What is Contemplative Christianity?

[sassysam29]

Again, just stressing that my faith is between God and myself. I have no control over anything......not sure what you are implying

 

[sassysam29]

Oh, we can surprise ourselves how delusional we really are in this regards! Trust me, I'm being very candid here that even a practice of meditation can be an avoidance of God. Certainly religion can be one, without doubt. It's a more sneaky avoidance, because it looks like we are coming to God by doing these 'religious things', but in reality, it can be the greater self-deception because we can point to it in order to lie to ourselves. Just indulging yourself wantonly in the things of the flesh is obvious. Being religious and going through all the right motions is insidious. It's a deeper deception to our own selves.

The true tell of whether or not we are hiding ourselves from God, avoiding God, is how open we truly are. And I say this with no small confidence, there is no better, more effective way to see these avoidances in ourselves than to sit in naked silence before God, not hiding behind our thoughts, not hiding behind our self-conceptions, not hiding behind our religious and theological beliefs, but laying it all before the throne of God, as in death, and standing empty handing before the LIght of the Throne. Then, you will see those things you have been hiding when you allow God to show them to you. You may say you are not hiding, but I'll say you are deceiving yourself. We all do it. No exceptions. We have to face that "death moment", when all the things of this world fall away and we stand before the Infinite. That, is when we pass from death into Life.

What meditation practice actually does is it engages in the process of the death experience. The end of your ego. The dissolution of all we hold to in this world as we wholly surrender ourselves as in death to God. This is why many avoid such a "face to face" encounter. The fear of letting go. It's natural. We all do it.

I appreciate your opinions but I passed from death to life the moment I recognized my sinful self and surrendered my will to the Father through Jesus Christ! I am well aware of the religious shackles that any belief system can put you in....self righteousness can spring from dogmas or emotional experiences

 

[sojourner]

I think it's both. If my husband writes me a letter I intellectually comprehend it and my heart feels through my comprehension of those words. If it were a man I didn't know, my heart would not react, but I would read it academic/intellectually.

Let me put it to you this way:
How do you know someone loves you? I've been looked at in the eye and lied to about love. Words aren't reliable. I've been hugged by people who are indifferent. Acts aren't reliable. You know someone loves you through the intuition of your heart.

 

[sojourner]

Again, just stressing that my faith is between God and myself. I have no control over anything......not sure what you are implying

I'm implying that you're missing the theological point that faith isn't faith until it's acted out in the context of others. Meaning that it's about far more than "God and me."

 

[Windwalker]

I appreciate your opinions but I passed from death to life the moment I recognized my sinful self and surrendered my will to the Father through Jesus Christ! I am well aware of the religious shackles that any belief system can put you in....self righteousness can spring from dogmas or emotional experiences

I'm just saying, speaking from my experience, as much as we think we have reached the end of ourselves, nothing else hiding in there, there is still yet another layer to the onion. It is my opinion that this reality we encounter in ourselves is so because we continue to live in the flesh. It's truly as the Apostle Paul says, "I die daily". It's not a one time thing, but a process of living, and then having to continually renew through that self-surrender. There is no limit to how deep, or how far we can go, and no end to it either.

So, I'd just advise a certain self-skepticism, that when we think we have arrived at that destination, that may seem so at the moment, but then the target moves. If we rest in that self-assessment, it's not long before we wonder why we seem so out of touch now. As long as we are alive, we have to renew. It's not a historical God, but a God of each moment. Think of it as reaching towards an infinitely receding goal. It's that action that brings "new life".

 

[lovemuffin]

What meditation practice actually does is it engages in the process of the death experience. The end of your ego. The dissolution of all we hold to in this world as we wholly surrender ourselves as in death to God. This is why many avoid such a "face to face" encounter. The fear of letting go. It's natural. We all do it.

I appreciate your opinions but I passed from death to life the moment I recognized my sinful self and surrendered my will to the Father through Jesus Christ!

