In the Flesh

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Robber Chih says:

    Merry xmas and happy new year, M. Malič. Thanks for the podcast.
    I agree with you: here you have hit upon one of the most profound aspects of Christianity in contrast to ancient philosophy. I think from Anaxamander onwards, the ancients viewed individual existence as a “sin” or transgression against the One.
    Whereas Christianity makes no relation to this idea.
    It seems that even modern philosophers adopt this ancient line, it’s the nature of speculation. The rights of the individual truth against the general truth is imo the hallmark of Christian development. It was sin to be misologos, against the general truth as such, and in Christianity it is not.
    Job’s dialogues come to mind. And as Kierkeggard intuited to the sacrifice of Abraham (sic) standing against general ethics. How much does this pertain to the topic of your pc?

    Incarnation is profound. The kingdom of God is within [the body]. Isn’t that the point?

    The virtues of the pagans are splendid vices. Many of your points about body and sense perception recall to the Tao. Children are born in the pure state, lose it with conditioning, and can attain it again through bodily exercise like kung fu and chi kung. The spirit is there sleeping in the body and as one becomes concious of the inner layers of one’s body, the awareness unfolds.
    One teacher of chi kung has remarked it doesn’t matter your belief, upon effective practice you will discover the Kingdom in your body.
    Regarding true sense perception:
    Are not all the empty spaces in our body (esp the head) gates for the singular true substance to enter in?
    Does a blind person not hear much more? If one gate is blocked, it is compensated by others. Dividing the senses we are lost to true perception, which is innate. On one level the senses may be denied, but not on all levels.
    Different practices for different levels.

    Your comments on pornography recall one to some of the heretical sects of Christianity which sprung up in the early years. I think some gnostics interpreted the sacredness of body in a most profane way. Ofc it was not visually centred as pornography is but it was very bodily centred nonetheless.

    Thank you and Godspeed your endeavours in this new year.

  2. Mihai Marinescu says:

    I do disagree on Origen, though. His views were criticized during his lifetime as well and have been condemned on more than one occasion afterwards as well.
    Even though the most extreme forms in which some of his teachings have been presented belongs more to some of his later followers, than to himself, he did start quite a dangerous direction.

    The Cappadocian Fathers are, in this regard ( as well as in others) the most balanced: they helped salvage what was good in Origen, while carefully refuting what was bad. St Basil did recognize his positive influence in many things regarding biblical exegesis- so did Gregory of Nyssa, while at the same time writing a refutation of his notion of pre-existence of souls.

    It is interesting to note the following: St Maximos the Confessor was one of the most direct followers of the Cappadocians and, indirectly, of Origen in what regards some aspects of Biblical exegesis. Though not once naming him, he provides an ample refutation of what we call “origenistic” views in the first parts of his Ambigua, although it is not clear if he specifically had Origen in mind, or some of his later day followers, who were prolific until his time as well. While he was on trial during the Monoenergist controversy halfway into the 7th century, he was himself accused for being an origenist, an accusation he staunchly denied.

    • Malić says:

      The point is that, as far as I know, he was prepared to change what was considered wrong and that’s an important detail. Nevertheless, his legacy is what it is and that makes him a tragic figure. It is astonishing how intelligent and, even more so, devoted he is, yet at the same time capable to produce ideas like this: Judas has not fallen into total depravity because he felt desperate about what he did. If he was completely evil he would not suffer the deseperation and kill himself. Just few passages later, in the course of his polemic against Celsus, he in the deadpan form adds what I was really hoping he won’t add but was in fact ineviatable : “much like Peter himself”.

      When you compare this inability to distinguish the atittude of chief apostle and that of chief betrayer, of remorse over weakness and desperation over evil, the rest of the refutation of Celsus, based as it is mainly on the clear common sense, cannot be read without at least a hint of headache.

      Jerome puts it well in this


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *