What is Contemplative Christianity?

[Yoshua]

Your loss. You should read Sallie McFague and other constructive theologians.

This is not Christianity. A panentheistic theology? I thought you like sound and solid theology. I think this is where your concepts about God, evil and metaphor in the Scripture transcend to your senses, thus you contemplate between this concept and the true meaning of the Scripture. Did Jesus, a panentheist? A Hindu thought?

McFague’s panentheistic theology stresses God as highly involved in the world (though distinct from it), and concerned (as seen in the life of the paradigmatic Jesus, for example) to see all of it brought to full enjoyment of the richness of life as originally intended in creation. This is not the omnipotent, omniscient and immutable God of classical theism and neo-orthodoxy: for McFague, God is not transcendent in any sense that we can know. This has led some critics to ask whether McFague’s theology leaves us with anything that may properly be called God at all. British theologian Daphne Hampson notes ‘the more I ponder this book [Models of God: Theology for an Ecological, Nuclear Age], the less clear I am that it is theistic’.[19]

A theology where God as creator does not stand ‘over against’ the creation tends to shift the focus away from God as personal. In which Jesus is a paradigm individual rather than the unique bearer of godlikeness. The role of the Spirit is emphasised in her theology, though there is little sense in which this is uniquely the spirit of Jesus. God as Spirit is not primarily the initiator of creation, but ‘the empowering, continuing breath of life’.[20]

It follows, too, from this metaphor of God as involved in the world that traditional notions of sin and evil are discarded. God is so much part of the process of the world and its agencies’ or entities’ ‘becoming’ that it is difficult to speak of ‘natural disasters’ as sin: they are simply the chance (as viewed by human observers) trial-and-error ways in which the world develops. As McFague sees it, ‘within this enlarged perspective, we can no longer consider evil only in terms of what benefits or hurts me or my species. In a world as large, as complex, and with as many individuals and species as our planet has, the good of some will inevitably occur at the expense of others’.[21] And because the world is God’s body, evil occurs in and to God as well as to us and the rest of creation.[22]

Correspondingly, the notion of the individual in need of God’s salvation is anachronistic in a world ‘from’ which that individual no longer need to be saved, but rather ‘in’ which he or she need to learn how to live interrelatedly and interdependently. Redemption is downplayed, though not excluded: McFague emphasises, characteristically, that it ‘should include all dimensions of creation, not just human beings’ and that it is a fulfilment of that creation, not a rescue from it.[23] This of course brings about a radical shift in the significance of the cross and resurrection of Jesus, whose resurrection is primarily if not exclusively a validation of continued human embodiment. There is, too, an insistence on realised, not final, eschatology. The earth becomes the place ‘where we put down our roots’,[24] and we live with ‘the hope against hope’[25] that all will participate in the resurrection of all bodies. However, God is presently and permanently with humankind: we are ‘within the body of God whether we live or die’.[26]

Panentheism
In pantheism, the universe and everything included in it is equal to the Divine, but in panentheism, the universe and the divine are not ontologically equivalent. God is viewed as the soul of the universe, the universal spirit present everywhere, in everything and everyone, at all times. Some versions suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifest part of God. In some forms of panentheism, the cosmos exists within God, who in turn "transcends", "pervades" or is "in" the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that 'All is God', panentheism goes further to claim that God is greater than the universe. In addition, some forms indicate that the universe is contained within God,[3] like in the concept of Tzimtzum. Much Hindu thought is highly characterized by panentheism and pantheism.[5][6] Hasidic Judaism merges the elite ideal of nullification to paradoxical transcendent Divine Panentheism, through intellectual articulation of inner dimensions of Kabbalah, with the populist emphasis on the panentheistic Divine immanence in everything.[7 wikipedia

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

I think the fundamentalist gospel is extremely narrow and judgmental in its scope: "Believe in Jesus or die." I think the fundamentalist gospel tries to argue for a particular ontology and cosmology, loosely couched in theological terms, rather than presenting various theological arguments that honor the nature of who people are. I think the fundamentalist gospel doesn't point toward love, for love is unconditional, and does not insist on its own way. But their gospel would have everyone conform to some predetermined "understanding."

The gospel is extremely narrow? then what can you recommend aside from the gospel?

The gospel is judgmental or straightforward. When Jesus say "love your enemies" or "take out your eyes if your eyes caused you to sin," Is that judgmental?

To those Christians who die for God/Christ, is there a problem with this?