I'm just saying, speaking from my experience, as much as we think we have reached the end of ourselves, nothing else hiding in there, there is still yet another layer to the onion. It is my opinion that this reality we encounter in ourselves is so because we continue to live in the flesh. It's truly as the Apostle Paul says, "I die daily". It's not a one time thing, but a process of living, and then having to continually renew through that self-surrender. There is no limit to how deep, or how far we can go, and no end to it either.

The bolded reminds me of the mystical concept of epektasis (a striving forth) that is central to Gregory of Nyssa's take on the spiritual life. The word and his usage seems to have been inspired by Philippians:

"Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward [epekteinomenos -- WN] to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." (Philippians 3:8-14)
​

For Gregory, that continual growth towards God that has no limit or end (because God is infinite) is the model of life in Christ. The upward call to know him is not deferred, but we press on towards it continually. Paul's straining forward is something he is doing now, not something purely deferred to a future hope of a resurrection. Just as the desert fathers' reading of "pray without ceasing" inspired a particular model of contemplative prayer in the attempt to experience the presence of God in every moment, Gregory's reading of this passage inspired a similar ideal.

 

[sassysam29]

Yes....I do understand the daily surrender. I am speaking positionally. Of course in practice...it's daily.

 

[sojourner]

The bolded reminds me of the mystical concept of epektasis (a striving forth) that is central to Gregory of Nyssa's take on the spiritual life. The word and his usage seems to have been inspired by Philippians:

"Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward [epekteinomenos -- WN] to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." (Philippians 3:8-14)
​

For Gregory, that continual growth towards God that has no limit or end (because God is infinite) is the model of life in Christ. The upward call to know him is not deferred, but we press on towards it continually. Paul's straining forward is something he is doing now, not something purely deferred to a future hope of a resurrection. Just as the desert fathers' reading of "pray without ceasing" inspired a particular model of contemplative prayer in the attempt to experience the presence of God in every moment, Gregory's reading of this passage inspired a similar ideal.

I was just going to mention Gregory. You beat me to it.

 

[Windwalker]

Yes....I do understand the daily surrender. I am speaking positionally. Of course in practice...it's daily.

I keep having this feeling we are not talking too far off from each other in certain instances. It may just be communication and assumptions on both parts. I'm curious to know if what you are describing as "positionally" was how you later understood what your initial experience was? I gather from your posts you have had actual internal experience, as opposed to seeing things outside yourself which confirmed beliefs, such as in demons and whatnot. Believe me, I am one who understands these sorts of "conversion" or peak experiences. Am I correct that you began with an experience?

 

[Windwalker]

For Gregory, that continual growth towards God that has no limit or end (because God is infinite) is the model of life in Christ. The upward call to know him is not deferred, but we press on towards it continually. Paul's straining forward is something he is doing now, not something purely deferred to a future hope of a resurrection. Just as the desert fathers' reading of "pray without ceasing" inspired a particular model of contemplative prayer in the attempt to experience the presence of God in every moment, Gregory's reading of this passage inspired a similar ideal.

Wow. Thank you for citing something both from scripture and from this person that confirms the insights of my own experiences. I actually am largely unfamiliar with Gregory, and that verses from Paul does in fact fit with what I am saying. What is this about confirmation from scripture? Yes, my experiences in fact are confirmed by scripture.

This reminds me of the quote which is attributed to the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart which says, "Theologians may quarrel, but the mystics of the world speak the same language." That quite aptly says it. In fact, I find it astounding, yet unsurprising when I read Meister Eckhart encountering things I've never read or heard before from him, how they leap off the page from things I myself have written 700 years in the future from him! It is as if there is no time gap between his understandings and insights and those I have come to independently in my own practice. Confirmations? They are aplenty!

 

[sassysam29]

I keep having this feeling we are not talking too far off from each other in certain instances. It may just be communication and assumptions on both parts. I'm curious to know if what you are describing as "positionally" was how you later understood what your initial experience was? I gather from your posts you have had actual internal experience, as opposed to seeing things outside yourself which confirmed beliefs, such as in demons and whatnot. Believe me, I am one who understands these sorts of "conversion" or peak experiences. Am I correct that you began with an experience?

I don't speak of things much.

 

[Windwalker]

I don't speak of things much.

