What is Contemplative Christianity?

[sassysam29]

It's a matter, though, of depth. One can't love by reading about love.

Sometimes when I write, I am very dark and deep in my writing..... people could interpret it into many different forms, but when my husband picks it up and reads it he knows exactly what I am speaking about because he knows me

 

[sojourner]

I agree, but when I read the words of a letter my child writes to me, there is an extremely deep transfer of love that happens. At least for me

But only because of the prior relationship -- or experience. I think it's the experience that drives the relationship -- not the information about the relationship. Although, I do agree with everything you've said about writing. I'm glad you have that experience with it!

 

[sojourner]

Sometimes when I write, I am very dark and deep in my writing..... people could interpret it into many different forms, but when my husband picks it up and reads it he knows exactly what I am speaking about because he knows me

Again: it's the experience that informs the reading. But I'm glad for you.

 

[Windwalker]

Reread my posts. I have said according to my life experiences, that I myself feel that they are dangerous and unbiblical. I myself would not trust anything outside the Bible in spiritual matters.

You do not trust yourself listening to your inner voices, therefore you look outside yourself. I don't lack an understanding of that. But your experience, be careful not to project that on to others. I for one, have learned to trust in it.

 

[Windwalker]

I've been pondering a thought and I'll post it without having really chewed much on it, so let's see what it looks like. One thing I am struck by in this discussion, and it relates to what I just responded to in my post before this one, post 364, is that those who are objecting or skittish about meditation practice and say the Bible "doesn't teach it", seem to not care one bit that the same criteria by themselves is not applied to physical exercise. Nowhere in the Bible does it teach pushups, pullups, curls, jogging, deep-knee bends, swimming, etc. Yet they engage in these exercises without batting an eye. But when it comes to "spiritual" exercises, well.... now what the Bible says matters! Why?

Again, I come back to this. Fear. Spiritual practice is the deeper self, the scary unknown part of our psychology and spiritual make up. Superstitions abound because it is much more 'spooky' than our bodies, which are relatively simple by comparison. Logically, there is zero prohibition to meditation practice, not one single scripture that says "Don't do it!", yet it appears instead an excuse motivated by fear to cite that it doesn't explicitly instruct in meditation techniques, while not carrying at all it says nothing about doing hamstring stretches, but yet they have no problem listening to those who specialize in physical training. Spiritual exercise? Well, that's different! We don't listen to those who specialize in that. This is very obvious to me. It is illogical, irrational, and inconsistent.

 

[Yoshua]

No one! Why do you need someone to dictate truth? Do you think the Christ is a dictator? I don't. I believe the Christ encourage us to find the truth in ourselves. This is the complete opposite of how you see Christ.

Again, we live in different contexts, and you read the Bible as the words of a Dictator. I read it entirely different than that, as my context tells me otherwise about God.

Hi Windwalker,

Jesus just said I am the way, the truth and the life. Do you believe He is the truth? Did God has authority to dictate the truth to us? If Christianity taught by Jesus Christ (the truth) is letter A, will you follow his teachings as letter A? In my perspective, it seems “relativism” principle is not solely letter A; it should be A (truth of Christ) should be followed by + A1(no absolute truth)+A2 (no absolute truth)+A3(no absolute truth)…….and not B(truth of Christ). Why do we find the truth in ourselves if Jesus said He is already the truth? Logical.

This evidentially contradicts what Jesus pronounced about the “truth.” The outcome of it will be: every person who believes that there is no Absolute Truth will contradict with Christ as saying “I am the truth” because He find the truth by himself (ourselves) and not finding the truth in Christ.

Is it finding the truth in CHRIST or finding truth in OURSELVES?

And once again, the question you never seem to be able to answer...... whose interpretation of scripture? The Bible does not interpret itself. In line with your reading of scripture? Well, clearly not! But then I don't see God as a Dictator. In line with my reading of scripture? Certainly!

Windwalker. The word “Be still” as quieting the mind is sufficient enough to connote that interpretation of contemplative theology is erroneous in context. No possibility that you can show me the exact context the whole Psalm 46 as having a relationship with our “mind”? This is one of the basic example that I can give. This is a simple psalm passage that upon reading it, we may catch (already) what the passage is saying. In this passage, Be still, and know that I’m God. Everyone who read it (even) literally can conclude that quieting the mind is not the true meaning of the phrase “be still.”

Why yes you are. You have been doing that all along! Making up this stuff about it being "ego-fruits" and whatnot. That's purely you changing it with your own method of understanding. Exactly 100% what I have been saying all along.

This is where I invite for in-depth understanding of the Scripture. If Contemplative teachings/theology can explain to me how the filling of the Holy Spirit can be to every religious faith like Buddhist, Hindus, Muslims, and even Atheist, or if you may want to add, Satanist. How?

No, I will not accept his claims. But not because I read and external authority, or rather those who claim to have that understanding, but my own internal witness will tell me what's off or not. I'm sorry this approach to living life is not as cut and dried, black and white, true or false as you may wish it were, but that thinking is pure myth. We gauge the veracity of claims on a whole list of criteria, such as what is the mental condition of this person, what is my gut telling me about them, how does this fit into other such claims, how does it match up with the evidence, and so forth. Sure, I can make an assessment, but it's not by some "external authority".

But somehow, if that prophesy are widely accepted in the society, and around your contemplative circle of groups, will you believe that?

I've already covered all this in the difference between a car manual versus a driving manual. You have to have actual experience on the road to learn how to drive. Reading about it does not make you a driver! Your analogy is fatally flawed.

Did you study from Grade school and reach up to College by your own experience only (without books, manual or handbooks or any information)?

Because you are claiming the Word of God is the Bible. And you have to of necessity interpret that.

You misinterpreted it. The Bible is the Word of God. It is a collection of inspired truths from God which include the commandments, laws, teachings, narratives, music, poems, life lessons, prophecies, and songs.

2 Tim.3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

You have no idea how offensive this is. Try this rather, that this attack of yours looks more like those who crucified the Christ. That fits much better that saying the Illumination of Spirit I am speaking of is Satan.

Sorry for that statement offended you. It is not actually you that I’m projecting. It is the deception coming from the enemy itself, who want to become God of his own—the New Age. As I said, I’m familiar with their terminology. The Holy Spirit or the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Truth and not the Spirit of Light. He is our Comforter and Counselor, our Helper. I don’t think that the word of Jesus is unclear to you, why change the context?

John 14:16-18
16. "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;
17. that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you.
18. "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

John 16:13-14
13. "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
14. "He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you.

"There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens [illuminates] every man. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him." They crucified him instead. And you call that Spirit of Illumination the devil. You and your Pharisees friends.

Why take the word illuminates and attached it to the Spirit of Truth? I believe that you are describing Jesus here as the Light, but picking a word and paste it to surfaced a doctrine is not appropriate—to understand the context of the Scripture. This is what I’m emphasizing if we did not search the Scripture as guide or manual, a mixed wordings to support a concept.

