depends. Maybe you are referring to a very materialistic school of Hinduism which sees all religious forms merely as symbols as stories, with no material truth to them, as in well Shiva is just a symbol for goodness, and we read those myths as one reads Shakespeare of Lord of the Rings, very good literature. Probably there would a lot of yogis who would refute your claim. And Hinduism, from what I gather is not a religion, per say, like Christianity, more like a number of loosely tied different schools of thought with no clear central structure, like some of the Abrahamic religions. Just a word of caution. Indian practices, from yoga to festivals, to the food even, is very potent in its ability to stimulate the psyche and the body. As with all such practices, care is necessary as the human mind becomes very suggestible in those states. In the West there, for example, numerous examples of yoga cults. I recommend reading about Daniel Shaw and Siddha Yoga , plus the cult made by a guy named Cohen, i forgot hist other name but you can search Cohen yoga cult on the internet. Just because it feels good at first, does not mean you should not critically examine through and through. It is my intuition that when one elevates wellbeing over truth, he ends up losing both.
  18. I consider religions to be much more than that, but I will leave that discussion for another time , if ever.
  19. That is why , when I gave examples of roots, I specified that this is only for some forms of fundamentalism, of which there there are many in the US. I am from a traditionally Eastern Orthodox country, Romania, and know a bit about about Orthodox interpretation of Scripture and how they hold it together. And they brush off many contradictions with meta narratives/ and or allegorical interpretations. It is pretty intricate, and impressive as well, to some extent. But even that has problems. Like when they say the Holy Spirit, what they really mean is usually the writings of the Holy fathers and some ecumenical councils. So basically what people said. It is as if, during Lithurgy, the Holy Spirit makes a physical appearance evident to all, in every Church, and says what he wants. No, that never seems to happen. So in this case, the innerancy part falls on the community of people which produced even the Scripture. And that, well, thinking that a group of people is innerant when they talk about God...if that were true, how come there SO many contradictions between these people? There is a plethora of the history of heresies. I mean, John of Damascus, 8th century famous theologian considered Islam, which he knew first hand, nothing more than a Christian heresy and refutes using, what else, Scripture and logic. More or less, they all have a certain ex cathedra theology. In plainer terms, using your own term, the moment you disagree with the prevalent opinion on what constitutes spiritual development and how to get there, then you are basically out. The Church usually teaches unquestioning obedience to it as the greatest virtue, critical and independent thinking as satanic.
  20. Sometimes, to me, having read books went to monasteries, etc that , that a philosophy of life usually sprouts from actually a few simple things/ ideas, to only grow in complexity and depth. But, if you start having problems with a root, like for fundamentalists the innerrancy of the Bible, then everything collapses, the whole tree. This what I am starting to investigate.
  21. Well know, you just gave a description of the ordinary human mind with its plethora of defense mechanisms, blind spots and cognitive bias :). Not surprinsingly groups tend to have the same issues only augmented exponentially, if it does not also do the hard work of inner and outer vigilance.
  22. hello, Well, hope you find your way. An insight just came to me. I mean I got something from your comment that got me reflecting on certain points. Religion as an organizer. Of people and experience. Interesting point to me.
  23. Rickswordfish, please take my words as spoken with kindness. You seem to be a covert christian apologist, or in some sort of psychological crisis. OR a major troll. In those cases, most reasoning simply does not work. And there really are many prophesies in the Bible that seemed to come to fruition. But only a narrow rigid understanding of reality, as brought on by being a strict apologist or by mental issues could prevent you to see that there ARE in fact other explanations for them. I am not saying they are true, but there are other posibilities. Do you want the psychological comfort of certainty, even if it s an illusion? By all means join a cult or some forms of religion. The scientific method is one of uncertainty. So you either developp peace with uncertainty, which granted, is very very hard, or choose an already made simplified worlview of some organisation. It is however telling that you fixate on such details on the city of Tyre. I guarantee a lot of Christians, including myself some years ago, had no idea about the city of tyre and thst prophecy.I mean do you believe the central tenets of Christianity, as in the Fall of Man , redemption by Jesus death and ressurection? Fixating and obsessing about unimportant details is a classic sign of some mental problems. Like OCD. Of course it is not a sure sign. But it is an important clue. So again, if that is the issue, go to therapy in what ever form and research about mental illness. Trying to reason with a broken mind is like trying to talk when your tongue is split in two.
  24. Well, the problem seems to be over my head. But a couple observations. There is private part, you saving, and a social part, larger socioeconomic system you live in. And about the extended famiky taking care of the elderly. While that may be true, we should realise that modern medicine makes co morbidity, as in living with a person with chronic incapacity, a lot more difficult. Many elderly, when severly incapacitated, would probably not live for very long. Also I do not know if this applied to all cultures. And about taking care of the poor. Again , it depends. It seems, even from the Gospels, that the poor were many times sidestepped. I doubt that the poor or the afflicted had it better than they have it in modern European west. I talk about Europe because ny knowledge of the US social system is not very good.
  25. Yes, of course, take these suggestions as any friendly advice, with caution. I do not offer guarantees. And even those books, don t take them all at face value, take the time to really analyze them and see what YOU think and what you do. What fits, doesn't , that sort of thing. I cannot do this for you.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.