Words spoken without sound. Sounds like that Silence I falter to speak of.

 

[sassysam29]

Just prefer alone. It's very hard to understand, but I do know that there is a certainty in Christ I have never known until recently! He is truly all I need.

 

[Windwalker]

Just prefer alone. It's very hard to understand, but I do know that there is a certainty in Christ I have never known until recently! He is truly all I need.

Yes, this is that internal knowing.

 

[Yoshua]

Are you trying to put a label on me so you can categorize me and put me into a little box of your understanding? I am a seeker in the general sense of what anyone who loves God should be. But if "a seeker" is a category of type of person, then good luck trying to fit me into anything you can understand. You don't even follow what I'm stating clearly in these posts, let alone hope to understand how I think at any of the deeper levels.

No , I’m not. May I ask you again? What church are you attending? Can you name some of the well-known pastors or preachers that hold the same belief as you do?

No. You don't understand relativism at all, do you? Of course there are points of reference and a basis for points of view, but those references are contextual, and those contexts will vary and so will the understandings based upon them as points of reference. You cannot point to something and say "This is Absolute", because the context you are seeing it from is relative, and not absolute. For instance, you are unable to see the relative nature of reality, and I am. Why? Our points of references are different.

To you, the world is black and white, true/false, good/evil, God/Satan, etc. To me, it is shades and gradients of relative truths, multiple faces of our own understandings projected onto reality. My context is quite different than yours, and it in fact does have a basis and point of reference. And through this, when I read the Bible, my understanding ends up reflecting those perspectives, those points of view, those vantage points, as it were. I certainly understand how you read and interpret the Bible, but my context shows me that any of our points of view are not absolute, whereas you lack that context and imagine they are. Google can be your friend here in trying to learn about these things,

Ok. I got your point. It is clearer to me now. Your position is “There is no Absolute Truth.” Therefore your basis of truth may come from social norms, culture, society and yourself (individual). How about morality? Will you allow sexual immorality since this is widely acceptable by the society? Where is your ground of truth here?

I would prefer if people could explain their own beliefs in their own words rather than quoting scriptures. Remember, you and I read the same words and you hear something that makes sense to the context you are reading it from, but my context is larger than yours so I see stuff you do not. I understand them quite differently than your context allows you to see. But I'll summarize what I hear you saying from your explaination below:

When you are studying in grade school, high school and in college, did you study starting from grade school to college without using a book because you choose to know it by yourself based on your belief of the subject? Please answer this.

I see, that does summarize your view accurately. It's ego-fruit, not Spirit fruit because they don't self-identify as Christian. That's an interesting interpretation you have. I'll offer another possibility. God is not owned by the Christian religion. God transcends all religions. And if someone in another religion has a true, genuine heart for God, they in fact are capable of having a relationship with God without converting to what goes around calling itself the "true religion". The fruit they produce is in fact from the Holy Spirit, even if that is understood by a different name in their relative contexts.

Let me apply your relativism philosophy here:
Can you mixed the black paint and white paint together to produce a colorful yellow as light?

So, rather than having to force-fit what you observe into your box of theologies, insulting the Spirit of God in them, it seems easier to extend the range of what God can do beyond the borders of Israel, into all the world, where there is "neither Jew nor Greek," nor Christian nor Hindu, but "all are one in Christ". To "follow Christ", does not mean to join a church and believe a defined set of beliefs. It is to follow the Living Spirit, which is Christ. I think my way of understanding fits better with what the Bible teaches, and with what we observe in reality that doesn't necessitate us denying Spirit when it exists and lives outside what our theologies can factor into themselves.

God already did it for humanity. He offered His love through Jesus Christ.

John 3:16-18
16. "For God so loved the world (Hindu, Buddhist, Relativist, Muslim etc.), that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever (Absolute Truth) believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life(God’s absolute truth).

You cannot erase the truth here. Your point is right up to the phrase "For God so loved the world (Hindu, Buddhist, Relativist, Muslim etc.), that He gave His only begotten Son, then you STOP HERE, and inserted your relative philosophy as saying to God ”I have to believe in myself to work out faith in any means and will not follow what was written in the Bible because the Bible is not Christ, so I better step out first and find what is acceptable to the society and for myself.”