Does my experience give me assurance? Absolutely. Doesn't yours?

By experience only? Of course not. The evil one can give people a lot of spiritual experience, and I witnessed this for a very long time. Those people thought that this is Jesus and the right path of righteousness to reach God. They built and founded their own churches and formulate their own theology/doctrine propagated to the whole world to deceive many--as they are the tool for a unified belief where the roaring lion desires to establish it in the last day.

But by experiencing God in balance with the scripture at hand as their checklist and guidance applied having a personal (intimate) relationship with Jesus Christ with repentance (w/ humbleness before God), trust (sufficiency with Christ), total obedience and commitment to God—without compromising the word of God (as it is written), this is what I believe for the assurance of salvation.

2 Cor. 12:9
9. And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may dwell in me.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

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..

Hi Shia,

An early circular ichthys symbol, created by combining the Greek letters ΙΧΘΥΣ, Ephesus. ΙΧΘΥΣ (Ichthus) is an backronym/acrostic for "Ίησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ", (Iēsous Christos, Theou Yios, Sōtēr), which translates into English as "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour".(wikipedia)

During the early days of Christianity, Christians were often put to death for practicing their faith, so they worshiped in secret places. A fish painted on the outside door of a house let other Christians know that they would be safe and welcome inside. The Christian fish symbol is now often used to identify Christians and/or Christian businesses.

Thanks

 

[sojourner]

Why do we find the truth in ourselves if Jesus said He is already the truth?

Because Jesus is within us, which is where meditation takes us.

The word “Be still” as quieting the mind is sufficient enough to connote that interpretation of contemplative theology is erroneous in context. No possibility that you can show me the exact context the whole Psalm 46 as having a relationship with our “mind”? This is one of the basic example that I can give. This is a simple psalm passage that upon reading it, we may catch (already) what the passage is saying. In this passage, Be still, and know that I’m God. Everyone who read it (even) literally can conclude that quieting the mind is not the true meaning of the phrase “be still.”

When the bible says, "Eve ate the fruit," there's no doubt that the action involved mastication, even though that particular process isn't explicitly laid out therein.

Did you study from Grade school and reach up to College by your own experience only (without books, manual or handbooks or any information)?

Jesus did.

You misinterpreted it. The Bible is the Word of God. It is a collection of inspired truths from God which include the commandments, laws, teachings, narratives, music, poems, life lessons, prophecies, and songs.

That's not what Jon tells us. John says that the word was God, and that that word became flesh (Jesus). The bible isn't Jesus.

 

[Yoshua]

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.

Hi Windwalker,

I'm asking you about this is not to pigeonhole you. I don't have sufficient idea what your stand and your position, and this create misconception due to lack of information that I get from you. If I may know your Statement of faith, it may be easier for me to answer fluidly.

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.

This is what I mean. You said earlier that you did not believe in Absolute truth, and you cited the word "relativism," You confused me, and left me with incomplete understanding of your position about relativism. So, you are holding to the Absolute truth or no Absolute truth?

You mentioned this in you message:
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,

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?

Then who will be that GUIDE?

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.

First of all, I don't want to debate more on the black and white. I just want to show you that the black and white cannot produce an orange color, that is given and fixed. This is the reason why I used paint as my example. same as the Word of God is fixed and given.

With due respect to your effort to show me the scientific play of colors, it just showed that you inviting and opening a door as for the purpose of spiritual awakening. Pls. correct me if I'm wrong before I add my message.

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....

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).

I show you this John 3:16 is meant for understanding. I'm more on clarity, though you may object and correct my analogy. I'm not saying that you are lost, we are explaining about contemplative views here.

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".

Then please state your views and definition of relativism. You allowed me find my own research of relativism, and that is what I got. Can you further clarify this?

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'm trying to make an example for you to catch what I mean. I already laid down my points between the Scripture and contemplative ways & practices. We are not in a fight who won or not. We are sharing our views and showing how I viewed Christianity.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Because Jesus is within us, which is where meditation takes us.

Hello,

Yes I know that Jesus is within us. When Jesus said that He is the truth, we don't have any reason find the truth in ourselves because we are just a human, corrupted in flesh and cannot reach God because of our sinfulness.

When the bible says, "Eve ate the fruit," there's no doubt that the action involved mastication, even though that particular process isn't explicitly laid out therein.

I believed it is the obedience that God is looking at them (Adam & Eve), and it is not the tree or the fruit itself. Those are only an instrument for God's plan.

Jesus did.

Jesus is not like us. I believed He is the Son of God and Saviour. We cannot compare what He has done on the cross. If you will seek the real thing on how He carry the cross, it's unimaginable. An ordinary man cannot match His strength, even to the point of death hanging Him on the cross.

That's not what Jon tells us. John says that the word was God, and that that word became flesh (Jesus). The bible isn't Jesus.

The Word (logos) here is not literally the word, but the thought, as expression of the thought. The word Bible is just a terminology. Jesus is God. Truly, the Bible is not Jesus, the Bible is the inspired word and teaching of Jesus. Therefore, we follow His teachings through the Bible which is a collection of inspired writings.

Thanks

 

[sojourner]

Yes I know that Jesus is within us. When Jesus said that He is the truth, we don't have any reason find the truth in ourselves because we are just a human, corrupted in flesh and cannot reach God because of our sinfulness.

But God has reached us through Jesus, so...if Jesus is within us, what better place to look for him, in order to reach back to God?

I believed it is the obedience that God is looking at them (Adam & Eve), and it is not the tree or the fruit itself. Those are only an instrument for God's plan.

You missed the point entirely. Let's use another example. When the bible says that "Aaron struck the rock," even though it's not explicit as to what body movements were involved in the act of striking, we can infer that 1) his fingers were gripping the rod, and 2) his arm was raised and lowered. Similarly, when the bible says to "be quiet" or "still," we can infer that that act includes deep breathing and quieting our thoughts.

Jesus is not like us.

Yes he is. Jesus was Fully. Human. Just as we are. It's biblical.

the Bible is the inspired word and teaching of Jesus.

No, it's not. The bible is the collected, written Tradition of the people of God. In other words, it's the written account of what people said Jesus said and did. It only reflects what the church says Jesus said.

 

[Windwalker]

Jesus just said I am the way, the truth and the life. Do you believe He is the truth?

I believe my understanding of that will doubtless be different than yours. I believe everything else Jesus says will be understood differently by me than by you. So if his words are "dictations", whose understanding is the correct one? And since each is subjective, neither can be said to be absolute. So therefore, is his words interpreted by mind God's dictation, or are his words interpreted by your mind God's dictation? Or maybe this whole idea you have of Truth meaning propositional truths being dictated to us is fatally flawed?

Did God has authority to dictate the truth to us?