Did fundamentalist sourced their faith with the Scriptures, why accused them that they are not pointed for love, and insisting its own way? I believed those who don't like the Scriptures (Jesus teachings/God's word) put to blame to those who believed in God's word.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Love doesn't insist on retribution. Nor does love require "payment." Jesus died because of human sin. The greatest love God demonstrated was to send Jesus to say "creation" and "life" to us again.

That concept is wrong. Jesus came here to say "creation" and "life" to us again?? Saying it and not saving who are lost?
Oh my. That is a deception from the enemy. John 3:16 says that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. God is waiting to come to Him and not just saying it. What is the worth of dying on the cross, and the suffering of Jesus for the sins of many if the salvation just by Saying it?
John 3:16
16. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

What makes the gate narrow, is hardy being uber strict in religious observances! That's easy, and it's rotted fruit attest of its unhelpfulness. That narrow gate is one where we no longer seek to understand of our own efforts, but to give all away for the sake of love alone, to become love itself in the world through dying to self. Few are so willing to truly release all they have for this, and instead become religious as a mask of their own self-deception. What was the example of Jesus? 'Who being in the form of God did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped but emptied himself... even to death.' There is your self-emptying. The narrow way, is the path of self-emptying into Love. It does not consider our own life, our ego-self and its desires, the goal of our being, but releases itself into God. And in this, we find LIfe itself. We leave the questions we have aside, and simply live Love.

Oh my. This is a faulty interpretation and a proof text. You did not even know why Jesus emptied Himself? Can you give me a Scripture that we should be emptying ourselves? You connected those verses just by picking it up like apples on the ground without thinking if the apple is already rotten or not.

Phil. 2:6-8
6. who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
7. but made Himself of no reputation (emptying), taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men.
8. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

He emptied or made Himself of no reputation because of taking in the form of a servant (human)--incarnation. I don't think that you are Jesus to do--emptying yourself.

Your theory and theology is love abounds all beliefs, there is no evil nor bad things. Then you will not know what is evil and what is not evil.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

I like this, and one thing you said jumped out at me. You said, "We leave the questions we have aside, and simply love." So many fundamentalists will tell you that the bible "answers all life's questions," and that it is "the owner's manual for life." And so they spend all their time and energy rummaging around, trying to cherry pick the "pat answers" to every doubt of faith (not realizing that the doubt, itself, is a necessary (and welcome) part of spiritual development and maturity. The ability to hold the tough questions and live in that liminal space is what spirituality is all about. Instead of "simply loving" the unlovable, the outcast, the sinner, the untouchable, they seek to provide "pat answers" to them, telling them how e-e-e-e-e-e-e-vi-i-i-i-i-l they are, and how they're gonna fry in hell if they don't "accept JAY-zus." Jesus never said, "Believe these particular things about me." Jesus said, "Do what I do." Which is loving those most especially in need of love.

What did your Jesus tell you what to do?

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

Then, what is the relevance of Jesus coming if they are still the same person? Physically, they are still the same but spiritually they are not the same especially—if they are truly committed and submitted to Christ.

Do you believe people magically are just different, or does it require them to self-inspect and grow? I do tend to believe you see it as magical, so you don't have to do any work on yourself. The relevance of Christ is for you to avail yourself of it. If you don't, then it doesn't benefit you. To simply say "I'm fixed now, because Jesus made it all go away", is self-delusion. By their fruits you shall know them.

You say “The truth is relative to the person who believe it.” I believed it is wrong. Then it contradicts with the statement at John 14 6. Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me."

That verse has nothing to do with propositional truths or points of view. I'm sorry, you don't understand perceptions. I can't help you there.

See what I mean here. You blame it to the sola scriptura, then you used Scriptures—as needed.

Just because I reject Solo Scriptura as a valid belief, does not therefore mean I see no value in scripture! Must the world be either/or, black or white, true or false binary mindsets for you? Apparently it must. People either see it your way, or they are wrong. How arrogant and presumptive. You see no shades of grey. Black and white. Binary mind. You fit the example of my little story as well. You are an atheist in the making.

There is no blatant error in my reasoning.

Only one the size of the entire galaxy.

Anyway, I see no reason to continue to argue about numbers that exceed 25 which go into the 100's of trillions to someone who sees only numbers under 24 or less within their reality, so to speak. (I've only been speaking up to 100 compared to where this could go). But this has been educational to me. I have learned one important lesson in this which has helped me. Fundamentalism is a form of paranoia, no different than conspiracy theory mentalities. It is a religious dysfunction, and a form of spiritual disease. Logic and reason can never penetrate it, as it is based in irrationality. 48 pages of reason and fact and patience that only results in responses the never address the points but instead just repeat a single point of view have proven this point to me. It is incapable of growth. It is dysfunctional.

 

[Windwalker]

One final thought I had about this brand of religion which is defined as fundamentalist. I once thought it was really more a case of being just a novice form of religion, that's it like a freshman in college who gets a little bit of knowledge and assumes they have it all figured out now and everyone else is blind and stupid. In other words an immature intellect, whereas the older and more mature student realizes, "The more you know, the more you don't know." They exhibit maturity while the youth are youthfully arrogant, but soon enough will wise up like they did.

But this is not the case with fundamentalists. It is not a matter of being a novice, those who find a few truths in religion and are now ready to convert the whole world to their own beliefs which excited them. That's where I've made my mistake in subtlely assuming this somehow, perhaps projecting my own experience in a fundamentalist group as part of my own stages of growth beyond that mode of thinking, that they too are looking to grow and to understand the deeper things of God in themselves. This has been my error in assuming reason and compassion would make a difference to those who wish to grow and learn, as I did when I had doubts about the system as it was naturally arise as part of my maturing within it.

But I was an exception to the rule. I was not raised in it, and only found myself in it because I had deep spiritual questions that were the result of a profound spiritual awakening moment, and at that time in my life the pat little black and white, "here's the answer" responses of fundamentalism appealed to me. It became a stepping stone for me, giving me those external rule/role expectation rigid structures I lacked at that stage in my life. It gave some very rudimentary precepts I lacked having not been exposed to them in youth. But when I went to move on to the next stage, gowing the interior spiritual knowledge, they had nothing else to offer as it was all only externalized rule/role, "do this and go to heaven, do that go to hell", black and white simplicities. It now became an hindrance, a stumbling block, not nurturing interior growth, the knowledge of Spirit, but instilling fear to step outside the truth as they defined it, citing verse after verse of scripture interpreted to self-reinforce their structure.

I think fundamentalist systems appeal to those who are fearful of the world, fearful of "not-knowing", fearful of stepping outside a tightly defined system of "do's and don'ts". "Is what you are doing pleasing to God?" I think that question alone defines the entire mentality of it. "Are you living up to the external authorities rules, or are you stepping outside of it?" The more austere the rules, the safer those who live in fear feel, believing they are protected by following them.

This is not the same thing as teaching someone the precepts, beginning with the basic rules and living up to expectations which are foundational to later development. It is a system that is locked in place, stunted and not one which promotes growth of its students into the fulness of their unique spiritual potentials. It only teaches conformity and uniformity of thoughts and ideas, beliefs. This is why it twists and distorts into paranoid conspiracy theories, viewing all others outside themselves with deep suspicions. This is why saying meditation opens you to demons is imagined, and utterly unable to offer any valid, rational critique to support that notion. "It's just like the Hindus, and they serve Satan!", and other such paranoid delusions. Citing verses from scripture based upon that paranoia results in twisting the verses into whatever they lift out of it, such as leaving your house empty puts you at risk, misinterpreting Luke. Irrationality is exposed, but cannot be seen by them because it threatens the entire self-reinforcing structures of the system that distorted into the monstrosity it became. If a system is not allowed to grown, it becomes twisted and distorted, and feeds dysfunction back into itself. It becomes diseased.

Anti-intellectualism is a disease. Anti-spirituality is a disease, and that is as true for Christian fundamentalist groups as it it for neo-atheist fundamentalists who oppose spirituality as "woo-woo" opening you up to self-delusion. The longer any system stays closed, the greater the risk of dysfunction setting in, and it poisons its members, so much so that the very thing they claim to desire is rejected when it is seen existing outside itself, calling Jesus the devil casting out devils by the devil. "But the fruits of the Spirit from Hindus are 'false' fruits", and other such irrational twists of logic, rejecting the very thing they should rejoice to see! The system is now feeding upon itself and its own fruits are the diseased fruits of dysfunction. It is a cancer of the body, not a stage of growth. It seeks to destroy God.

 

[Yoshua]

That verse has nothing to do with propositional truths or points of view. I'm sorry, you don't understand perceptions. I can't help you there.

Hi Windwalker,

Perceptions? When Jesus say He is the Truth, I believed He is saying the truth. When people claimed he also have a truth, would you think that person will believe Jesus is the truth or not?

Just because I reject Solo Scriptura as a valid belief, does not therefore mean I see no value in scripture! Must the world be either/or, black or white, true or false binary mindsets for you? Apparently it must. People either see it your way, or they are wrong. How arrogant and presumptive. You see no shades of grey. Black and white. Binary mind. You fit the example of my little story as well. You are an atheist in the making.

If a person is valuing the Scripture, how much value would you give? For God, I believe it should be a 100% valuing the Scripture, and not as you needed it for proof texting.

I can’t be a binary mind or double minded. I don’t have a double standard in regard with Scriptures. I serve one Master, one Lord and one God.

Oh. How come I become an Atheist now? Is there a 100% bible believer who is an Atheist? You obviously contradicted with your statement.

Only one the size of the entire galaxy.

Anyway, I see no reason to continue to argue about numbers that exceed 25 which go into the 100's of trillions to someone who sees only numbers under 24 or less within their reality, so to speak. (I've only been speaking up to 100 compared to where this could go). But this has been educational to me. I have learned one important lesson in this which has helped me. Fundamentalism is a form of paranoia, no different than conspiracy theory mentalities. It is a religious dysfunction, and a form of spiritual disease. Logic and reason can never penetrate it, as it is based in irrationality. 48 pages of reason and fact and patience that only results in responses the never address the points but instead just repeat a single point of view have proven this point to me. It is incapable of growth. It is dysfunctional.

I believed that the Scriptures become a spiritual disease for those who did not commit themselves to God and teaching’s of Jesus Christ. For them, the word of God penetrates and threatened the false practices that Jesus never taught. The growth that you like is self-growth, and not Christ growth. The result is non-dependency with Christ. As the Scripture says, we should have the mind of Christ, but their minds are hesitant to submit to the mind of Christ. They rather enjoyed mingling and absorbing philosophy, psychology, New Age and other eastern way pf practices. The application of “Thy will be done” turned to “My will be done.”

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

One final thought I had about this brand of religion which is defined as fundamentalist. I once thought it was really more a case of being just a novice form of religion, that's it like a freshman in college who gets a little bit of knowledge and assumes they have it all figured out now and everyone else is blind and stupid. In other words an immature intellect, whereas the older and more mature student realizes, "The more you know, the more you don't know." They exhibit maturity while the youth are youthfully arrogant, but soon enough will wise up like they did.

But this is not the case with fundamentalists. It is not a matter of being a novice, those who find a few truths in religion and are now ready to convert the whole world to their own beliefs which excited them. That's where I've made my mistake in subtlely assuming this somehow, perhaps projecting my own experience in a fundamentalist group as part of my own stages of growth beyond that mode of thinking, that they too are looking to grow and to understand the deeper things of God in themselves. This has been my error in assuming reason and compassion would make a difference to those who wish to grow and learn, as I did when I had doubts about the system as it was naturally arise as part of my maturing within it.

But I was an exception to the rule. I was not raised in it, and only found myself in it because I had deep spiritual questions that were the result of a profound spiritual awakening moment, and at that time in my life the pat little black and white, "here's the answer" responses of fundamentalism appealed to me. It became a stepping stone for me, giving me those external rule/role expectation rigid structures I lacked at that stage in my life. It gave some very rudimentary precepts I lacked having not been exposed to them in youth. But when I went to move on to the next stage, gowing the interior spiritual knowledge, they had nothing else to offer as it was all only externalized rule/role, "do this and go to heaven, do that go to hell", black and white simplicities. It now became an hindrance, a stumbling block, not nurturing interior growth, the knowledge of Spirit, but instilling fear to step outside the truth as they defined it, citing verse after verse of scripture interpreted to self-reinforce their structure.

If there is no fear inside spirituality, then that proves the fear of the Lord is lacking. The disciples never argued with Jesus regarding submission, they did not use their freedom by walking on their own. They followed Jesus instructions and teachings. There is SUBMISSION and not fear. Why not do the same? What is the reason?

Prov. 1:7
7. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Matt. 10:28
28. "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Prov. 3:7
7. Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord and depart from evil.

Psalm 86:11
11. Teach me Your way, O Lord; I will walk in Your truth; Unite my heart to fear Your name. (This is submission with fear)

I think fundamentalist systems appeal to those who are fearful of the world, fearful of "not-knowing", fearful of stepping outside a tightly defined system of "do's and don'ts". "Is what you are doing pleasing to God?" I think that question alone defines the entire mentality of it. "Are you living up to the external authorities rules, or are you stepping outside of it?" The more austere the rules, the safer those who live in fear feel, believing they are protected by following them.

The government authorities have do’s and don’ts, why not God? Is submission too hard for those who would like to follow Jesus?

Psalm 46:1-3
1. God is our refuge and strength, A very present help in trouble.
2. Therefore we will not fear, Though the earth be removed, And though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea;
3. Though its waters roar and be troubled, Though the mountains shake with its swelling. Selah

2 Thess. 3:3
3. But the Lord is faithful, who will establish you and guard you from the evil one.

2 Cor. 12:9
And He said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.'' Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.9. (This is dependency on the power of Christ rather than my our own Self)

This is not the same thing as teaching someone the precepts, beginning with the basic rules and living up to expectations which are foundational to later development. It is a system that is locked in place, stunted and not one which promotes growth of its students into the fulness of their unique spiritual potentials. It only teaches conformity and uniformity of thoughts and ideas, beliefs. This is why it twists and distorts into paranoid conspiracy theories, viewing all others outside themselves with deep suspicions. This is why saying meditation opens you to demons is imagined, and utterly unable to offer any valid, rational critique to support that notion. "It's just like the Hindus, and they serve Satan!", and other such paranoid delusions. Citing verses from scripture based upon that paranoia results in twisting the verses into whatever they lift out of it, such as leaving your house empty puts you at risk, misinterpreting Luke. Irrationality is exposed, but cannot be seen by them because it threatens the entire self-reinforcing structures of the system that distorted into the monstrosity it became. If a system is not allowed to grown, it becomes twisted and distorted, and feeds dysfunction back into itself. It becomes diseased.

Meditation technique or practices that are not taught nor instructed by God--is not of God. It is not distorted or twisted; but it is clarified, verified and justified.


1 John 4:1
1. Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Gal. 1:6-8
6. I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,
7. which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

Anti-intellectualism is a disease. Anti-spirituality is a disease, and that is as true for Christian fundamentalist groups as it it for neo-atheist fundamentalists who oppose spirituality as "woo-woo" opening you up to self-delusion. The longer any system stays closed, the greater the risk of dysfunction setting in, and it poisons its members, so much so that the very thing they claim to desire is rejected when it is seen existing outside itself, calling Jesus the devil casting out devils by the devil. "But the fruits of the Spirit from Hindus are 'false' fruits", and other such irrational twists of logic, rejecting the very thing they should rejoice to see! The system is now feeding upon itself and its own fruits are the diseased fruits of dysfunction. It is a cancer of the body, not a stage of growth. It seeks to destroy God.

A follower of Christ is not anti-intellectualism and anti-spirituality. I believed your statement is pronouncing--you could not identify nor determine what is evil, and what is not evil. Therefore, there is confusion build–up to your senses.

Did Jesus rejoice and recommend other beliefs/faiths or practices outside Christianity? Where does the fruits of the Spirit sourced? Absolutely it is taken from the Christian Scripture, and not by another eastern belief.

Other faiths/beliefs had their own way of expressing their love as you coined them as the fruit of the Spirit. Now, the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of God will be dwell, receive and fill--to whom? Did you believe this will be for Hindus, or for those who believe, commit, receive, surrender, repent, and submit to Jesus Christ? Please answer.

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

As I said, fundamentalism is a disease that twists the mind into a poisonous irrationality and the heart into stone.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, and because God desires us to live in His image therefore the necessity of repentance from our sins and fallen nature for a restored image of God and new life through Christ now.

"New life" = "restored life." We are not naturally "in sin."

Could you please refer me to the quotes of Irenaeus where he says , “creation coming out of the very "substance" of God”, “humanity as coming from God's Heart”, “ that Christ recapitulates the "primal." “Christ reconnects us to the first and most primal energies within creation and the human form“, “Christ comes to reunite us to the Heart of God”. The wording and expressions sound very unlike the quotes and ideas I’ve read concerning his thoughts/doctrines on recapitulation.

R. Grant, ed., Irenaeus of Lyons (London: Routledge, 1997), PG. 150, 169, 173

I think the Bible speaks plainly enough that we are to believe, not about Jesus Christ, but IN Jesus, that He is the Savior, the promised One who paid for and forgives our sins, offering reconciliation and eternal life with the Father.

To believe that "Jesus is THE savior" is to believe something about Jesus.

Paul also clarifies exactly who receive the inheritance and through Whom it is received

"Exactly those who receive" is everyone -- the human family.

I think you have departed from the plain meaning of the scriptures and are twisting Jesus’ words to suit your own postmodern, emergent views.

I think you have confused a "plain meaning" of the texts with your meaning of the texts, and are interpreting them to suit your own fundamentalist, exclusionist views.

He said plainly, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through ME.” According to His words anyone is welcome to come to Him as THE Savior, but the way is narrow through Him alone. It’s not about living a certain way or a religious system.

yes, emphasis on "am" not on "I." And Jesus' way is the way of love. Show me where it's not. Jesus' truth is the truth of love. Show me where it's not. Jesus' life is the life of love. Show me where it's not.

According to His words anyone is welcome to come to Him as THE Savior, but the way is narrow through Him alone.

According to your understanding, that may be the case. But your understanding is not universal, nor substantial.

It’s not about living a certain way or a religious system.

Believing in Jesus as "THE Savior" is a "certain religious system."

I don’t know why you include a reference to the Westminster Confession,

Because it's an important doctrinal statement that forms the very basis for your ideas.

I don’t care for confessions myself since they are written by men, unlike the original biblical scriptures which are God-breathed and written by chosen individuals who were inspired by God to write His word.

All texts were written by men. All accepted religious texts -- biblical or not -- are inspired.

I don’t know where you get the idea that Jesus came to call us into harmony with the heart of the universe or say “creation and life to us again” (actually, I do), but it is not from the scriptures which repeatedly testify that He came as the Savior of the world, to save us from our sin and bring reconciliation with God through His blood shed on the cross.

...Because you'd rather believe in the ideas of documents like the Westminster Confession than you would in other, just as valid ideas of other people, like Irenaeus, Erugenia, and Pelagius.

Like I said my hope is in the power of Jesus Christ alone, not fallen humans whose image of God is marred by sin.

Fallen and marred human beings, though, are the body of Christ.

Obviously He brings redemption in conjunction with those of humanity who place their faith in Him and become new creations in Christ.

Obviously, reconciliation is for all humanity.

 

[sojourner]

I stand on the belief that the Bible is the God's written word to humanity.

The man who built his house on the sand...
The seed that fell onto rocky soil...

The true father in the parable of the Prodigal son is forgiving and certainly does not kick the wayward son out of the family. On the contrary, it is the son who leaves his father. So it is with everyone of us, Jews included. We have all left to go after our own sinful passions of the flesh, leaving our loving Father and instead choosing another father who indulges our sinful nature, the devil. (John 8:44). Yet, as the parable reveals, the loving Father waits for all to realize their waywardness and return. Thus so much emphasis in the scriptures to repent, turn from your sin and come to the Savior.

The only cogent part of this quote is that the father "certainly does not kick the wayward son out of the family." I might add that the father also waits and watches until the prodigal returns. Not until suppertime. Not until he gets tired. Not until some arbitrarily-set date of "Armageddon." Until the prodigal returns. He doesn't judge the prodigal. He doesn't cast aspersions on the prodigal. He lovingly waits.

 

[sojourner]

Hi Sojourner,

See, Sojourner, I believed that I clearly point it out. If the sacred communion belongs to Jesus, then there is a distinction of who we are—doing the communion, not just to any deity that you want.

Thanks

Communion, itself, is an avatar of a larger truth, just as our perceptions of Deity are avatars to a larger truth.

 

[sojourner]

Then if that is the case, the form, way or procedure of meditation should be defined clearly.

Only if its dangerous, which, clearly, it isn't.

Yes, they have a sure path to their own deities or god. How about the way/road to Jesus? I believed those who have a different sure path (other than Jesus path) does not go to the path—of Jesus, unless they will know that the path of Jesus is the true path.

You just contradicted yourself. Jesus is a path -- not a "destination."

You may say that, but do you think all will pass and go inside that road?

There is no "that" road that is any more "correct" than any other road.

How come Scripture becomes a means to idolatry? How about the Islam, Buddhist and other faiths who have their own Bible? Do you consider them as idolatry? If that is your reasoning, then you should also call them idolatrous. Your logic of relative truth already backfired your reasoning.

Any time a text is held up as "infallible," it then become idolatrous.

It’s really confusing on how you embraced the word of God. You seemed like the Scripture but on the other hand, you criticize them as not infallible.

That's because they're not infallible.

You even treated them as only poetry or metaphor which totally invalid their authenticity, and now idolatry.

No, I haven't treated them with idolatry. But I perceive that you are doing that.

I see instability of handling the Scripture in you. Which is which?

You see it that way, because you don't have as solid an exegetical grasp of them as I do.

 

[sojourner]

I believed in the truth of the word.

There was no truth in that word.

Yes, you don’t need to care who he is. If there’s somebody who is telling the truth inspite of—who he is, a janitor, housekeeper, a laborer or simply a beggar, there is no equivalent to the truth that they may say.

There was no truth in what was being said.

Any people can testify as long as he saw the truth.

The people in the video saw no truth.

Same logic behind the word of God, the truth has been laid down to us by Jesus Christ. It is up to us if we will embrace the truth. That truth can set us free from deception.