Now, how can the Holy Spirit dwell in an individual who did not have the relationship with Jesus Christ?
You have said that ‘To "follow Christ", does not mean to join a church and believe a defined set of beliefs.’

You cannot reconcile what is not reconcilable. My friend.
Exodus 20:3
3. "You shall have no other gods before Me.


Exodus 34:14
14. for you shall not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

God is not allowing idols and any other god, nowhere that you can apply the yin yang principles here. God never compromised and say “ Ok, you may have another god beside me but…….” No way!

Now let me continue,
17. "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him.
18. "He who believes in Him is not judged; (See, this is absolute truth here) he who does not believe has been judged already, ( another one) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (still another absolute truth)


Then would you think that a Hindu & Buddhist will embraced and accept that Jesus is his soul saviour?

They may believe Jesus is a belief for Christianity and it stop there, but not the repentance, relationship, trust, and obedience to the teachings of Jesus Christ. No way that they will religiously follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. I firmly believed that this cannot be declared as there is no absolute truth because God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is an Absolute God.

Since an evil tree cannot produce good fruit, and they are in fact producing good fruit, fruit of the Spirit as defined by scripture, then they are not evil trees. "By their fruit you shall know them". I know atheists who are better Christians than most Christians. I sound just like Jesus here, "Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you."

Yes, I personally know that there are better non-christians than Christians, but the question is what do you see?

Yes that is true, it only sounds Jesus--by good works, and others by head knowledge only. The tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God not because they just believe, but they show their repentance, trust, commitment and obedience. This is what Eph. 2:6-9 said. Without this, their faith is superficial, and relied only in his own decision & judgment as there is no Absolute truth (relativism).

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

The reasoning of your response seems to contradict that of the gospel:

"And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”

But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.” (Luke 10:25-37)
​

It would seem to me that the motivation in your response is similar to that expressed by the lawyer. Jesus' answer presupposes that the question is motivated by a desire to justify thinking of some groups as non-neighbors regardless of the actual results of their actions, just as you desire to reject the legitimacy of a non-Christian claims to "good fruit" regardless of their actions. But Jesus' rejects that kind of distinction. The neighbor is one who shows mercy without regard for the kind of qualifications you are making. There is a similar rejection of these kinds of arguments in Jesus' insistence that we love our enemies, do good to all, judge not, that not all who say "Lord, Lord" would be saved but those who do the will of the Father, and etc. Or in Paul's rejection of this kind of legal classification:

"For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." (Romans 2:12-16)​

Hi wellnamed,

Thanks for your comment. You may misinterpreted my message, we are discussing more on the doctrinal/theological (Holy Spirit) side here. The subject is not loving thy neighbor nor discriminate them. I expect and hope that you may impart your insights in my question for you. May I ask also to indicate the supporting Scripture like you did.

Did other faiths/belief like Muslim, Hindus, Buddhist... will be filled with the Holy Spirit? How?

Are they taught to be filled with the Holy Spirit to become a Muslim, Hindus, Buddhist.....? How and when?

Thanks

 

[sassysam29]

Let me put it to you this way:
How do you know someone loves you? I've been looked at in the eye and lied to about love. Words aren't reliable. I've been hugged by people who are indifferent. Acts aren't reliable. You know someone loves you through the intuition of your heart.

The problem with defining love through human relationships is that although we can see glimpses of God through them, we are so limited in understanding perfect love. Love requires trust. My intuition can fail me because it's imperfect also and because emotions do factor in. I can believe my intuition is telling me xyz, but my human emotions can weigh heavily on my interpretation of those notions. There is an element of trust involved in love.

Again, just stressing that my faith is between God and myself. I have no control over anything......not sure what you are implying

I appreciate your opinions but I passed from death to life the moment I recognized my sinful self and surrendered my will to the Father through Jesus Christ! I am well aware of the religious shackles that any belief system can put you in....self righteousness can spring from dogmas or emotional experiences

 

[Shia Islam]

Thanks

Hey,
could you plz explain to me what your avatar image means?

i have many times seen this fish like pic that i did not know its meaning..

 

[sassysam29]

I'm implying that you're missing the theological point that faith isn't faith until it's acted out in the context of others. Meaning that it's about far more than "God and me."

My point was not a self absolved faith, my point was, not pushing or applying my own personal relationship or standards onto others that dont believe

 

[Windwalker]

No , I’m not. May I ask you again? What church are you attending? Can you name some of the well-known pastors or preachers that hold the same belief as you do?

No you may not ask me. I can smell you desire to try pigeonhole me from miles away. As far as "well-known pastors or preachers" who see things as I do, the question is irrelevant. You are dealing with me, not them.

Ok. I got your point. It is clearer to me now. Your position is “There is no Absolute Truth.”

As I said, you are trying to pigeonhole me. You've now labeled me a "Relativist". And you are wrong. If this is my position, then you have to try to reconcile that with me throughout this thread speaking of The Absolute, Truth with a capital T, and so forth. If I am as you a grasping to pigeonhole me a "Relativist", then I'm not a very good one since I in fact accept there is the Absolute, and I also deem some ideas and truths to be better and of more value than others.

Therefore your basis of truth may come from social norms, culture, society and yourself (individual). How about morality? Will you allow sexual immorality since this is widely acceptable by the society? Where is your ground of truth here?

My Ground of Truth is Spirit. I've told you this already. From this Ground of Truth, we then enter into the world of the relative. In the world of the relative, we may choose to be consciously illuminated by Spirit to guide us through the maze of relative choices, or we may just try our best to make choices for ourselves and the whole which benefit others without that conscious Awareness of Spirit. In either case, the Goal is aspired to, even if 'through a glass darkly". To say there is nothing you can point to from a relative perspective (which I have discussed at length so far), do not in any way translate into "anything goes". That response is reflective of a black and white mentality.

But I do not wish this to become a discussion about where morality comes from and its role in the whole, as that is a huge topic in itself. Suffice to say, coming from where I do in how I see things, we could have an entire discussion in any area you could choose. The one we are talking about right now however, is why a contemplative practice and mysticism in Christianity is not only valid, but frankly one of its highest expressions of faith.

When you are studying in grade school, high school and in college, did you study starting from grade school to college without using a book because you choose to know it by yourself based on your belief of the subject? Please answer this.

There is a certain truth to what you say here. When you are young and immature, these higher truths are outside of you yet as you have not learned them sufficiently to internalize them. You, in your immaturity will be tempted to be hung up on "authorities" you can 'trust in' in order to tell what is true. "Nah uh! Teacher Brian says that it's this way! What your teacher told you is wrong!". As you mature as a student however you begin to see that their are not just multiple opinions on the same topics, but that there are actually multiple correct ways to see the same thing! Then, at an even more mature stage of the learner, they themselves become a teacher. But not a teacher who merely parrots others, but one who understands the nature of truth itself and speaks from experience to multiple understandings of what those younger students are desperately want to just be told what the truth is without all these multiple perspectives. "Just tell me what to believe", is the cry of a frustrated mind not yet ready to take on more than single, black and white, monological thinking.

So, yes, as a child, you have to have someone, who hopefully is a wise and matured teacher and not a mere parrot-teacher with no understanding, help guide the young mind into their own realizations. And that is key: Guide. Not dictate. Maturity is an internal process, a growth process, not just more book knowledge. You have to develop the person as a whole, then the knowledge of the mind becomes much different than that of the young student who thinks they know it all and tells the teacher, "You've got it wrong, because I read in this other book here it says something different!". Note the level of maturity expressed in the responses of the young student?

Let me apply your relativism philosophy here:
Can you mixed the black paint and white paint together to produce a colorful yellow as light?