Do you have the authority to claim your understanding is absolutely what God means? Do I? I don't believe I do, but by contrast you believe you do. You believe you do because you keep saying I am wrong in my understanding because you read things differently than me. You don't allow for their to be such things as multiple perspectives holding equal, if not greater value than your own. The one dictating my friend is not God, but you. You are dictating your beliefs as if they were God dictating them. That is the core flaw in your thinking. It doesn't allow other perspectives - including God's.

If Christianity taught by Jesus Christ (the truth) is letter A, will you follow his teachings as letter A? In my perspective, it seems “relativism” principle is not solely letter A; it should be A (truth of Christ) should be followed by + A1(no absolute truth)+A2 (no absolute truth)+A3(no absolute truth)…….and not B(truth of Christ). Why do we find the truth in ourselves if Jesus said He is already the truth? Logical.

Logical only if all your premises were accurate, which next to none of them are. First, Jesus did not teach Christianity. Jesus did not start a religion. You should read your church history a little better. You should read the Gospels better too, for that matter. I once just casually mentioned to someone in a passing reference to Jesus being a Jew. She became irate at me saying, "Are you trying to tell me my God was a Jew!". My jaw dropped at her ignorance. What could I say to that?

Secondly, and again we are back to this point I will not allow to escape from this, even if Jesus "dictated" "A", your understanding of "A" and my understanding of "A" will be based on a long list of factors that will change how we see and understanding A. In fact, even how you understand A will change over your own lifetime as your grow and mature through life experiences. That's a fact. If you don't ever grow in your thinking, in your understanding, then you become stunted and malformed. It is my belief that what makes Jesus' words "life", is because they allow the meaning to change to meet the person where they are at in their growth process. @sojourner touched upon this in something he said earlier about what makes the Gospels good at what they do. It's what the words bring out in us, that matters, not the flat, "plain meaning" of the words. The point is what it awakens in us. Not the academic understanding. They are pointers, fingers pointing to the moon. Fingers are not the moon.

Thirdly, relativism does not say A should be "A + A1". It simply says A, as is, can be understood from multiple perspectives, and that no one can claim an absolute understanding of it, since all understanding is meditated through relative contexts. I am saying no one is capable of understanding A "in itself", without it passing through all the filters we have which add stuff to it. Everyone, including you is not seeing A as A. But it is A1 to you, A2 to another, A3, to another, and so forth. 1, 2, and 3 are fused with the truth of A by whoever is the one looking. And they all think they are only seeing A, not seeing their own 1, 2, or 3 they colorize it with. A1 is A to you. You don't see A1, even though that is what you are seeing. Another sees A2 and belives they are only seeing A. And that think you're "wrong", because your A (as A1) doesn't look like their A (as A2), and so you two get into a pitched battle of who is "right".

You want to understand me a little better, than yes, I do understand the nature of relative truth, but it doesn't stop there for me. I'll get to that in a minute. But in the above explaination, unlike you who believes he is only seeing A, when in reality it's A1, I see you seeing A1, another A2, another A3, and each calling their A "The A", or "The Truth", and then they cite Jesus saying "I am the Truth" as support for their own perspective! That's what you are doing, and it's what all the others who think their interpretations are somehow not interpretations and think you're wrong are doing. The difference, is I KNOW my views are interpretations right along with everyone else. So my approach knowing this about the nature of interpreted truth, is to understand these things in a different light. Absolute Truth transcends any ideas about what is truth that we have. No one can claim their understanding is Absolute. But "The Absolute" does exist. It is simply not understanding as a propositional truth that you can codify and put into doctrines and words.

And that is what I hear when Jesus says "I am the Truth, the Way, and the Life". His words guide you, not dictate to you, to realize Truth in you, which is not something that can be grasped or comprehended, but rather is Foundational Ground of Spirit from which all relative truths unfold, imperfect, yet reflecting the Absolute within them. It is Light itself, not "a light". This is a very different understanding of the nature of the Truth that Jesus teaches than they way are you looking to see it as a set of teachings as "Absolute", which in order to believe as such, you must ignore the fact that everyone interprets through their relative filters everything they perceive and experience. This is not just a change in ideas or beliefs I am talking about here, but an entire shift in how we understanding the nature of truths and our approach to the spiritual itself.

This evidentially contradicts what Jesus pronounced about the “truth.”

Rather, it conflicts with your understanding of what he said.

The outcome of it will be: every person who believes that there is no Absolute Truth will contradict with Christ as saying “I am the truth” because He find the truth by himself (ourselves) and not finding the truth in Christ.

Is it finding the truth in CHRIST or finding truth in OURSELVES?

It is finding Truth in Christ in ourselves, or put another way, find the Truth in ourselves through Christ or Spirit, or God, etc. It is an awakening of the Christ in you, and then as it manifests in the world, it will be seen, heard, and expressed in many words, many forms, many understandings. God is not a single idea you can lay claim to. Is the whole a creation a single bird and a single song?

This is where I invite for in-depth understanding of the Scripture.

How can one have an in-depth understand if they have no internal depth through which understanding may pass? No matter how much you study or read something, to the point your eye sockets are bleeding, if you have no depth of a cup in which to receive what you read, it will never be more that what you bring to it. It's like the story of the student who came to the master to learn and the master poured tea into the student's cup, but kept pouring and pouring and pouring as it ran out all over the table. The student shouts, "Stop! Can't you see my cup is already full?" The master responds, "Yes, and that is why I cannot teach you."

If Contemplative teachings/theology can explain to me how the filling of the Holy Spirit can be to every religious faith like Buddhist, Hindus, Muslims, and even Atheist, or if you may want to add, Satanist. How?

If you have the Light of God, you can see the Light of God. You are too busy "being right". Your cup is already full.

Did you study from Grade school and reach up to College by your own experience only (without books, manual or handbooks or any information)?

I covered all this in another post. Why are you asking this again?

You misinterpreted it. The Bible is the Word of God. It is a collection of inspired truths from God which include the commandments, laws, teachings, narratives, music, poems, life lessons, prophecies, and songs.

Which Bible? This too has been gone over countless times in posts by Sojourner But no, the Bible is not the Word of God. Christ is the Word of God - John 1:1. Again, you are the Man who Mistook the Christ for a Book.

2 Tim.3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Again, covered multiple times by Sojourner. Do you forget these things? There was no NT when this was written, so it cannot be referring to the Bible (or the Christ as you see it), sitting on your shelf!

Sorry for that statement offended you. It is not actually you that I’m projecting. It is the deception coming from the enemy itself, who want to become God of his own—the New Age.

Yes, I can see why you're into demonology. It's fits in with paranoia. Who is saying anything about New Age in this discussion, but you? Do you eat food? So do these demonized "New Agers" you pull out at every opportunity. Is food therefore bad and you should quit eating? The illogic in this, the paranoia and irrationality is rampant.

In reality, you have far more in common with New Age than I do. What this "New Age" movement really can be boiled down can be summarized by calling it a form of "Experimental Christianity". Yes, you heard right! And here's why I say this. Like you, the New Age movement sees God as external to themselves. They believe in supernatural helpers, angels and spirits, as well as demons and devils. Both parallel your beliefs, while they are the opposite of mine. Instead of praying to God to make good things happen in their lives, to fix this or that, to bring about this or that supernaturally in the world, they pray to the Universe as God. It's the same practice. So, if you want to talk about New Age practice, look no further than your own!

Christians use all the "right words" too, but when you use them, the meaning inherent in them reflects this very different understanding than what I have. Your entire approach is different, and so how you use the words reflects that approach - even though they are the same words I use! So that I use words that New Agers have seized upon and co-opted as their own, I can say the same thing of you! You have far more in common with New Age than I do. You're modern "deliverance" approach to your religion, is frankly "experimental Christianity" as well. Is this why you demonizing them as much as you do? Because you can see so much of yourself in them? (Shadow persona).

Why take the word illuminates and attached it to the Spirit of Truth? I believe that you are describing Jesus here as the Light, but picking a word and paste it to surfaced a doctrine is not appropriate—to understand the context of the Scripture.

When it says he is the light that enlightens all men, how is that not "illuminating" them? It's saying exactly the same thing. "Thy word is a light unto my feet", is "illumination" too, for goodness sake. I seriously am hearing shadow issues here being projected unto the "New Agers".

By experience only? Of course not. The evil one can give people a lot of spiritual experience, and I witnessed this for a very long time.

Ok, and when you see these "possessions" are you seeing the Fruit of the Spirit being manifest, or something else? I suppose, maybe you would find some saint who is glowing with the Light of God, and feel a need to cast Satan out of them because they understand God in a different light than you? No? But isn't that what you are doing in this thread? "For which of these good works do you seek to stone me?", Jesus asked.

Those people thought that this is Jesus and the right path of righteousness to reach God. They built and founded their own churches and formulate their own theology/doctrine propagated to the whole world to deceive many--as they are the tool for a unified belief where the roaring lion desires to establish it in the last day.

"For which of these good works do you seek to stone me?", Jesus asked.

But by experiencing God in balance with the scripture at hand as their checklist and guidance applied having a personal (intimate) relationship with Jesus Christ with repentance (w/ humbleness before God), trust (sufficiency with Christ), total obedience and commitment to God—without compromising the word of God (as it is written), this is what I believe for the assurance of salvation.

And again, this has be covered and responded to countless times. You forget what you've read?

"For which of these good works do you seek to stone me?", Jesus asked.

 

[Windwalker]

I'm asking you about this is not to pigeonhole you. I don't have sufficient idea what your stand and your position, and this create misconception due to lack of information that I get from you. If I may know your Statement of faith, it may be easier for me to answer fluidly.

I very much sense you trying to find something you can latch onto to look up in your handy 'book of apologetics' to counter. I hate having to dissect all that garbage from others, so I prefer for you to just hear what I am saying and deal with the points, rather than attempting to categorize where I fit in. In reality, I fit in all over the place. You can't box me into a single camp. My 'camp" integrates multiple understandings. If you note under my avatar and name on the side of the screen here, it says "Integral Aperspectival". When you are able to unpack what that means, then we can begin to talk specifics, otherwise you'll just be clutching at this or at that. Integral, is a good word. Aperspectival is a good word. The two together mean something.

If you identify me as a "Relativist", that creates misconception. If you identify me as a Modernist, that creates misconceptions. If you identify me as a Catholic, that creates misconceptions, an Anglican, an independent, a whatever label you use, will create misconceptions. I don't mind Integralist, as that leaves it open and allows taking in of multiple perspectives, holding all views as useful, or not so useful towards the whole. I take a holistic approach, which includes not just relative truths, but the Absolute itself. And the latter, is where in fact mystical practices such as meditation become a necessity. It would take far more explaining for you to begin to understand anything of this in order for you to try to categorize me than I have time for.

Statement of Faith? Sure: Through Faith, we are made Whole. Now, what that means to you, and what that means to me will likely be light-years of difference in understanding.

This is what I mean. You said earlier that you did not believe in Absolute truth, and you cited the word "relativism," You confused me, and left me with incomplete understanding of your position about relativism. So, you are holding to the Absolute truth or no Absolute truth?

I did not say I did not believe in the Absolute, I said that anything we conceive about it, and 'statement of faith' or belief, or doctrine about it, is relative and not absolute. I've covered this in even more detail in my recent posts, specifically the points about A1, A2, A3, etc. Hopefully those will help your understanding. The Absolute transcends all relative points of view. It is not "comprehended" with the mind, but "apprehended" with one's being. There is a big different. You believe it may be comprehended with the mind, through language. I do not.

You mentioned this in you message:
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.

Exactly correct. If you point to a thing and you name it, you are doing so from a relative position. You are interpreting it. That interpretation is what is not Absolute. You are ignoring that you are perceiving something from a relative position. I'll put it this way, I may experience the Absolute, and I do, but anything I may say about it is not absolute. What I say is filtered through my mind and language, and culture, and points of view, etc. There's nothing wrong with this of course, as I say, because the words, along with the experience, reflect that Truth, even though the words themselves are not "the Truth". The Absolute may be seen and experienced through the relative.

But to mistake the relative as the Absolute, is frankly, idolatry. When someone claims their beliefs are "The Truth!", this is idolatry, taking their limited, relative points of view and making them God. Bibliolatry, for instance, is quite well named! Christ, is not the Bible. A relative point of view reading and interpreting scripture, is not the Christ.

Then who will be that GUIDE?

Well, that's a good and valid question. As I said, hacks with Bibles spouting they have The Truth!, are not good guides. That eliminates a whole lot of these preachers out there preaching The Truth!, as it were. A good spiritual guide would be one who first - has experience, knowledge of God through experience with God, as opposed to experience with hermeneutics and Bible colleges. There's a lot of charlatans out there, "gurus" as it were driving fancy cars, stroking their egos, starting churches on their particular flavor of interpreting the Bible, handling snakes, casting out demons, and so forth to distinguish themselves from the others churches.

It comes down to this. First, you have to know what that inner voice is telling you. In order to do that, you have to come to know that. In order to come to know that you have to learn how to listen to your heart. In order to learn how to listen, you have to be quite and let it speak to you. That's first. Secondly, from knowing that small seed of Light speaking to you, persistently, yet with Grace and Wisdom, you look for those who bear the Fruit of the Spirit. It's not those who proclaim Truth!, and show you all the Bible verses to support it. No, not at all. Any hack with a Bible can do that. But you look at what Light shines through them in their heart, their attitudes to themselves and others, the actions, not actions that do something "because the Bible tells them to", but because their own Heart compels them to out of that Light itself. In other words, genuine, true from the heart fruit.

By their fruits you shall know them. It's not by their "support in the Bible" for their doctrinal beliefs that you know them. It's not even in them "acting" like it says to in the Bible, "conforming their actions to external laws and rules", but in being God in the world, through Truth itself. There is much to learn on the spiritual path, but it is the easiest path in the world when we learn to simply allow. The spiritual path is about being, not believing doctrines. It is about becoming Christ. And that alone is what a Christian is. And anyone who does so, is. Regardless of how they self-identify, or the relative points of view they believe.

First of all, I don't want to debate more on the black and white. I just want to show you that the black and white cannot produce an orange color, that is given and fixed. This is the reason why I used paint as my example. same as the Word of God is fixed and given.

That you don't want to debate it anymore is a good sign. That's right, black and white perceptions can see no color variations. That is my point.

With due respect to your effort to show me the scientific play of colors, it just showed that you inviting and opening a door as for the purpose of spiritual awakening. Pls. correct me if I'm wrong before I add my message.

I am rather opening my eyes to see God's world full of colors.

We are sharing our views and showing how I viewed Christianity.

While you are saying what I practice in my path to God is opening me to the deceptions of Satan, that is demonic, and so forth, calling the Light of God that I experience Satan, and so forth. I don't consider that an exchange of different points of view. I consider that offensive and ignorant, and all your statements about what we believe are incorrect and you ignore the responses we offer. What is that, exactly? Who is that about?

 

[sassysam29]

I believe my understanding of that will doubtless be different than yours. I believe everything else Jesus says will be understood differently by me than by you. So if his words are "dictations", whose understanding is the correct one? And since each is subjective, neither can be said to be absolute. So therefore, is his words interpreted by mind God's dictation, or are his words interpreted by your mind God's dictation? Or maybe this whole idea you have of Truth meaning propositional truths being dictated to us is fatally flawed?


Do you have the authority to claim your understanding is absolutely what God means? Do I? I don't believe I do, but by contrast you believe you do. You believe you do because you keep saying I am wrong in my understanding because you read things differently than me. You don't allow for their to be such things as multiple perspectives holding equal, if not greater value than your own. The one dictating my friend is not God, but you. You are dictating your beliefs as if they were God dictating them. That is the core flaw in your thinking. It doesn't allow other perspectives - including God's.


Logical only if all your premises were accurate, which next to none of them are. First, Jesus did not teach Christianity. Jesus did not start a religion. You should read your church history a little better. You should read the Gospels better too, for that matter. I once just casually mentioned to someone in a passing reference to Jesus being a Jew. She became irate at me saying, "Are you trying to tell me my God was a Jew!". My jaw dropped at her ignorance. What could I say to that?

Secondly, and again we are back to this point I will not allow to escape from this, even if Jesus "dictated" "A", your understanding of "A" and my understanding of "A" will be based on a long list of factors that will change how we see and understanding A. In fact, even how you understand A will change over your own lifetime as your grow and mature through life experiences. That's a fact. If you don't ever grow in your thinking, in your understanding, then you become stunted and malformed. It is my belief that what makes Jesus' words "life", is because they allow the meaning to change to meet the person where they are at in their growth process. @sojourner touched upon this in something he said earlier about what makes the Gospels good at what they do. It's what the words bring out in us, that matters, not the flat, "plain meaning" of the words. The point is what it awakens in us. Not the academic understanding. They are pointers, fingers pointing to the moon. Fingers are not the moon.

Thirdly, relativism does not say A should be "A + A1". It simply says A, as is, can be understood from multiple perspectives, and that no one can claim an absolute understanding of it, since all understanding is meditated through relative contexts. I am saying no one is capable of understanding A "in itself", without it passing through all the filters we have which add stuff to it. Everyone, including you is not seeing A as A. But it is A1 to you, A2 to another, A3, to another, and so forth. 1, 2, and 3 are fused with the truth of A by whoever is the one looking. And they all think they are only seeing A, not seeing their own 1, 2, or 3 they colorize it with. A1 is A to you. You don't see A1, even though that is what you are seeing. Another sees A2 and belives they are only seeing A. And that think you're "wrong", because your A (as A1) doesn't look like their A (as A2), and so you two get into a pitched battle of who is "right".

You want to understand me a little better, than yes, I do understand the nature of relative truth, but it doesn't stop there for me. I'll get to that in a minute. But in the above explaination, unlike you who believes he is only seeing A, when in reality it's A1, I see you seeing A1, another A2, another A3, and each calling their A "The A", or "The Truth", and then they cite Jesus saying "I am the Truth" as support for their own perspective! That's what you are doing, and it's what all the others who think their interpretations are somehow not interpretations and think you're wrong are doing. The difference, is I KNOW my views are interpretations right along with everyone else. So my approach knowing this about the nature of interpreted truth, is to understand these things in a different light. Absolute Truth transcends any ideas about what is truth that we have. No one can claim their understanding is Absolute. But "The Absolute" does exist. It is simply not understanding as a propositional truth that you can codify and put into doctrines and words.

And that is what I hear when Jesus says "I am the Truth, the Way, and the Life". His words guide you, not dictate to you, to realize Truth in you, which is not something that can be grasped or comprehended, but rather is Foundational Ground of Spirit from which all relative truths unfold, imperfect, yet reflecting the Absolute within them. It is Light itself, not "a light". This is a very different understanding of the nature of the Truth that Jesus teaches than they way are you looking to see it as a set of teachings as "Absolute", which in order to believe as such, you must ignore the fact that everyone interprets through their relative filters everything they perceive and experience. This is not just a change in ideas or beliefs I am talking about here, but an entire shift in how we understanding the nature of truths and our approach to the spiritual itself.


Rather, it conflicts with your understanding of what he said.


It is finding Truth in Christ in ourselves, or put another way, find the Truth in ourselves through Christ or Spirit, or God, etc. It is an awakening of the Christ in you, and then as it manifests in the world, it will be seen, heard, and expressed in many words, many forms, many understandings. God is not a single idea you can lay claim to. Is the whole a creation a single bird and a single song?


How can one have an in-depth understand if they have no internal depth through which understanding may pass? No matter how much you study or read something, to the point your eye sockets are bleeding, if you have no depth of a cup in which to receive what you read, it will never be more that what you bring to it. It's like the story of the student who came to the master to learn and the master poured tea into the student's cup, but kept pouring and pouring and pouring as it ran out all over the table. The student shouts, "Stop! Can't you see my cup is already full?" The master responds, "Yes, and that is why I cannot teach you."


If you have the Light of God, you can see the Light of God. You are too busy "being right". Your cup is already full.


I covered all this in another post. Why are you asking this again?


Which Bible? This too has been gone over countless times in posts by Sojourner But no, the Bible is not the Word of God. Christ is the Word of God - John 1:1. Again, you are the Man who Mistook the Christ for a Book.


Again, covered multiple times by Sojourner. Do you forget these things? There was no NT when this was written, so it cannot be referring to the Bible (or the Christ as you see it), sitting on your shelf!


Yes, I can see why you're into demonology. It's fits in with paranoia. Who is saying anything about New Age in this discussion, but you? Do you eat food? So do these demonized "New Agers" you pull out at every opportunity. Is food therefore bad and you should quit eating? The illogic in this, the paranoia and irrationality is rampant.

In reality, you have far more in common with New Age than I do. What this "New Age" movement really can be boiled down can be summarized by calling it a form of "Experimental Christianity". Yes, you heard right! And here's why I say this. Like you, the New Age movement sees God as external to themselves. They believe in supernatural helpers, angels and spirits, as well as demons and devils. Both parallel your beliefs, while they are the opposite of mine. Instead of praying to God to make good things happen in their lives, to fix this or that, to bring about this or that supernaturally in the world, they pray to the Universe as God. It's the same practice. So, if you want to talk about New Age practice, look no further than your own!

Christians use all the "right words" too, but when you use them, the meaning inherent in them reflects this very different understanding than what I have. Your entire approach is different, and so how you use the words reflects that approach - even though they are the same words I use! So that I use words that New Agers have seized upon and co-opted as their own, I can say the same thing of you! You have far more in common with New Age than I do. You're modern "deliverance" approach to your religion, is frankly "experimental Christianity" as well. Is this why you demonizing them as much as you do? Because you can see so much of yourself in them? (Shadow persona).


When it says he is the light that enlightens all men, how is that not "illuminating" them? It's saying exactly the same thing. "Thy word is a light unto my feet", is "illumination" too, for goodness sake. I seriously am hearing shadow issues here being projected unto the "New Agers".


Ok, and when you see these "possessions" are you seeing the Fruit of the Spirit being manifest, or something else? I suppose, maybe you would find some saint who is glowing with the Light of God, and feel a need to cast Satan out of them because they understand God in a different light than you? No? But isn't that what you are doing in this thread? "For which of these good works do you seek to stone me?", Jesus asked.


"For which of these good works do you seek to stone me?", Jesus asked.


And again, this has be covered and responded to countless times. You forget what you've read?

"For which of these good works do you seek to stone me?", Jesus asked.

Question .....do you believe there is one way to the Father through Jesus Christ? or do you believe this is just one way to interpret this text? John 14:6

 

[sassysam29]

I believe my understanding of that will doubtless be different than yours. I believe everything else Jesus says will be understood differently by me than by you. So if his words are "dictations", whose understanding is the correct one? And since each is subjective, neither can be said to be absolute. So therefore, is his words interpreted by mind God's dictation, or are his words interpreted by your mind God's dictation? Or maybe this whole idea you have of Truth meaning propositional truths being dictated to us is fatally flawed?


Do you have the authority to claim your understanding is absolutely what God means? Do I? I don't believe I do, but by contrast you believe you do. You believe you do because you keep saying I am wrong in my understanding because you read things differently than me. You don't allow for their to be such things as multiple perspectives holding equal, if not greater value than your own. The one dictating my friend is not God, but you. You are dictating your beliefs as if they were God dictating them. That is the core flaw in your thinking. It doesn't allow other perspectives - including God's.


Logical only if all your premises were accurate, which next to none of them are. First, Jesus did not teach Christianity. Jesus did not start a religion. You should read your church history a little better. You should read the Gospels better too, for that matter. I once just casually mentioned to someone in a passing reference to Jesus being a Jew. She became irate at me saying, "Are you trying to tell me my God was a Jew!". My jaw dropped at her ignorance. What could I say to that?

Secondly, and again we are back to this point I will not allow to escape from this, even if Jesus "dictated" "A", your understanding of "A" and my understanding of "A" will be based on a long list of factors that will change how we see and understanding A. In fact, even how you understand A will change over your own lifetime as your grow and mature through life experiences. That's a fact. If you don't ever grow in your thinking, in your understanding, then you become stunted and malformed. It is my belief that what makes Jesus' words "life", is because they allow the meaning to change to meet the person where they are at in their growth process. @sojourner touched upon this in something he said earlier about what makes the Gospels good at what they do. It's what the words bring out in us, that matters, not the flat, "plain meaning" of the words. The point is what it awakens in us. Not the academic understanding. They are pointers, fingers pointing to the moon. Fingers are not the moon.

Thirdly, relativism does not say A should be "A + A1". It simply says A, as is, can be understood from multiple perspectives, and that no one can claim an absolute understanding of it, since all understanding is meditated through relative contexts. I am saying no one is capable of understanding A "in itself", without it passing through all the filters we have which add stuff to it. Everyone, including you is not seeing A as A. But it is A1 to you, A2 to another, A3, to another, and so forth. 1, 2, and 3 are fused with the truth of A by whoever is the one looking. And they all think they are only seeing A, not seeing their own 1, 2, or 3 they colorize it with. A1 is A to you. You don't see A1, even though that is what you are seeing. Another sees A2 and belives they are only seeing A. And that think you're "wrong", because your A (as A1) doesn't look like their A (as A2), and so you two get into a pitched battle of who is "right".

You want to understand me a little better, than yes, I do understand the nature of relative truth, but it doesn't stop there for me. I'll get to that in a minute. But in the above explaination, unlike you who believes he is only seeing A, when in reality it's A1, I see you seeing A1, another A2, another A3, and each calling their A "The A", or "The Truth", and then they cite Jesus saying "I am the Truth" as support for their own perspective! That's what you are doing, and it's what all the others who think their interpretations are somehow not interpretations and think you're wrong are doing. The difference, is I KNOW my views are interpretations right along with everyone else. So my approach knowing this about the nature of interpreted truth, is to understand these things in a different light. Absolute Truth transcends any ideas about what is truth that we have. No one can claim their understanding is Absolute. But "The Absolute" does exist. It is simply not understanding as a propositional truth that you can codify and put into doctrines and words.

And that is what I hear when Jesus says "I am the Truth, the Way, and the Life". His words guide you, not dictate to you, to realize Truth in you, which is not something that can be grasped or comprehended, but rather is Foundational Ground of Spirit from which all relative truths unfold, imperfect, yet reflecting the Absolute within them. It is Light itself, not "a light". This is a very different understanding of the nature of the Truth that Jesus teaches than they way are you looking to see it as a set of teachings as "Absolute", which in order to believe as such, you must ignore the fact that everyone interprets through their relative filters everything they perceive and experience. This is not just a change in ideas or beliefs I am talking about here, but an entire shift in how we understanding the nature of truths and our approach to the spiritual itself.


Rather, it conflicts with your understanding of what he said.


It is finding Truth in Christ in ourselves, or put another way, find the Truth in ourselves through Christ or Spirit, or God, etc. It is an awakening of the Christ in you, and then as it manifests in the world, it will be seen, heard, and expressed in many words, many forms, many understandings. God is not a single idea you can lay claim to. Is the whole a creation a single bird and a single song?