The truth contains many layers, each layer of which is part of a larger truth. It's up to us whether we will embrace one part of truth as the whole truth, or whether we choose to see the larger picture. You clearly fall into the former camp.

Sojourner, just to tell you that I’m not familiar with personalities (except for religious discussion personalities) that you mentioned since I’m not residing in your country.

Then you really don't have a dog in the hunt of passing judgment on people whom you know nothing about.

 

[sojourner]

Come on. There is no such thing as magic to the Holy communion, maybe for the doctrine of Roman Catholics.

But there is such a thing as mysticism.

If you use “theological shallowness” to my understanding, then you should present proof or evidence that I’m incorrect.

"Shallow" and "correct/incorrect" are two different concepts. Your shallowness precludes you from engaging deeply. Therefore, your answers are shallow. Where the "incorrectness" enters the picture is when you insist that your shallow view is the whole view.

Then please prove it to me. I need to see it.

But you don't need to prove your assertion that the concept was invented by "RCC doctrine." I see. You're presenting a double standard.

Then if that is the case, why do you believe in such magic?

I don't believe in magic.

I don’t think the Lord’s Supper is a complicated one to interpret.

It's not, so long as you have the consistency of theological thought firmly in your grasp. Which you don't.

I think it is getting complicated if you believe in a doctrine that is not consistent with the Scripture

The doctrine is consistent with scripture.

V.29 is clear that it is the fruit of the vine that they drinking and not the real blood of Christ.

V. 28 is clear that it's the blood of Christ. Now what do we do? Just ignore the "real blood part" because it makes us uncomfortable? Or do we actually interpret the text theologically, based on an exegetical understanding of what the writer is actually saying? Apparently, you'd rather simply ignore it.

Oh! Then you are now saying we are eating the real flesh and blood of Christ. So, we call it “vampirism” and “cannibalism,” how would you reconcile that?

The Scripture is again a metaphor, Sojourner, you believe now in metaphor as literal interpretation of the word. How do you exegete and reconcile John 10:9. "I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture and John 6:55 "For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink 56."He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.??

If the flesh of Jesus is the true flesh and the blood is the true blood—as you mentioned, do you mean that Christ is also (literally) now a door (material), a house door or a gate, or something?

Of course it's metaphor!!! It's all metaphor. Theological thought depends heavily on metaphor. Metaphor is how we make meaning. That's how the bread means more to us than simply "a loaf of bread." We wouldn't slather mayonnaise on on it, nor would we simply throw it in the trash. Why? Because it's the body of Christ. it has substantive meaning for us, because of the metaphor. Is it all "literally" one loaf? Of course not. That would constitute magic. But it is metaphorically one loaf that carries substantive meaning for us. It's the meaning that the bread has always had for the Christian (until the watering-down process of the Reformation). It's the meaning that is present in the scriptures when the term anamnesis is used -- it's a re-membering -- a "bringing together" of the diverse body of Christ, not a "remembering" of some past action. Why? Because the work of Christ in the Eucharist is an ongoing process, not a one-time event.

You know, Sojourner, you believe more on your Roman symposium practices than Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Saviour; you trusted the Roman symposium rather than Jesus Christ.

No, I just know a lot more about biblical anthropology than you do.

Practical and logical thinking seems not working for you—to prove a fallacious conclusion that Jesus followed the pagan practices.

It is what it is -- not what we wish it to be. Sorry.

 

[sojourner]

Can you become Jesus incarnated as the Son of God who will save people from their sins?

I'm not God.

Because Christians focus their eyes to what Jesus confessed that He is the way , the truth and the Life. There is truth in Christianity because of Jesus.

Truth is in Christianity because of Jesus. There is no "the" truth, as in something exclusive and absolute. Truth isn't exclusive -- it's inclusive.

BOLLOCKS means "Rubbish" or "Something great" or "Testicles." Why you used this word? This is a foul word.

The falsehoods being spread are foul, which is why "bollocks" is so descriptive and apropos to the subject material to which it is applied.

The mission of Christians and the New Age is totally different. New Age is All is One. Christianity is All must be submit, obey, and draw near to God through Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour.

I disagree. Jesus taught unity through love of the other and respect for differences as being surface identifiers only. Fundamentalism and evangelicalism teach uniformity though conformity to an idealized identity. The first goes to the heart. The second gives lip service only. The first is recognizing the Source and Ground of Being. The second is crying "Lord, Lord!" but not engaging the heart.

Yet your mystical application is not the same mystical application of Christianity.

Yes. It is.