Haha! It's fun to watch you try to pigeonhole me. So, to respond to your "black and white" question here, let's take a look at what black and white actually is first, shall we? To steal an explanation from Wiki because I'm lazy, "In the visible spectrum, white reflects light and is a presence of all colors, but black absorbs light and is an absence of color. Black can be defined as the visual impression experienced when no visible light reaches the eye." So, inherent in black and white is the presence of colors, but they are just not seen in the visible spectrum because of what that light is being reflected off of. Do you see where I'm going here? I hope you can because this sets up the contrast between our modes of perception.

In reality, in order to see any color and all you have to have objects that allow that color to be seen. Without getting uber-technical about how the eye sees here, it is sufficient to say that to see "yellow", you need to have some object that allows that color to be seen, along with an eyeball which can see colors. To be color-sighted requires firstly an eye that can see differences in the light spectrum (receptors called cones), as well as objects which reflect that light back to it in order for it to see the colors of the spectrum. If you were a skate (the fish), you could only see in black and white because they eye lacks any cones which allows it to see color.

So to extend the metaphor to modes of thinking, since we are talking about the difference between black and white thinking and being able to see differences in the color spectrum, in order to see "yellow" you don't blend black and white! You don't try to reconcile True and False and end up with a mashup of "Tfraulese". What you actually realize is that the relative world in which we live is one of a spectrum of reflected colors! Contrasts also exist, and you have various degrees of the spectrum which become more pronounced, and more subtle This is all reflective of the more nuanced mind, as opposed to the sharp, undelineated highly contrasting mind which see no subtleties, nor very little if any variation in the spectrum of reality.

When it comes to human consciousness however this lack of nuanced or colored sight is not a fixed permanent thing, fortunately. Nuanced sight of the mind can be developed and refined, and the world opens to the mind its its infinite array of color and degrees of contrast, all reflections of the Light Source which shines forth into the manifest world. The metaphors abound in scripture about giving sight to the blind, having their darkened eyes opened, etc. Spiritual awakening is quite literally, opening to see the spectrum of light radiating and moving across all objects. Religious blindness however is one that absolutizes black and white sightedness, and seeks to make the rest of the world colorblind as well.

God already did it for humanity. He offered His love through Jesus Christ.

John 3:16-18
16. "For God so loved the world (Hindu, Buddhist, Relativist, Muslim etc.), that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever (Absolute Truth) believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life(God’s absolute truth).

Once again your not-so-subtle attempt to pigeonhole me as a "Relativist", and then to include ME into those other groups you see as "lost"! You become more and more obvious in each post your true "color" (or lack thereof as the case may be). That's fine, by all means continue to expose yourself. Let the masks of religion drop to allow the inside of the cup to be seen.

Anyway, I'll try again to communicate what I did previously in the hope that one of the cones in your eye might light up here where you can see the shade of color that's hitting it....

You cannot erase the truth here. Your point is right up to the phrase "For God so loved the world (Hindu, Buddhist, Relativist, Muslim etc.), that He gave His only begotten Son, then you STOP HERE, and inserted your relative philosophy as saying to God ”I have to believe in myself to work out faith in any means and will not follow what was written in the Bible because the Bible is not Christ, so I better step out first and find what is acceptable to the society and for myself.”

Oh brother. You just don't read or listen to what others say, do you? I am talking to a wall? I absolutely reject this false image of us that says "I have to believe in myself to work out my faith". Once, anywhere, please, please actually quote anything any of us have said that says this! You cannot, because it is a dishonest lie. You are lying. You are bearing false witness, to use the Bible term. I have for at least five times minimally countered this, as well as all the others, but yet you do not respond to what we actually say, but you make up this lie, this false witness in order to prove us "wrong".

This is a strawman argument, one where you stuff a set of clothes full of straw and do battle with it, and claim the victory as you defeat it. But we are not made of straw. We are made of actual intelligent matter which can frankly quite easily dispatch with you. But instead of responding to us, you are making believe you are to others by saying we are this straw man over here. The fact you do this, again, and again, shows me and everyone that you have nothing to offer. You aren't responding to the actual points. You have no argument of substance, but just want to pretend you're still "in the fight". In other words, you've lost and just won't lay down already.

I see no reason to go any further. You're not in a discussion with us. You're in a fantasy of your own imagination.