How can one have an in-depth understand if they have no internal depth through which understanding may pass? No matter how much you study or read something, to the point your eye sockets are bleeding, if you have no depth of a cup in which to receive what you read, it will never be more that what you bring to it. It's like the story of the student who came to the master to learn and the master poured tea into the student's cup, but kept pouring and pouring and pouring as it ran out all over the table. The student shouts, "Stop! Can't you see my cup is already full?" The master responds, "Yes, and that is why I cannot teach you."


If you have the Light of God, you can see the Light of God. You are too busy "being right". Your cup is already full.


I covered all this in another post. Why are you asking this again?


Which Bible? This too has been gone over countless times in posts by Sojourner But no, the Bible is not the Word of God. Christ is the Word of God - John 1:1. Again, you are the Man who Mistook the Christ for a Book.


Again, covered multiple times by Sojourner. Do you forget these things? There was no NT when this was written, so it cannot be referring to the Bible (or the Christ as you see it), sitting on your shelf!


Yes, I can see why you're into demonology. It's fits in with paranoia. Who is saying anything about New Age in this discussion, but you? Do you eat food? So do these demonized "New Agers" you pull out at every opportunity. Is food therefore bad and you should quit eating? The illogic in this, the paranoia and irrationality is rampant.

In reality, you have far more in common with New Age than I do. What this "New Age" movement really can be boiled down can be summarized by calling it a form of "Experimental Christianity". Yes, you heard right! And here's why I say this. Like you, the New Age movement sees God as external to themselves. They believe in supernatural helpers, angels and spirits, as well as demons and devils. Both parallel your beliefs, while they are the opposite of mine. Instead of praying to God to make good things happen in their lives, to fix this or that, to bring about this or that supernaturally in the world, they pray to the Universe as God. It's the same practice. So, if you want to talk about New Age practice, look no further than your own!

Christians use all the "right words" too, but when you use them, the meaning inherent in them reflects this very different understanding than what I have. Your entire approach is different, and so how you use the words reflects that approach - even though they are the same words I use! So that I use words that New Agers have seized upon and co-opted as their own, I can say the same thing of you! You have far more in common with New Age than I do. You're modern "deliverance" approach to your religion, is frankly "experimental Christianity" as well. Is this why you demonizing them as much as you do? Because you can see so much of yourself in them? (Shadow persona).


When it says he is the light that enlightens all men, how is that not "illuminating" them? It's saying exactly the same thing. "Thy word is a light unto my feet", is "illumination" too, for goodness sake. I seriously am hearing shadow issues here being projected unto the "New Agers".


Ok, and when you see these "possessions" are you seeing the Fruit of the Spirit being manifest, or something else? I suppose, maybe you would find some saint who is glowing with the Light of God, and feel a need to cast Satan out of them because they understand God in a different light than you? No? But isn't that what you are doing in this thread? "For which of these good works do you seek to stone me?", Jesus asked.


"For which of these good works do you seek to stone me?", Jesus asked.


And again, this has be covered and responded to countless times. You forget what you've read?

"For which of these good works do you seek to stone me?", Jesus asked.

I am truly trying to understand where you are coming from, but if you apply your theory to common practices and or modern day law or ANYTHING meant to guide and instruct us, you have chaos. A teacher does not hand a book to his sudents and say "however you interpret this material is ok, we will all arrive at the same ""destination"" by doing so". Think about it in any realm...it doesn't work. Example...The constitution is not written to be interpreted however one wishes, in doing so, we disregard the men whom fought for it and make a mockery of its authenticity. I agree that our lives are to be lived out through the inner working of the Holy Spirit, but I do believe that God's word teaches us how to do that. You cannot disregard one truth for the other, they are equally important

 

[Windwalker]

Question .....do you believe there is one way to the Father through Jesus Christ? or do you believe this is just one way to interpret this text? John 14:6

Maybe we should start with how you interpret what those words mean to you? What does this look like? What does this entail? It would be better to start with your understanding and take it from there.

I am truly trying to understand where you are coming from, but if you apply your theory to common practices and or modern day law or ANYTHING meant to guide and instruct us, you have chaos. A teacher does not hand a book to his sudents and say "however you interpret this material is ok, we will all arrive at the same ""destination"" by doing so".

As I did say earlier, at a certain stage of growth, seeing God as external to you, with external codes of conduct you attempt to follow, views of laws and punishments, etc., serves a certain function towards growing up. But at a certain stage, you have to internalize this to yourself and the "law" is something that is fulfilled in every moment, in every word, in every thought, but God is in you. This very thing is found in Hebrews where it says, "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ". Yet, for most of what I see in Christianity, particularly in these fundamentalist camps, is "the law". It's all externalized. It's all the Great Lawgiver, the Judge above whom we must obey lest we displease him. This is how a child who has not yet matured relates to his parent. It is the rule/role mode of living, which comes before they mature into adults.

But we are called to be adults. This is not some "after you die" thing, but it is to be here, in this world now. This "life more abundantly", is in this world. How can anyone be "the light of the world", while they are still children trying to be good boys and girls by obeying their parents? That's learning mode. That's not being the light you are to become. The spiritual life is to awaken to who you are, in Christ. All one has to do is listen to how one speaks of God, how they insist in "obeying the law", to understand where they are at. This is not at all to judge them as "weak" or inferior, by any means. But when they attack those who don't relate to it the way they do, it does shed a certain light of understanding on what the differences are.

It does not result in chaos when you are mature. You make informed decisions, because your Ground is Spirit. There is an awareness of Spirit in your life, and you operate from that Heart (not always, of course). "Love is the fulfillment of the law", says Paul. Why? Because, "Love works no ill". It is not by adhering to a set of stated beliefs and theologies that one judges, but by being rooted and ground in the Truth, which is Spirit. The fruit they bear, bears witness.

I agree that our lives are to be lived out through the inner working of the Holy Spirit, but I do believe that God's word teaches us how to do that. You cannot disregard one truth for the other, they are equally important

The Spirit guides into all truth. The Bible without Spirit alive in the person, is nothing. Teachers who teach the Bible without a lived experience of Spirit as their Ground, are the blind leading the blind.

 

[Unification]

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. Gal. 2:20

If we look at the verse that you mentioned, the emphasis is ‘crucified with Christ,’ I don’t think it is Christ in me but Christ lives in me. Christ is living in Paul because as a follower of Christ, he lived by faith because of what Christ has suffered on the cross. A agree with your phrase that having faith is action of the heart. How is the application? That is the question now?


You say “Anything that brings you closer to God, is then therefore useful and should not be rejected based on ignorance and fear.” The word of “anything” is dangerous. A lot of cult churches claimed they been closer to God. The new age spuriously do the same. Anybody can claim they are being closer to God. Where is the defining line of the word “anything”?

I’ve met a so-called Christian who claimed that he is being closer to God because of his experience like what happened in the Pentecost. After that incident, a spirit entity started to communicate with him named as Jesus Christ. This person believes that he is the true Jesus Christ, and the Jesus Christ in the Bible is not the Jesus Christ that he’s been with. He is dependent on what the Jesus Christ has to say. One example is—the Bible is not to be followed, because according to Jesus Christ, it is not infallible Word of God. Again, how will you draw the line here?