Absolutely not! focus on another thing, and that another thing is not focused (exactly ) to Christ.

You're misunderstanding the process. That misunderstanding is confusing you into thinking that something other than what is happening is happening.

Not mistaken but the truth. God initiated and not man initiated. That is biblical.

You're still confused. When we meditate, God is already there, waiting for us! In meditation, we listen for God to speak. God is doing the actuating.

He used trance as an example between God-initiated and man-initiated. That is an example of mystical experiences.

He obviously didn't understand how meditation works.

Acts 11:5
5. "I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, a certain object coming down like a great sheet lowered by four corners from the sky; and it came right down to me,

He is praying. He did not say that he like to trance.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ
1. The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,
2. who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.

Did John seek to initiate the revelation be given to him? Of course not. Even the Disciples did not seek more mystical experiences through healings and casting out demons. These are the evidence that Jesus did not taught us to seek for mystical as Higher Self or Higher Enlightenment to reach God, but follow what He command us to do stated in the Scriptures.

This is simply not cogent and merits no further reply.

I’m asking you again, where in the Lord’s Prayer taught us to pray for our needs? Where?

In the asking for bread. Bread is the need in that context.

Come on. You’re in the biblical studies. How can you evade yourself to the truth of the Scripture. We may discuss this briefly if you want to prove to you that I’m not misunderstood.

You've been trying to do that for almost 1000 posts now, and you've managed to do quite the opposite: convince us that you are, in fact, misunderstanding.

Yoga and mantra cannot be mixed nor attach with intercessory prayer--quoted with Scriptures By Yoshua

Prove it.

Prove that they can't. Otherwise, your assertion is unsubstantiated.

Then how do you check using contemplation as not blindly following what contemplation is?

I don't need to check the validity of contemplation as a valid Christian practice. I have over 1700 years, at least, of accepted, orthodox Christian practice as proof of its validity.

Oh Really. Then how come you believe in some of the account about Jesus like the Lord’s prayer, that they do the Lord’s Supper, quoting verses, and belief in the Trinitarian doctrine etc…?

Because one is assigning historical fact to a story. The other is reading the text and knowing what it says. I can say with unequivocal accuracy that The Three Little Pigs contains the phrase, "Blow your house down," without believing in the historical accuracy of the details of the story.

So where is your belief came from?

From reading what the writer wrote. We do know what the writer wrote. We don't know that what the writer wrote was historically factual.

 

[sojourner]

You say you don’t believe in the narratives about Jesus as really happened; you don’t believe in casting out demons happened at the time of Jesus, and you only believe that it is the writer’s thought only.

No, I believe that the texts say what they say. We don't know with any degree of accuracy that what the gospels report Jesus as saying is what Jesus actually said.

This is another one. You say you trust the text, but not standards, and not infallible? Consistency

I trust the text to be what it is -- not what it is not. The standard for what the texts are and are not is determined by the word of peer-reviewed scholarship of experts in the field. That is "consistency."

in·fal·li·ble
adjective: infallible
incapable of making mistakes or being wrong.

The bible is not this ^^^. Because we know that the bible is mistaken about many things, when held up to the light of scientific, historic, sociological and geographical fact.

Come on. Sojourner. I’m not filtering it but showing to you what the interpretation of the Scripture is saying.

There is no "the interpretation." Any interpretation comes through filters. Even mine. But I'd bet my left leg that my filters are less intrusive than yours. Because I've learned to recognize them as filters. And having done that, I can deal more realistically with them.

we can dig the Scripture for study if you like, since you have a Masteral in biblical studies, why not dwell in studying it rather than saying it is my version.

No need to do that. What you're stating is your version, and everyone here with a brain stem knows it.

 

[sojourner]

This is operated by God and sensing who is sidestepping outside the authority of the Scripture.

"Authority of scripture" is too ephemeral to be used as an absolute measure.

The Holy Spirit is the one who guide us to discern deceitfulness and counterfeit practices.

Discerning the Holy Spirit, though, is a highly subjective -- not objective -- practice.

 

[sojourner]

I just watch these videos, those are the truth about the emerging church.

No. They're not. As has been stated, they are full of misinformation and conflation.

It is wrapped up together with the New Age who will have a big role in the Utopian--one world religion.

No. It's not. The Emergent Movement is HIGHLY respectful of diversity.

This is what the relative views is all about, All is God, All is One.

So, God isn't One?? Isn't that what the bible says: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one?"

As the video say in the last part, if you will believe what the Bible is saying or not. That is up to the hearer of the word.

Translation: "If you will believe what we say the bible is saying."