For me, lack of understanding the scripture may lead to erroneous practice. How could a person depend on experience without the knowledge of Scripture? It should be always balance. We cannot dwell much on experience without the knowledge of the scripture. If the scripture told us to test the spirit and warned us for the coming false doctrine, I don’t think this would be ignored.

One example is driving an automobile, a person needs a manual before he could drive properly. He should know where is the clutch, the brake, the switch, the gear…..If I would try to do it without that manual/knowledge, I could not make the automobile run. Same as the Bible, without the spiritual manual, you get lost and may not know what is right and wrong.


How will you know what bears good fruit and what is bad? How about the good and evil? What will be the basis? How do you define your word “any” form you statement “Any practice, if it bears good fruit is serving God”?


How could you explain this chapter for Christ opens God to the world (from v.1-5)?


It is because of this "mystical silence" is accomplished by the same methods used by New Agers to achieve their silence--the mantra and the breath! Contemplative prayer is the repetition of what is referred to as a prayer word or sacred word until one reaches a state where the soul, rather than the mind, contemplates God.

Contemplative prayer teacher and Zen master Willigis Jager brought this out when he postulated:

Do not reflect on the meaning of the word; thinking and reflecting must cease, as all mystical writers insist. Simply "sound" the word silently, letting go of all feelings and thoughts. (lighthouse trails)


Thanks

And if one contemplates and meditates enough, they will come to find, that the story of Noah's Ark, is a story of meditation and contemplation.

 

[sassysam29]

Maybe we should start with how you interpret what those words mean to you? What does this look like? What does this entail? It would be better to start with your understanding and take it from there.


As I did say earlier, at a certain stage of growth, seeing God as external to you, with external codes of conduct you attempt to follow, views of laws and punishments, etc., serves a certain function towards growing up. But at a certain stage, you have to internalize this to yourself and the "law" is something that is fulfilled in every moment, in every word, in every thought, but God is in you. This very thing is found in Hebrews where it says, "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ". Yet, for most of what I see in Christianity, particularly in these fundamentalist camps, is "the law". It's all externalized. It's all the Great Lawgiver, the Judge above whom we must obey lest we displease him. This is how a child who has not yet matured relates to his parent. It is the rule/role mode of living, which comes before they mature into adults.

But we are called to be adults. This is not some "after you die" thing, but it is to be here, in this world now. This "life more abundantly", is in this world. How can anyone be "the light of the world", while they are still children trying to be good boys and girls by obeying their parents? That's learning mode. That's not being the light you are to become. The spiritual life is to awaken to who you are, in Christ. All one has to do is listen to how one speaks of God, how they insist in "obeying the law", to understand where they are at. This is not at all to judge them as "weak" or inferior, by any means. But when they attack those who don't relate to it the way they do, it does shed a certain light of understanding on what the differences are.

It does not result in chaos when you are mature. You make informed decisions, because your Ground is Spirit. There is an awareness of Spirit in your life, and you operate from that Heart (not always, of course). "Love is the fulfillment of the law", says Paul. Why? Because, "Love works no ill". It is not by adhering to a set of stated beliefs and theologies that one judges, but by being rooted and ground in the Truth, which is Spirit. The fruit they bear, bears witness.


The Spirit guides into all truth. The Bible without Spirit alive in the person, is nothing. Teachers who teach the Bible without a lived experience of Spirit as their Ground, are the blind leading the blind.

There are many things I agree with you on....I see what you see. I am truly not in any camp. I do believe that people misrepresent Christ, but they do so with pure intentions. I do try to give the benefit of doubt to anyone, even if I don't agree with their attitudes or theology. I don't think "oh, they are xyz", I think people are sincere in the things they do/say in regards to Christ, of course, not always, you will always have deceit, but as a general rule they mean no harm (even if it feels like legalism or judgement), so I think we have to remember that always when speaking in stereotypes like "fundies", or any other label we apply to those outside our "camps" and so on. If you dont, then you yourself become what you are accusing others of being. I do understand ones contempt with legalistic or pharisee like conduct/mindsets, yet I believe that we can all become one from our own particular points of view. It's truly just high mindedness that requires others to adhere to our own set of rules and then stamping it with "God".

 

[sassysam29]

And as for the verse, I asked you first [emoji14]

 

[Windwalker]

And as for the verse, I asked you first [emoji14]

This takes this discussion to a different level, to be sure for me to begin to unpack what is otherwise easy for me to say. The easy answer is Jesus is speaking as the Christ, the divine Logos. The Logos is the revealer, the manifestor of God. It is the divine, the Logos which is the Way to the Father. The true worshippers worship in Spirit and in Truth is saying the same thing. You cannot come to the Father but through Spirit, which is that which proceeds from the Father and the Son. You can't climb in another way, through religious beliefs and practices, through rules and doctrines, but through Spirit.

So when Jesus speaks as the Divine Logos, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life", that is correct. But it does not mean convert to a religion in his name. It means open yourself to Spirit. It is only through that Gate, that Door, that you enter into the Divine being. All of this is in the Bible. Anyone who so opens themselves to that Manifestation of God (Logos), and through that, in Spirit, pass into God, are the Sons and Daughters of God. "For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother." To me, it is better to call Jesus brother than Lord.

Now to really throw a zinger in here that is sure to rattle some minds.... The Christian mystic Meister Eckhart wrote something in the 14th century, which when I read a little while back my first time, lept off the page and struck me as very, very true from my own experiences, and it goes to what I just wrote a moment ago that touches upon this inheritance of Sons and Jesus as brother.

The hearing of God’s Word requires complete self-surrender. He who hears and that which is heard are identical constituents of the eternal Word. What the eternal Father teaches is his own Being, Nature, and Godhead – which he is always revealing through his only begotten Son. He teaches that we are to be identical with him.

To deny one’s self is to be the only begotten Son of God and one who does so has for himself all the properties of that Son. All God’s acts are performed and his teachings conveyed through the Son, to the point that we should be his only begotten Son. And when this is accomplished in God’s sight, he is so fond of us and so fervent that he acts as if his divine Being might be shattered and he himself annihilated if the whole foundations of his Godhead were not revealed to us, together with his nature and being. God makes haste to do this, so that it may be ours as it is his. It is here that God finds joy and rapture in fulfillment and the person who is thus within God’s knowing and love becomes just what God himself is.
​

It is not a matter of "I believe", but one of receiving, being taught as it were by God's own being itself. This is not something you read about at comprehend, but apprehend with your being in God. So when Jesus says, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life", this too is something we, if we are realized in the manner in which we are so much God's, can ourselves say. To be "like Christ", means just that very thing. "Christ in you". "YOU are the light of the world". You too when you are so consumed in God proclaim with Jesus, as brother, as sister, "I and my Father are One".

Now.... let the stoning begin.